Ayodhya Babri Majid High Court and Supreme Court VERDICTS in the title suit
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
New Delhi, May 9, 2011 ::
The Supreme Court heard Arguments on Monday in the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in which a bunch of petitions have been filed by various Muslim and Hindu groups challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict.
A bench of justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha heard the appeals filed by Nirmohi Akhara, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Jamait Ulama-I-Hind and Sunni Central Wakf Board. A petition has also been filed on behalf of Bhagwan Ram Virajman (seated Baby Ram).
Strange and surprising order, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmbhoomi disputed site by which it had directed the site be divided equally between the three contending parties.
Assailing the judgment of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, the apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha on Monday said that by directing the partition of the disputed site, the High Court has given an entirely new dimension to the case. Expressing dissatisfaction over the High Court's verdict of dividing the 2.77 acre disputed site into three parts among Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara, different religious groups have approached the apex court.
'It is a rare Judgment whose operation has to be stayed,' the court said.
While admitting the appeals by all the parties, the court said that 'status quo as a disputed site will remain as directed by the constitution bench of the apex court by its verdict of Jan 7 1993 and that of March 13-14, 2002'.
While ordering the stay, the apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha said that at least on the issue of the staying the operation of the High Court verdict, there is a unanimity.
The apex court had allowed worship at the makeshift temple at Ayodhya and restrained all the parties from carrying out any religious activities on the 67.703 acres of land that was acquired by the central government around the disputed site.
The Lucknow bench ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts -- one for Hindus, another for Muslims and the third for Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case.
_______________________________________________________________
All parties satisfied with SC order
Various parties to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit expressed satisfaction over the Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court direction for tripartite division of the disputed land.
The counsel for various parties, including Lord Rama Lalla Virajman, Hindu Maha Sabha and Sunni Waqf Board, expressed satisfaction over the Apex Court's interim order saying that none of the parties had sought division of the 2.77 acre land.
"There will be no change of situation at ground zero (the make-shift temple of Ram Lalla). The pooja will continue as per the January 7, 1993 order," senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is representing Ram Lalla Virajman, told reporters in Apex Court premises after the hearing on the Ayodhya dispute.
Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said, "We are satisfied with today's order of the Supreme Court...This will help in maintaining peaceful position in the country."
"Everybody had claimed for exclusive rights, so Supreme Court is completely justified in staying the high court judgement," he said, adding, "Sunni Waqf board will ask the court to expedite its hearing in the case."
Expressing satisfaction, counsel representing Hindu Maha Sabha said, "Nobody prayed for it (partition of land into three parts). Everybody wanted full land. Our stand continues that entire Janmabhoomi premises belongs to the Hindu Maha Sabha."
Ranjeet Laal Varma, the counsel for Nirmohi Akhara, said they were in favour of an amicable settlement.
"Any decision or any step in this matter will have a long lasting effect on society. So we are ready to solve this dispute by mutual understanding. In the law we have rights and if we reach any compromise we can present our settlement in the court," he said
Mahant Bhaskar Das, the chief priest of Nirmohi Akhara, expressed happiness over the Supreme Court's order "We never wanted the land to be split into pieces. The doors to peaceful negotiations are open," he said in Ayodhya.
Triloki Nath Pandey, another litigant, expressed satisfaction over the order decision. "I am always ready for talks, we can go for peaceful negotiations and out of court settlement, I will welcome the parties who will come to me for the talks to over the Ayodhya dispute," he said.
Muslim groups welcome SC order
Muslim organisations and groups too welcomed the Supreme Court order. The Babri Masjid Action Committee of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said the Apex Court's observations on the High Court verdict were "noteworthy".
"We have full faith in judiciary. We will accept whatever decision is taken by the apex court," Committee co-convenor Sayed Kasim Rasool Ilyas said.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madni claimed that the court's observations had shown that their objection to the High Court verdict was justified. "We hope that justice will be done," Madni said.
Terming the order as a "ray of hope", Jamiat-e-Islami Hindi said, "We did not agree with the High Court verdict. We welcome the Supreme Court's direction".
Mohammad Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the case, said, "We will accept every verdict delivered by court, but we are trying hard to reach a settlement to solve this issue peacefully, I along with Mahant Gyan Das have reached the final stages of our draft of peaceful solution".
Hashim said, "I appeal to both Hindus and Muslims brothers to fight this legal battle with peace and with love, don't ever come on roads or become prey to politicians over this matter."
