Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represented Muslim parties in Ayodhya dispute, sacked

The lawyer wasn't a part of the filing of the review petition to the Supreme Court verdict pronounced on November 9.

Published: 03rd December 2019 11:06 AM  |   Last Updated: 03rd December 2019 11:06 AM   |  A+A-

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan

By Online Desk

Senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan, who represented the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ayodhya dispute case, said that he was sacked from the case on Tuesday. He also denied any association with the filing of a review petition to the Supreme Court verdict pronounced on November 9.

Ina Facebook post, Dhawan said, "Just been sacked from the Babri case by AOR Ejaz Maqbool who was representing the Jamiat. Have sent formal letter accepting the 'sacking' without demur. No longer involved in the review or the case."

"I have been informed that Mr Madani has indicated that I was removed from the case because I was unwell. This is total nonsense. He has a right to instruct his lawyer AOR Ejaz Maqbool to sack me which he did on instructions. But the reason being floated is malicious and untrue," he added.

Speaking to ANI, Dhawan said, "I don't know what were their compulsions but they confirmed to me it was a sacking. Now they are saying that I was sick and unavailable, it is a lie."

A review petition was filed by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Monday against the SC verdict in Ram Janmbhoomi case where the court had given the disputed land for a Ram Mandir and asked both state and central governments to allot a five-acre plot in Ayodhya for a mosque.

"It is wrong to say that Mr Rajeev Dhawan was removed from the case (Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind review petition in Ayodhya case) because of his illness. Issue is that my client (Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind) wanted to file the review petition yesterday itself," said advocate-on-record Ejaz Maqbool, who filed the review petition on behalf of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

Maqbool added that the issue on the petition was to be settled by Dhawan. "I could not give his name in the petition because he was not available. It is not a big issue," he said.

(With inputs from ANI)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp