LUCKNOW/NEW DELHI – The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) as well as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (one of the appellants in the Babri Masjid case) have announced Sunday that they will file a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s Babri Masjid verdict.
The decision came after the Muslim Personal Law Board held a meeting in Lucknow on Sunday morning to discuss the verdict and decide whether to go for a review of the apex court’s judgment. Besides review petition, the Board also rejected the alternate land given by the apex court to build mosque.
Meanwhile, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind President Maulana Syed Arshad Madani said that Jamiat will file a review petition to challenge the judgment on the Babri Masjid title suit case given by the Supreme Court November 9.
The decision was taken after the Jamiat’s highest decision taking body the Working committee has given the nod to go ahead for this which formed a five-member expert panel of jurists and Ulama (religious scholars) to look into every aspect of the November 9, judgment.
The expert panel observed that the judgment was against the Babri masjid and it was not a final judgment as the option of reviewing is available under the Constitution of India. The panel found that in its more than 1000-page judgment, the 5- member apex court bench under the Chief Justice of India has accepted the most of the evidence and arguments given in favour of the Babri masjid.
Besides legal option, there is also Sharia obligation to defend the masjid till the last breath, Jamiat chief said.
The Jamiat panel underlined that the Supreme Court made some observations that cleared many allegations regarding the construction of the Babri masjid. For example, the mosque was not built by after demolishing on a Ram-temple and the ASI report also amply confirmed that the Babri Masjid was not built after razing down any temple there.
“The court has found that mosque has not been built by demolishing a temple. No archaeological evidence of temple under the mosque was found.”
Furthermore, both the courts – the Supreme court and the Allahabad High court- had accepted this bitter fact that idols were put inside the Babri mosque illegally, first in the court yard of Masjid then these were shifted to the main dome of the masjid in 1949 and till then the five-time prayers were being offered in the mosque.
The bench also accepted that the mosque was demolished by a sheer act of vandalism and it was an illegal act. In addition to this, both the highest courts also accepted that Muslims have ample evidence to prove that they had offered five-time namaz from 1857 to 1949 in the Babri masjid. Now, it is perplexing that how the mosque was given to the Hindu parties despite Muslims offered namaz more than 90 years there? What does it mean and this is beyond everybody’s comprehension?
The panel also underlined that the non-Muslim legal luminaries also expressed their reservations and disagreement with the Supreme Court judgment.
The panel quoted retired Supreme Court Judge Ashok K Ganguly’s discontent with the apex court’s decision of giving the land to the Centre for the construction of Ram temple and said that the minorities have been “wronged”.
Justice Ganguly, who retired in 2012, posed a question that if Babri masjid were not demolished and Hindu parties approached the court pleading that the Ram Janmbhoomi was inside the mosque, and then the court had ordered the demolition of the mosque?
The court would not have done this, then why it did now? Justice Ganguly asked.
In the light of above mentioned reservations and objections, filing a review petition has become necessary. It is also perplexing that the bench did not accept the deity Ram Lalla as the owner of the land but handed over the mosque to the Hindu parties.
Maulana Arshad Madani pointed out that the Supreme Court’s verdicts are rarely changed after the review petition. He, however, said the other day the Supreme Court has referred the Sabarimala case to a larger bench of 7-member from the existing 5-member bench.
Therefore, Muslims also use this legal option to challenge the Babri Masjid verdict, he said.
If we assumed that the court had used Article 142 of Constitution which gives it special powers, for delivering this judgment, but it was not based on merit and evidence and defied all reasons and logic, Maulana Madani said and adding that the said article of Constitution ordains to deliver judgment on the basis of evidences and proofs. In spite of accepting most of the arguments and evidences in the case, the court has delivered the judgment against Muslims and in favour of the Hindu parties, he added. The justice was not done fully as Muslim cannot shift the mosque, therefore, accepting an alternative land for the mosque is absolutely out of the question, Maulana Madani said.
He said Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has been struggling to reclaim the Babri Masjid since a long time and it will continue its struggle till its logical ends.