New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Nov 12, 2019-Tuesday
-°C

Humidity
-

Wind
-

Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Tuesday, Nov 12, 2019

Respect Ayodhya verdict but not satisfied, says Sunni Waqf board lawyer

Ayodhya verdict: The Sunni Waqf Board, which was leading the Muslim side in the top court, said it respects the judgment but is not satisfied.

india Updated: Nov 09, 2019 17:12 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent
Hindustan Times, New Delhi
Sunni Central Waqf Board's lawyer Zafaryab Jilani along with other advocates addresses a press conference after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya case, in New Delhi, Saturday, Nov. 9, 2019.
Sunni Central Waqf Board's lawyer Zafaryab Jilani along with other advocates addresses a press conference after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya case, in New Delhi, Saturday, Nov. 9, 2019. (PTI)
         

Sunni Wakf Board, one of the main litigants to the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi title suit, said on Saturday that it was not satisfied with the Supreme Court verdict and may seek a review. A five-judge Constitution bench of the top court earlier today handed over the 2.77 acre disputed land to Hindus while ordering an alternative 5-acre plot to Muslims.

“We respect the judgment but we are not satisfied, we will decide further course of action,” said Zafaryab Jilani, the lawyer representing the Waqf Board. Jilani said the Ayodhya verdict has a lot of contradictions, and the board will review it.

“But we also appeal to the nation to observe calm and maintain peace,” he added.

Apart from the Sunni Wakf board, other litigants on the Muslim side included Mohd Iqbal Ansari (iindividual litigant), M Siddiq (a deceased individual litigant), and Central Shia wakf Board.

Among the arguments made by the Sunni Wakf Board during the course of hearing was that the Archaeological Survey of India reports whether any temple/structure was demolished and a mosque constructed at the disputed site was inconclusive.

They also contended that idols were kept under the central dome for the first time in 1949.

Here is a look at the other key arguments of the Muslim parties:

*The ASI report is inconclusive on the issue whether any temple/structure was demolished and a mosque constructed at the disputed site

*The ASI report is unsigned and it is unknown as to who did the final analysis and prepared the final report

* Property in the suit is not the birthplace of Lord Ram and is a mosque called Babri Masjid constructed during Babur’s reign

* There is no evidence of Hindus praying inside the central dome. Prayers were always offered at the Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard

* Idols were kept under the central dome for the first time in 1949

* The argument (of the Hindus) is based on scattered sources such as travellers’ accounts and gazetteers, which have been found to be inconsistent and inconclusive

* Virtually all gazetteers affirm the physical existence of the mosque; none confirms janmabhoomi as an area

* Do not go into the legitimacy of the actions of past rulers and rewrite history as it will open a Pandora’s Box. If Babur gets involved, Ashoka’s action will also be judged

* The Hindus have based their rights on only illegal acts, criminal trespass in the mosque, desecration of the mosque on December 22/23, 1949, and demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992