How the Waqf Board will appeal

Ahead of the crucial meeting of the Sunni Central Waqf Board on October 9 and 16th regarding the Ayodhya verdict, the board has made it clear that an appeal before the Supreme Court will be filed next month.

The Board has already made it clear that it will not go in for a compromise as suggested by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which delivered its verdict on the issue on Thursday last.

The legal team of the Board which has been meeting has decided to fight out the appeal before the Supreme Court on three crucial issues. They would quote the Shariyat Law which makes it clear that no Muslim should compromise the inner walls of a Mosque.

In addition to this ground they would also argue against the verdict of the High Court which said that faith was an evidence in this case. The board states that faith cannot be an evidence to decide on the birth place of Lord Ram.
The Board has also decided to challenge that portion of the verdict which stated that a Mosque was built on the site which was against the tenets of Islam. The main point for argument would however be that the Muslims had in their possession the Mosque and the idols were placed secretely inside the Mosque.

Once these grounds are prepared the Board will meet on October 9th and hold discussions with the members of the legal team and also the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Further another meeting will be held of the executive committee on October 16th, sources in the Board


Karantaka BJP hit by dissidence again

Resort politics in Karnataka is back to haunt the BJP government once again. Around 20 MLAs upset over not being given enough representation in the cabinet resuffle have huddled themselves in a resort in Chennai and are threatening to pull down the government in Karnataka.

The MLAs led by Renukacharya had expressed their disappoinment over not being given portfolios in the recent cabinet reshuffle. They accused chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa of favoritism and said that he had taken only those close to him into the Cabinet.

The Chief Minister however said a while ago that there is no crisis and all the MLAs who are in the resort would return to Bangalore tonight and the issue resolved. We will see what can be done, but I am confident that they will return tonight and speak with me today itself.

The CM is obviously worried over the latest development and has sent R Ashok, the Home Minister as an emissary to pacify the revolting MLAs. Along with Ashok, he has also sent Shriramulu who belongs to the Janardhan Reddy camp to difuse the crisis

Cyber war between BJP and Congress

A cyber war has broken out between the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress after the former claimed that a website by the name was redirecting to the website of the All India Congress Committee.

The BJP in its notice has said that they had seen a dip in the traffic of their official website and this prompted them to investigate into the matter. When they probed into the matter they found that the Congress had allegedly purchased a website by the name and were diverting this to their original website.

A key member of the BJP’s IT cell told that it has been found that the original website belonged to Bharat Janata Prakashan and it was purchased by the Congress. Although they may have a right over the website the intention was to harm the party’s website, the BJP IT cell member claimed.

The Congress is however mum and say that they will reply when they get the notice. They claim that there was no intention to harm any party or its website and it must have been pure co-incidence. However today when once enters the website it directs to the google page which gives an indication that the mistake was rectified following this legal notice.

The BJP’s legal cell says that they will pursue the matter. We are fully aware that the was purchased a couple of months ago by someone and the traffic was intentionally diverted. This was been done to play a prank on the party’s website he said.

We realized this only recently and due to this mischief our website took a major hit. I know today it does not redirect to the AICC page and this action I am sure was taken only after our legal notice. Someone in the congress must have woken up to avoid legal complications. However this is not any ground for us to give up the fight and based on the legal opinion that will follow soon, we have also decided to file a police complaint.

Pavan Duggal an expert in cyber laws says that if the BJP is able to prove its case then the offender can face up to 3 months imprisonment coupled with a Rs 5 lakh fine under the Information Technology Act of 2000. The legal notice has been sent since there has been a deliberate attempt to divert internet traffic which was legitimately aimed at the BJP. The BJP has a legal remedy in this case and the courts have in several cases held that such dishonest excercises aimed at taking away internet traffic are punishable.

The BJP sure has a case on hand even if the Congress claims that they had purchased the original website. Search engines normally pick up a website with .com and in this case the .com website did not even belong to the BJP. However as a result of this, a lot of traffic meant for the BJP would have gone to the Congress website.

