Sep 27 2018 13 mins
The Supreme Court delivered two critical judgments on Thursday. However, the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict took precedence over the adultery law in terms of media coverage. Those championing for the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya are elated. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad has declared that the ruling has cleared the blockade and paved the way for a Ram Mandir at the Ram Janmabhoomi.The three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer – in 2:1 majority judgement – declined to refer the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute to a larger Bench. It also refused to reconsider the 1994 Ismail Faruqi judgement that stated mosque was not an integral part of Islam. However, the Apex court also maintained that the 1994 verdict would have no bearing on the present title suit. The SC will start the hearing of the title suit from October 29. Newslaundry spoke to Zafarul Islam Khan, chairperson of Delhi Minorities Commission and Islamic scholar, on the issue. Khan said the SC verdict is not a “setback” for the minority community.“The court has said that 1994 verdict will have no bearing on the present case. It is (the SC verdict) is a welcome move,” he said. “The issue here is the title of the land – whether it belongs to this or that party (Hindus or Muslims). The Supreme Court or any other court should decide (the tittle-ship) case in the light of the law of the land and the Constitution,” Khan said. He said that the no court should decide on issues whether a Mosque, Temple or Church is an integral part of any religion or not.Khan had earlier backed Maulana Salman Nadvi’s proposal that both parties – Hindus and Muslims – should look for out of court settlement.Importantly, he said that the title rights of the disputed structure should go to one party – contrary to the Allahabad High Court verdict in which it divided the land rights between both Hindu and Muslim community. “In the Allahabad HC verdict, the Muslim community was on the losing side. If the land of the 500-year-old structure belongs to the Muslims, why should they give two-third land to the other party.” Khan maintained that he is not in favour division of the land.“Even if you give a part of it (the land) to Muslims, do you think the Muslims will be able to construct a Mosque there? I don’t think so,” Khan told this correspondent. He added the VHP’s celebrations are misplaced.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.