Follow Us:

Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court issues notice to two for threatening lawyer Rajeev Dhavan

The petition filed by Rajeev Dhavan alleges that he had been threatened for representing the Muslim side in the Ayodhya land dispute case.

SNS | New Delhi |

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from two persons for allegedly threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for taking up the case on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter.

One of the culprits is Chennai-based professor N Shanmughan who is mentioned in a contempt petition filed by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan. The petition alleges the professor had threatened him for representing the Muslim side in the Ayodhya title dispute case. The 88-year-old professor would have to make a personal appearance before the court in accordance with the notice issued on the contempt petition. The professor had allegedly cursed Dhavan for appearing for the Muslim parties in the top court.

The bench has put up contempt pleas for hearing after two weeks. Dhavan had filed contempt petition against two persons, N Shanmugam, a retired education officer, and a Rajasthan resident, Sanjay Kalal Bajrangi, for allegedly threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.

Dhavan, who appeared for lead petitioner M Siddiq and the All India Sunni Waqf Board, had said that he received a letter on August 14, 2019 from Mr Shanmugam, threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.

Dhavan had said in the plea that he has also received a WhatsApp message from Sanjay Bajrangi, which was also an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice before the Supreme Court.

He had alleged that he has been accosted both at home and in the court premises. The plea said that by sending the letter the alleged contemnor has committed criminal contempt because “he is intimidating a senior advocate who is appearing for a party/parties before the apex court and discharging his duties as a senior advocate and he ought not to have sent such a letter.”

“Exercise suo motu powers under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act taking cognisance of the criminal contempt on the basis of facts placed on record against contemnor/opposite party for committing criminal contempt,” the plea said.