The BJP in this case would require to prove that the website had an inclination or a nexus with its website. Even if the Congress has managed to rectify it now, the BJP can still prove and fight the case on the basis that for a certain amount of time traffic meant for its site was being diverted to the AICC website and this is a dishonest practice and hence be punishable under the IT.

‘The High Court has played a trick on us’

The legal committee of the All India Muslim Law Personal Board has decided to meet on the 9th of October and discuss the verdict in the Ayodhya case which was pronounced on Thursday by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Dr S Q R Ilyas, convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee told that this would be followed by a meeting of the executive committee of the Board which would take the final decision.

Professor Mohammad Sulaiman, senior member of the board and Dr Ilyas said that the decision to move the Supreme Court is final, but the two meetings would discuss the manner in which the Special Leave Petition is to be carried forward. Although the board has not met formally as yet, it is already decided that we will not even consider the decision to share the land and there is no way in which any Muslim in the country will be willing to compromise the inner portion of the Mosque in accordance with the Shariyat Law. The Shariyat Law is very clear that there are two portions to a Mosque- the inner and the outer portion. The law makes it clear that no Muslim should compromise the inner portion of a Mosque. The verdict of the High Court infact directs us to compromise on the inner portion of the Mosque and this is not acceptable to the Muslims. We have always maintained this position and even when we went in a delegation and met several Prime Ministers in the past we have maintained this position of ours. The other party has always been insisting on the inner portion of the Mosque and as per the Shariyat Law it is not possible to agree to such a demand and hence we will move the Supreme Court explaining our position. The Shariyat Law has been accepted by both the Privy Council and also various court in India, however we are aware that the Supreme Court can overturn it and we will abide by whatever it says.

The legal committee at present is studying the options and the same would be placed before the executive committee on October 16th. We are very sure that we want to move the highest court of the land since the High Court has played hide and seek with the title suit. Whatever the Supreme Court says will be the final decision and we are ready to abide by it. We however hope that there will be some clarity to the issue pertaining to the title suit since we are unable to understand what the High Court has meant when it passed this order. As of now we feel that the order of the High Court is not a workable one.

During the preliminary discussions that the Board has been holding it has been felt that the High Court has played a trick on us. We never demanded land around the Mosque and all we have been saying is that we want the inner portion of the Mosque. There appears to be no clear cut decision on the title suit and we still believe we have a case since all the High Court did was reject our demand on the basis of barred by limitation. We still believe that the case is open since if you look at the Supreme Court guidelines of 1993, it is clearly stated that the main issue can be decided only after a final decision is made to the title suit which in this case still remains hanging.

Post the Ayodhya verdict we have been speaking to a cross section of the Muslims across the country and the general feeling is that of shock. None of them are able to understand the logic of the verdict. There is large scale disappointment among the members of the community, but they do see hope in the Supreme Court. However there is no plan of taking the matter to the streets or issuing a fatwa against anyone responsible for this verdict. There is one thing that is decided and that there shall at no stage be any compromise as suggested by the special bench of the High Court.

Can a deity fight a legal battle?

Can a deity fight a legal battle? This was one of the questions which came up for consideration before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday while deciding the controversial Ayodhya case.

The question has come up in the past before the Supreme Court as well, which has made the legal position very clear. Moreover, Hindu law too brings about a certain amount of clarity on the subject.

Legal experts point out that in Indian jurisprudence, a deity can be represented through the trustees since most of the property concerning a religious place is always managed by the trust. This would mean that the title deed is in the name of the deity and hence it can be party to a suit. In the present case, the issues pertained to Ram Lalla and since the deity was a minor it had to be represented by its guardian.

