Ayodhya verdict: All you need to know

Ayodhya verdict: Muslim Personal Law Board to file review petition

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board Members addressing a press conference after the meeting in Lucknow.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board Members addressing a press conference after the meeting in Lucknow.   | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

more-in

AIMPLB declines five acres allotted to Muslims, says it will ‘not heal the wounds caused’.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on November 17 declined the five acres of land allotted to Muslims in Ayodhya and decided to file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute case.

The “restitution by granting five acres of land, where fundamental values have been damaged to the extent of causing national shame, will not in any manner heal the wounds caused,” the Board said here, after a meeting of its working committee, chaired by president Maulana Sayyad Mohammad Rabe Hassani Nadwi. 

The two decisions were taken through a “unanimous resolution,” Board secretary Zafaryab Jilani told the media.

 

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hindu president Arshad Madni issued a statement in favour of filing a review petition and argued that there was no question of taking up any alternative land for a mosque.

‘Not permissible’

The Board argued that mosques “are essential for the religious practice of Muslims” and that “building the same mosque at some other site in situations like this is also not permissible as per Islamic Law.” “We, on behalf of the community at large, make it clear that the five-acre land, as directed in the present judgment, will neither balance equity nor repair the damage caused in the country,” the AIMPLB said in a separate statement. Stating that there was “no dearth” of mosques in Ayodhya, 27 of them functional, Mr. Jilani said the matter was not about a mosque but “rights to a land” and justice.

 

The AIMPLB argued that it decided in favour of filing a review petition, claiming there were “apparent errors in the verdict.”

Board member Qasim Rasool Ilyas said, “It was felt at the meeting that not only were there several self-contradictory points in the verdict of the Supreme Court, on several points it was also beyond comprehension, and prima facie appears to be inappropriate.”

Mr. Ilyas also asked whether the placing of idols of Lord Ram under the dome of the Babri Masjid “by force” on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949, was “illegal”, how were such illegally placed idols considered a deity? Even under “Hindu dharma shastra,” they could not be a deity, he argued. 

Further, the AIMPLB asked if “it was proven that Muslims had possession of the Babri Masjid from 1857 to 1949 and also offered ‘namaz’ there,” on what basis was the land of the mosque given to Ram Lalla?

Watch | What is the Places of Worship Act?
 

Land exchange barred 

A third point raised by the Board was related to the use of Article 142 by the court. Mr. Ilyas said that while using Article 142, the judges did not consider that the exchange or transfer of masjid land was barred under Sections 104-A and 51(1) of the Waqf Act.

How could another piece of land be given in exchange for the masjid land, going against the statute and legal restrictions, he asked.

The AIMPLB’s decision stands in contrast to the stance of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, whose chairman Zufar Faruqui, on the day of the verdict, stated it would not go in for any review of the Supreme Court ruling or file any curative petition. Whether the Sunni Waqf Board would accept the five-acre land to be allotted to it by the Central government on the directions of the court would be decided at a meeting on November 26.

 

 

Asked to explain the AIMPLB’s locus standi, as the court directed that the land be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, Mr. Jilani said the AIMPLB “represents the Muslims” and the case was filed on behalf of the community and not the Sunni Waqf Board alone.

He also said that rejecting the land would not amount to contempt as the directions of the apex court were to the Central government and not to the Muslim community.

Mr. Jilani said three of the six Muslim plaintiffs in the case, Mohammad Umar, Maulana Mehfuz ur Rehman and Misbah ud Din, had already given their consent for the review petition, which would be be filed within 30 days of the verdict.

Iqbal Ansari, one of the litigants, stayed away from the meeting and said he did not seek any review petition.

He argued the move was pointless and wanted to avoid anything that could vitiate the atmosphere in the country. 

“Now that the court has decided, we will follow the court verdict. Now I don’t need to pursue it further,” Mr. Ansari said. He, however, added that other litigants were free to file a review petition if they wished. 

Asked about Mr. Ansari’s stance, Mr. Jilani alleged that the former could have been pressured by the Ayodhya administration to not issue statements against the verdict.

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Related Topics Other States National
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Dec 14, 2019 5:50:03 PM | https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ayodhya-verdict-muslim-personal-law-board-to-file-review-petition-against-supreme-court-decision/article29998744.ece

In This Package
Ayodhya verdict: 40 prominent persons file joint review plea
Four fresh review pleas filed in Ayodhya case
Sacked from Ayodhya case, says Muslim parties’ lawyer
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea in Ayodhya case
You are reading
Ayodhya verdict: Muslim Personal Law Board to file review petition
U.P. Sunni Waqf Board not to file review plea in Ayodhya case
Krishna temple (left) and Shahi Idgah (right) exist side by side. Security camps were added following the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.
What does the Places of Worship Act protect?
Ayodhya land exempted in Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act: Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya
Ayodhya verdict | Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Ruins don’t always indicate demolition, observes Supreme Court
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court not to entertain claims against actions of Mughals
Ayodhya verdict | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, rules Supreme Court
Supreme Court's judgment in Ayodhya case: reactions
Ayodhya: How a religious issue became a political hot potato
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court agrees Muslims were wronged but allows Ram temple
Ayodhya verdict quashes claim of ‘land as a legal entity’
Ayodhya verdict | Addendum quotes Tulsidas, Ain-i-Akbari for birthplace proof
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Sunni Waqf Board not to seek review of judgment
Time to celebrate: Residents lit firecrackers in Ayodhya on Saturday after the Supreme Coourt delivered the verdict.
Ayodhya split on predictable lines
Ayodhya verdict | Vindicated by unanimous verdict, says L. K. Advani
Ayodhya verdict | Unimpeded right in outer courtyard wins whole site for Hindus
Ayodhya verdict | Constitution can resolve knotty issues, says Modi
When did the dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi start, and why did it take so long for a resolution?
Highlights of the Ayodhya verdict
Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute: The story so far
Ayodhya title dispute: A quick recap of the final hearings
Ayodhya verdict: decoding Allahabad HC's nine-year-old majority judgment under challenge in SC
Ayodhya verdict: as it happened | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya, for a possible temple at the disputed site.
A chronology of the Ayodhya dispute
What are the Ayodhya appeals all about?
Chronology of Ayodhya case
Timeline: Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute
Next Story