Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who appeared for Muslim parties ‘sacked’ from Ayodhya case

Rajeev Dhavan, in a Facebook post, said he has sent a formal letter accepting the sacking without 'demur'.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represented the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, Tuesday claimed he has been sacked from the case by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, which filed the first review petition against the Supreme Court's November 9 verdict. Refuting claims he was removed from the case because he was unwell, Dhavan in a Facebook post said he was no longer involved with the review plea.

As the news emerged, other Muslim parties said they were keen to have Dhavan on board and that the decision to remove him was taken only by Jamiat.

MR Shamshad, a lawyer for the Muslim personal law board, tweeted, "Dr Dhavan has put his heart and soul in the matter and has been the main counsel for all the 6-7 Muslim Parties. Because of one Party, the other Parties shall not run away from. They will persuade Dr Dhavan to remain in the matter."

Dhavan, meanwhile, said the Muslim parties involved in the Ayodhya matter should sort out their differences first. "I have argued the case for all the Muslim parties in a united manner and would like the same way. The Muslim parties should sort out their differences first," Dhavan told PTI. He also added he has sent a formal letter "accepting the sacking without demur" but said Jamiat citing his health as the reason for his removal is "nonsense...malicious and untrue."

Jamiat's advocate Ejaz Maqbool said Dhavan's name was not given in the review petition filed on Monday because he was not available. "It is wrong to say that Mr Rajeev Dhawan was removed from case because of his illness. The issue is that my client (Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind) wanted to file the review petition yesterday itself. It was to be settled by Mr Rajeev Dhawan. I could not give his name in the petition because he was not available. It is not a big issue," he told news agency ANI.

Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and the president of the Uttar Pradesh Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, who filed the review plea against the Ayodhya verdict December 2, said the November 9 judgment amounted to “rewarding” the “crimes” committed by “Hindu parties”. The plea said that by way of the order, the court “has virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place”…"because had the Babri Masjid not been illegally demolished on December 6, 1992, the execution of the present order would have required the destruction of an existing mosque to make space for a proposed temple”.

The AIMPLB also said it would file a review petition before December 9, saying the judgment in the Ayodhya land dispute case did not do any justice.

However, the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) faction led by Maulana Mahmood Madani has decided against filing a review petition in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.