Who is a juristic person? The law says they are beings — real or imaginary — to whom the law attributes a personality by way of fiction when there is none in fact. A legal personality is an artificial creation of the law. According to the Supreme Court, ‘A legal person is any entity other than human beings to which the law attributes a personality’. The words ‘juristic person’ connote the recognition of an entity to be a person in law which otherwise it is not. In other words, ‘it is not a natural person but an artificially created person which is to be recognised in law as such’.

Juristic, legal or artificial person is any subject matter to which the law attributes a personality. It is a legal creation under a general law like the Companies Act, a specific enactment, or by a decision of the court. A legal person is a holder of rights and duties, can own and dispose of property, can receive gifts, and it can sue and be sued in its name.

Idols have been recognised to be juristic persons in Hindu law, which personifies the deity as a legal person. A Hindu idol is recognised by courts as a juristic entity having a judicial status, and its interests are attended to by a person who is in charge of the deity and who under law is its guardian or manager.

The property in question belongs to the idol as a juristic person and the possession and management of the same are vested with the guardian or the manager.

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court had ruled in an earlier case that from the spiritual point of view an idol is the embodiment of the supreme being. So far as the deity or idol stands as the representative and symbol of a particular purpose indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person.

Explaining this aspect, former Supreme Court judge Santhosh Hegde further says most religious places are in the name of the temple or the deity. Since the deity cannot represent itself in person in litigation it is the trustee who fights the battle on its behalf.

The Supreme Court has held in several cases that a juristic person has the right to litigate any case while being represented by its managers or trustees.

We cannot accept the sharing formula: Zafarayab Jilani

The verdict in the Ayodhya case is out and the now the entire focus will shift to the Supreme Court of India which is the highest appellate body of the land which will lay down the final rule of law in this case.

For Zafarayab Jilani, the chief counsel for the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Thursday was a disappointing day. The verdict has not been the way we expected it to be but we have not lost hope since we expect justice from the Supreme Court. Jilani who has been battling this case for nearly two decades says in this interview with that all hope is not lost. The matter is to be settled now by the Supreme Court and we cannot accept the sharing formula which has been ordered/suggested by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

Are you very disappointed with the verdict of the Special Bench in this case?

Yes, I would say that I am partly disappointed with this verdict. It has not gone the way we expected it. The verdict has gone against the settled principles of law and also the evidence put forward by the Muslims in this case.

So have you decided what exactly will be done next?

We have appealed to everyone to maintain calm and have been telling them there is the Supreme Court which will finally decide on this case. I am still going through the judgment and only once that is done will we file an appeal. Moreover there is no hurry to rush up to the Supreme Court and seek a stay of the judgment since the High Court has ordered a status quo.

Do you today regret rejecting the last ditch attempt to settle the matter out of court. Do you feel that would have been a better option considering how this verdict has gone?

Not at all. I do not regret that one bit. The judicial process had to go on and I am happy that it has moved on. There was a time when it was getting extremely difficult to move forward in this case. A lot of times it has gone slow and at times we wondered whether the verdict would ever come out. There was a need to get past this stage and today we find the case moving forward. The ground rules have been laid and the next battle will be before the Supreme Court.

As I said earlier we will go to the Supreme Court which I am hopeful will lay down the correct position of law.

Have you fixed any time frame to move the Supreme Court?

That would be difficult to say at the moment. There is a lot to prepare and only once we are thorough will we go ahead and move the Supreme Court. We are also in discussions regarding our next course of action on this issue. We have decided to meet next week following which we will take a decision. As I said we don’t want to hurry anything up.

The High Court speaks of a sharing formula in terms of one third for three parties. Do you see any chance of a last chance for truce between the two communities in this issue?

No I don’t see any chance since it is not a workable solution. If it was then it would have been done long back. One party had to win and the other had to lose. We always wanted a finality on this issue. Our one point stand in this matter is that we cannot be told to surrender the Mosque. We are ready to talk, but asking us to surrender the Mosque is not the right position of law. This issue had come up before the All India Muslim Personal Law Board earlier and it was rejected. The entire case for us is about not giving up the Mosque. Moreover it is not permissible under the Shariyat.

