Bengaluru: Counsel for Muslim parties Rajeev Dhavan tore up papers and maps related to the Hindu Mahasabha in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 16) as the court had arguments on the last day of hearing.

Rajeev Dhavan is being criticised widely for what can be termed an act of hooliganism.

Also Read: Ayodhya case hearing ends, all eyes on verdict now

The decorum of the top court can never be violated by resorting to such acts. 

Now, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of India against Rajeev Dhavan. 
In a letter addressed to the Bar Council Chairman, the Hindu outfit has said Rajeev Dhavan's act of tearing up a piece of paper in the courtroom has brought "disrepute to the Supreme Court Bar".
The Mahasabha has demanded that the Bar Council takes cognizance of the matter and takes immediate action against the counsel who is representing the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case that was heard for the final and 40th day on Wednesday.

The hearing went on for as many as 40 long days.

On the final day, there were two major developments. They were:

1. The mediation panel has reached an agreement between a few parties and they may file before the court.

2. Sunni Waqf Board will be surrendering its claim in the case.

The court has also allowed three more days for the parties for written submission.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed the Allahabad High Court verdict that directed division of 2.77 acres of land of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya into three parts among Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara.

It is interesting to note what the Supreme Court had said on the division of land.

Justice Lodha had observed: “The High Court's judgment is something strange. A new dimension has been given by the High Court as the decree of partition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed for by anyone. It has to be stayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree for partition be passed when none of the parties had prayed for it? It's strange. Such kind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation. It is a difficult situation now. The position is that the High Court verdict has created a litany of litigation.”