The All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) on Saturday announced that the High Court verdict in Babri Masjid-Ramjanma Bhoomi case would be challenged in the Supreme Court.
The board also made it clear that it would not come out with any formula for compromise but if any such thing was proposed in future it would consider "with in the Constitution, Shariat and dignity of Muslim community".
The working committee of the board, which met in Lucknow on Saturday, was of the opinion that further legal intervention in the case was necessary because of number of infirmities in High Court verdict.
In a statement the board said it was "right and obligation of the Indian Muslims to challenge the judgment in the apex court and remove distortions introduced by the judgment in the basic values of the constitution and established norms of the jurisprudence".
Addressing the media, the Assistant General Secretary AR Quereshi, senior advocates YH Muchala, Zafaryab Jilani and Convenor of the Babri Masjid committee Qasim Rasool Ilays said the board was not opposed to talks but there should be any concrete proposal within the Constitution and the Shariat.
As of now the board has decided to support legal battle of Sunni Central Waqf Board-main litigant and five others, but if necessary the AIMPLB might also directly intervene in the case.
AR Quereshi said the board had authorized the chairman Maulana Rabe Hasni Nadvi and general secretary Maulana Nizamuddin to take decision about legal intervention at an appropriate time.
The board would extend all types of support to waqf board in its legal battle in apex court.
Referring to oft-repeated claim of Senior Vice President Dr Kalbe Sadiq that he had a formula for compromise, Quereshi said Dr Sadiq did not put any such formula at the board.
There were dissenting voice at the working committee meeting but the board finally decided to go for further legal battle. A group of Ulama (clerics) was reportedly of the opinion that in the light of HC verdict efforts should be made for out-of-court compromise, but the dominant group rejected the demand.
"We are not opposed to talks which could be even after moving the apex court", said Ilyas and added today's decision was with consensus.
Muchala said rule of law was basic feature of the constitution but in this verdict, faith had been given weightage over fact.
"Minority would thus be at the mercy of majority," he commented.
He said only formula for settlement of the issue with AIMPLB was removal of distortions in the HC verdict.
Jilani said "while delivering verdict evidence had been ignored in the case and one party's faith had been imposed on other".
He said "we have enough and strong evidences to prove the title and would repeat it in apex court".
On co-existence of mosque and temple, Quereshi said there were large numbers of such examples in the country.