Some people from your community have said that it is a Panchayath styled judgment. Do you share the same view?

I do not like to use such words since it would show disrespect to the judiciary. The judgment has made an attempt to keep all parties happy. But every verdict has to come to a final decision and in this one we are not completely happy with various aspects and hence have decided to challenge it.

The verdict seems to have been decided largely on the basis of faith? What are your comments?

Yes there are a lot of inferences to that aspect and it was argued by some earlier that courts cannot decide on the issues of faith. The courts have made it clear it can taken up issues relating to faith and we have to accept that fact.

The Babri demolition case drags on since 92

The verdict in the Ayodhya title suit is out, but in the Special CBI court drags on another case pertaining to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in which cases have been filed against all those involved in the incident of 1992.

Looking at the manner in which the case is going it appears that it would take a very long time for it to complete since it is still in the examination stages. The latest in this case is that it has been deferred to October 5 since a notification appointing a new judge for the CBI special court is yet to be issued. Parties to the case are hopeful that a new judge will be appointed after Special judge in the capacity of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was transferred.

The cross examination process is still on. When the court resumes hearing probably in the second week of October, it would continue with the cross examination of Anju Gupta who was the security officer to L K Advani.

Lawyers associated with the case say it is disappointing that the case in such an important case has come to a halt for the want of a judge. After much delay and hurdles the proceedings had commenced before the court. However the judge was transferred and we were told that a new judge would be posted on June 8th 2010. When the matter came up on that day we were informed that a new judge would be appointed immediately and the trial could resume on June 12. However there was no progress on that day too. The last time the matter came up was in the last week of September and yet again the lawyers were told that a new judge would be appointed. We have been assured that the trial will resume now on October 5 after a new judge is appointed.

Zafarayab Jilani one of the advocates in this case says that it is almost two decades since the case has been going on. I don’t see any conclusion in sight in the near future. This is an important case since it will bring out the truth behind the entire episode.

The case came to a halt at a very crucial stage. Anju Gupta’s evidence is considered to be very crucial since she was the one accompanying L K Advani as his security advisor at the time of the incident. The other key players in this case are Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, , Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Vinay Katiyar, Sadhvi Ritambhara and Vishnu Hari Dalmiya Each one of them face charges of delivering inflammatory speeches which is believed to have stirred up the mob.

Lawyers are hopeful that the case will commence and conclude soon. Although the recent verdict of the High Court on the title suit will have no bearing on the criminal case they hope that there would be some finality to this case soon. The case has been dragging at a snails pace and till date the court has examined around 8 witnesses only. In addition to this there was some delay when the CBI moved the High Court seeking persmission to add fresh charges against some of the accused. However the High Court ruled that fresh charges could not be added when the existing ones have not been proven as yet

The Babri Masjid Action Committee says that they are hopeful of getting justice in this case since those responsible for the demolition must be punished at any cost. They relate to the last deposition and cross examination in the case which was made by Anju Guptha. She had said that there were specific intelligence inputs that harm will be caused to the Babri Masjid. She told the court that two sorts of threats were mentioned by the IB-one being the persons gathered there would harm the structure and secondly the ISI would cause law and order problems in the country. She also goes on to state that Advani had given a provocative speech in Ayodhya before the Mosque was demolished. She also took the names of Joshi, Uma Bharathi among others while stating that they too had made similar speeches.

Long History: Following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Uttar Pradesh government had set up a special court in Rae Bareli. The case was handed over to the CBI. However the CBI had to club two FIRs since there were two of them lodged. One of the FIRs was against the karsevaks while the other was against L K Advani and the rest. However the clubbing of the two FIRs was challenged before the High Court and the court in turn said that prior permission of the court ought to have been sought. The court also said that it was only the state government which was now empowered to issue a notification to cure this defect.

