Ayodhya verdict : AIMPLB to file review plea, rejects land offer


Lucknow, Nov 17 (IANS): The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Sunday declared that it will file a review petition against the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya issue.

The AIMPLB also decided not to accept the five-acre land for the mosque at an alternative site since it is against the tenets of Islam.

Senior AIMPLB member and convener of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) Zafaryab Jilani said that the case had been filed in court on behalf of all Muslims and the board was representing the sentiments of the community which wanted to exercise its constitutional rights and file a review petition.

Jilani said in reply to a question that senior lawyer Rajiv Dhawan would continue as their lawyer and they would try to file the petition within 30 days of the judgment which came on November 9.

Zufar Faruqi, chairman of the UP Sunni Waqf Board had earlier stated that he would not file any review petition.

However, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind President Arshad Madani, who attended the board meeting, told reporters that he approved of the decision to file a review petition.

"Though we do not have much hope and know that the petition will be dismissed, we will still file a review petition. It is our right," he said.

Reacting to Babri plaintiff Iqbal Ansari's refusal to file a review petition, Jilani said that the board was exercising its constitutional right and there was no politics in the issue. He said that Ansari was probably being pressured by the district administration not to file a review petition.

The board spokespersons said that the Supreme Court verdict was self-contradictory.

"The court has accepted the fact that namaaz was offered on the site and that idols were forcibly placed at the site on the night on December 22-23, 1949. The SC judges also ignored the fact that under Waqf rules, the place of mosque cannot be shifted. There was also no proof of any temple under the domes of the demolished mosque," they said.

They said that they had not contested the case for an alternative land.

Earlier in the day, the venue of the board meeting was hurriedly changed from the Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama to Mumtaz Degree College, following protests by supporters of Maulana Salman Nadvi.

Jilani, however, told reporters that officials from the district administration had tried to stop the meeting at Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama and hence the venue had to be changed.

Members who had arrived at the venue were taken to Mumtaz Degree College and the media was not informed of the venue.

These included senior leaders Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali, vice president Maulana Jalaluddin Umri, Asma Zahra of the women's wing, board secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and president of the Jamait Ulema-e-Hind Maulana Arshad Madni.

Sources said that this was done to prevent the media from getting wind of the sharp differences between the members over the idea of filing a review petition on the Supreme Court decision on the Ayodhya issue.

Iqbal Ansari, plaintiff in the title suit case, also did not attend the meeting and said he does not want a review of the court verdict.

UP minister Mohsin Raza, meanwhile, said that the AIMPLB was trying to derive political mileage and was also attempting to vitiate the atmosphere by holding a meeting after the verdict had been welcomed by the entire country. He demanded a probe into the funding of AIMPLB.

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • Shan, Udupi

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    We obey supreme court decisions and verdict..... BJP, RSS, or any hindu leaders . If court gives verdict..... the mosque is legally there and place belongs to mosque and whoever destroyed the structure are criminals... than what comments or actions from these leaders?

    DisAgree [3] Agree [6] Reply Report Abuse

  • Robin, Byndoor

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    Alternative site offer is against the tenets of ISLAM... Is Supreme Court part of the tenets of Islam ?

    Reject Supreme Court then... Why obeying ?

    You people (AIMPLB) don't want the problem be solved. You want to be in the news for ever...

    DisAgree [2] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • Karthik, Mangalore

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Don't let something that ended so peacefully. The court should have just made a state of the art hospital there instead of giving it to Hindus or Muslims.

    DisAgree [19] Agree [27] Reply Report Abuse

  • Candle Light, Mangalore / Toronto

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Karthik, Mangalore ,

    I appreciate your comment. But lets be honest, this area is so religious with Hindu Monuments, Temples all around. Only a Hindu Temple suits there, Not a Hospital not Muslim Mosque. Those who want build a Hospital there's ample space outside the City. And The verdict clearly says separate area be given for the Mosque. I sincerely hope a real suitable place be chosen and allocated for Mosque and be done soon. So everyone is happy. You're right - Verdict was indeed a peaceful one.

    DisAgree [4] Agree [7] Reply Report Abuse

  • Nawaz, Udupi/ Kuwait

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    By appreciating your concern for peace, I kindly need to bring to your notice that this is not just like an arguement between 2 children where mother comes and give cholcolates for them to pacify. Courts are meant to deliver justice and not to pacify both parties.