Congress declines comment
Congress, however, refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court order staying Allahabad High Court's verdict.
"It is in our tradition that we do not comment on issues while they are pending in the court," was the brief response of party spokesperson Manish Tewari at the AICC briefing to the repeated questions on the SC order.
A senior Congress leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the party found nothing unusual in the SC terming as "something strange" the Allabhad High Court judgement as the earlier order dividing the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya in three parts, even though the parties to the dispute had not asked for trifurcation of the land, had an element of surprise.
"However, we stick to our stand. The issue can either be solved through mutual agreement among all stakeholders or the Supreme Court decision has to be binding on all. We will welcome either of these," the leader said.
CPM welcomes Court stay
CPI(M) Politburo member Brinda Karat welcoming the Supreme Court order staying the Allahabad High Court's ruling on title suit, said, "We had criticised the Allahabad Hight Court judgement and using the issue of religious belief as a ground to give its order."
"We had questioned that (High Court verdict) and said that it was a very very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed part of that order and we hope the Supreme Court will look into various related issues and rectify it," she said.
Uma favours settlement outside court
Expelled BJP leader Uma Bharti demanded building a country-wide consensus for construction of a magnificent temple at Ayodhya in wake of the Supreme Court order and said the matter should be settled outside court.
"From the beginning, we have been demanding that a consensus be built across the country for a magnificent temple in Ayodhya. There is no clash of faith in Ayodhya. There should not be any move to create such kind of a situation," she told reporters.
Bharti, a prime accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case, feared that "if it (Ayodhya issue) drags on for long, it will continue to remain a dispute and vote bank politics will continue to be played over it."
She said basic and fundamental issues have got overshadowed as political parties like RJD and Samajwadi Parties have stirred up the Ayodhya controversy to win
elections.
"I have been telling this for long that Ayodhaya dispute should be settled outside court. Court has also said the nature of the case is such that it can be settled outside also," she said.
The former BJP leader said the Muslim community and Wakf Board members should create an atmosphere in the country for construction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya. "They should extend support for it like in case of Somnath Temple," she said.
Vigil already on: UP Government
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government on Monday said vigil was being maintained in the entire state and no fresh directive regarding security had been issued in the wake of the Supreme Court stay on the Allahabad High Court's
verdict.
"We have not seen the order yet. Vigil is already being maintained and no new directive has been issued in this regard," Secretary (Home) Deepak Kumar told reporters in Lucknow.______________________________________________________________
HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
Sixty years after it first went to court, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has pronounced judgment in the Ayodhya title suit.
But the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board on Thursday said it will move the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court order dividing the disputed land in Ayodhya among three parties.
“We will appeal against the division of disputed land among three parties,” the Board’s lawyer Zafaryab Jilani told reporters here.
“High Court’s formula of one-third land is not acceptable to the Waqf Board and it will appeal against it in the Supreme Court,” he said.
He said they were not going to surrender the land.
However, he said, the Board is open to any negotiated settlement on the issue if such a proposal for negotiations for a settlement came to it.
“Talks can happen if a proposal comes,” he said.
Mr. Jilani said the Board has time to appeal in the Supreme Court as status quo would be maintained for the next 90 days.
“The Board will move the apex court after a meeting of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. We are not in hurry as we have 90 days time to appeal as a matter of right,” Mr. Jilani said.
He said personally he did not agree with the findings of the three judges.
Mr. Jilani said the possibility of an amicable solution still exist provided there was a proposal to this effect.
“This proposal would be tabled before the All India Muslim Personal Law Board for consideration but we won’t accept any proposal to surrender,” he said.
“The judgement pronounced in the case relating to Babri Masjid is not only partly disappointing but also against the settled principles of law and evidence adduced by the Muslim side,” Mr. Jilani said.
“However much cannot be said at this stage as we are yet to study the judgement in detail. Still, we are of the firm view that no public resentment is required as the matter can be taken to the Supreme Court and there is no reason for any loss of hope in favour of the Mosque,” he added.
“After getting the full text of the judgement, it will be examined in detail and an appeal against the same will be prepared and filed as per the decision of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board,” Mr. Jilani said adding the members of Babri Masjid Action Committee will also be consulted.
“We hope that peace and tranquility will be maintained throughout the country and the issue will not be taken to the streets by anyone,” he added.
________________________________________________________________
