Ayodhya verdict | A victory of faith over facts, says Asaduddin Owaisi

Asaduddin Owaisi

Asaduddin Owaisi   | Photo Credit: G. Ramakrishna

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) president Asaduddin Owaisi on Saturday said that ‘Supreme Court is supreme, but not infallible’ and the Babri Masjid – Ramjanmabhoomi judgment is a victory of ‘faith over facts’.

Addressing the media, Mr. Owaisi agreed with the opinion of the All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and said that he is ‘not satisfied’ with the judgment.

“Those who demolished Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, today Supreme Court is permitting the same people to create a trust and begin work. In the 1,045 page judgement, the Supreme Court has mentioned that the demolition of the mosque is against the law. If the Babri Masjid was not demolished what would have the judgment been? So the Supreme Court is supreme but not infallible,” Mr. Owaisi said and pointed out that it was Justice J. S. Verma who described the Supreme Court as such.

Terming the Supreme Court’s offer of the government allotting a five acre land parcel for the mosque as ‘patronising’, Mr. Owaisi said this should be rejected. He opined that while the Muslim community is indeed backward, it is capable of raising funds to procure a land parcel for constructing a mosque. Further disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s verdict, Mr. Owaisi said that the fight in the courts of law was for justice and legal rights.

The Hyderabad parliamentarian described the day’s development as one which would enable the ‘Sangh Parivar’ to stake claim to mosques in Kashi, Mathura and Lucknow, and wondered whether the Supreme Court judgment would be cited in these cases. He underscored that there can be no compromise over a mosque and that the Babri Masjid ‘existed, exists and will continue to exist’.

Mr. Owaisi also said that the development would pave way for a Hindu Rashtra and that the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Bill would pave the way to achieve this end.

He defended his opinion by saying he was not in contempt of court and was exercising his right to free speech.


Related Topics
Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Sep 22, 2020 9:57:48 PM |

Next Story