    DisAgree [7] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • H. Almeida., Bendur/Andheri

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Supreme Court has given a ground breaking verdict, to end the impasse, for the closure of an eyesore, which destroyed the fragile bond of communal harmony, in our nation. These lumpen elments, do not desire peace to be restored, rather they want to perpetuate hatred, division in our society..... This is the only way they get propelled in the public domain !! By going for a review they want to keep the ambers of hatred burning !!!!!!!!

    DisAgree [14] Agree [24] Reply Report Abuse

  • Nawaz, Udupi/ Kuwait

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    People go to courts expecting justice. It is not that two children are fighting for a chocolate and mother decides to make 2 pieces of it and distribute that among the children.

    DisAgree [7] Agree [3] Reply Report Abuse

  • Nawaz, Udupi/ Kuwait

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    Once Asaram Baapu; regarding Nirbhaya rape case of Delhi; had advised that Nirbhaya should have referred the rapists as Bhaiya (brothers) and should have requested those inhumane rapists for mercy to avoid that barbaric rape incident.

    Now some people are suggesting to let go the matter to maintain peace. So why do we have government and their law enforcement agencies if one section of society is compelled not to fight against injustice.

    DisAgree [5] Agree [5] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Supreme Court should not have believed in Mythology ...

    DisAgree [33] Agree [35] Reply Report Abuse

  • S Shetty, Tulunad

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Sir please go and read the verdict, they have believed in the evidence, Kya sir aap.

    DisAgree [19] Agree [26] Reply Report Abuse

  • Shan, Udupi

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    I was watching a interview with some legal expert mr salve. He told that if any structure is standing than destroy it without any legal documents is a crime. Why Indian government is taking action against these criminal activity. There is no proof found that lord Rama born in this particular place.

    DisAgree [6] Agree [10] Reply Report Abuse

  • Raaja, MOODBIDRI

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    AIMPLB have full right to file review plea, rejects land offer, because everyone know this decision was given under pressure of RSS and BJP, so next time they may give right jurgenent, and our humble request please give jurgenent not solution.

    DisAgree [35] Agree [35] Reply Report Abuse

  • Nawaz, Udupi/ Kuwait

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    The analysis of the case which demands the review are:

    Supreme Court found no evidence of demolition of a Temple to build Masjid.
    SC found that both-The installation of idols of Ram in 1949 and Demolition of then Babri Masjid as illegal.
    Supreme court asked Muslims to prove Exclusive possession of the site to stake claim over it; but not so in the case of Hindus in handing over Babri Masjid and that plot to Hindus (Ram Lalla).
    SC is in adds with own principle that- The final verdicts cannot merely be on the basis of faith and findings of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
    Court considered Ram Lalla (a Non-Human Entity) (not Ram Lalla trust) as a juristic person literally and handed over the land to Ram Lalla.
    This verdict will lead to more disputes in the future where there will be more claims to acquire Masjids.
    Every verdict of Supreme court comes with the opinions of each judge regarding the case. But it was absent this time. The author of the judgement is still Ananymous. Why?
    This judgement is a battle between faith and rationality/facts and facts lost the battle to faith.

    DisAgree [30] Agree [44] Reply Report Abuse

  • El En Tea, Mumbai

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    Unended disputes
    CJI Ranjan Gogoi retired now
    Hope no more clashes

    DisAgree [5] Agree [31] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rolf, Dubai

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    This is what BJP wanted. Now drag the issue for another 50 years.
    Mandir tho bilkul nahye benenga.

    DisAgree [31] Agree [57] Reply Report Abuse

  • SB, Mlore

    Sun, Nov 17 2019

    No chance my friend. The verdict in unanimous by a 4 or 5 judge bench. The petitioner is right, the appeal will be quashed without any hearing, hopefully on the same day. Ayodhya is a closed chapter now.

    DisAgree [20] Agree [39] Reply Report Abuse

  • sk, mangalore

    Mon, Nov 18 2019

    no more dragee bhai , Mandir vahi banega

    DisAgree [1] Agree [3] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title : Ayodhya verdict : AIMPLB to file review plea, rejects land offer


 
 
 
 

 
You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.


Security Validation

Enter the characters in the image