Initially there were 49 accused but proceedings against 21 of them were dropped due to the legal deificiency as mentioned above. The proceedings against these persons including Advani were kept in abeyance in the year 2002. However in the year 2005 when the CBI’s revision petition was heard the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court reinstated the charges of provoking people intentionally.

Ayodhya Verdict: Land to be divided in 3 parts

What the Ayodhya verdict says

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by a majority verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into three parts among Hindus and Muslims and that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus.

The following is the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad high in brief:

Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan Ram?

The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the

spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.

Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When was it built? By whom?

The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.

Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple?

The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.

Whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23rd, 1949?

The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.

Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?

O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs

U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.

What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and and outer courtyard?

It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.

After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

The judges have also said that the status quo should be maintained at the site for three months. The full judgment runs into 8,000 pages.

Zaffaryab Jilani, a lawyer for the Muslim community, said he would appeal the verdict, which could delay a final decision in the case for years.

“It’s not a victory or defeat for any party. It’s a step forward. We hope this matter will be resolved,” he said.

Hearing in the case was taken up on a day-to-day basis from January this year and was completed on July 26. The special bench had reserved its verdict asking the parties concerned to approach the Officer on Special Duty in the case to find out if there was any scope of resolution in the case through reconciliation.

The three main issues before the high court were whether there was a temple at the disputed site, prior to 1528, whether the suit filed by the Sunni central waqf board in 1961 is barred by limitation and whether Muslims perfected their title through adverse possession.

The history of the dispute goes back to the year 1528 when a mosque was built on the site by Mughal emperor Babar. Hindus believe that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and a temple had existed there earlier.

In order to settle the dispute, the British officials in 1859 erected a fence to separate the places of worship, allowing the inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer court by Hindus. This system went on till 1949 when an idol of Lord Ram surfaced inside the mosque.

The authorities then declared the premises a disputed area and locked the gates, which were unlocked after 37 years by a district judge in 1986 to allow darshan.

With the passage of time the dispute took on political colour. The Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992 in the presence of senior leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The demolition of the mosque triggered communal riots in several parts of the country in which more than 2,000 lives were lost.

The high court verdict assumes significance as an amicable solution to the centuries old dispute over a piece of land has not been achieved through negotiations between the two religious groups.

Repeated attempts were made by former prime ministers P V Narasimha Rao, V P Singh and Chandra Shekhar to persuade the two sides to reach a compromise but there was no success.

The Ayodhya dispute has been an emotive issue for decades and mired in a slew of legal suits involving Hindu and Muslim religious groups.

The first title suit in the case was filed in 1950 by one Gopal Singh Visharad, seeking an injunction to permit pooja (worship) of Lord Ram at the disputed site. The second suit was filed by Paramhans Tamchandra Das, also in 1950, seeking the same injunction, but it was later withdrawn.

The third suit was filed in 1959 by the Nirmohi Akhara, seeking a direction to hand over the charge of the disputed site from the receiver. The fourth one was filed in 1961 by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs for declaration and possession of the site.

The fifth suit was moved on July 1, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman, also for declaration and possession.

Through an application moved by then advocate general of UP, all the four suits were transferred to the high court in 1989.

Out of the 94 witnesses in court, 58 appeared from the Hindu side and 36 from Muslim side and their statements run in more than 13,000 pages.

Earlier this month, R C Tripathi, one of the parties to the suit, moved a plea in the high court seeking deferment of the verdict to make fresh attempts for an out-of-court settlement through negotiations.

On September 17, the high court refused to defer pronouncement of the verdict, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court.

An apex court bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and A K Patnaik refused to take up the case and referred it to another bench.

Difference of opinion between two Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale, before whom the matter came up for hearing on September 23, surfaced on entertaining the petition. However, the court issued notices to the parties.

The matter was finally heard by a special three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia on September 28 and it dismissed the plea for deferment of the verdict by the high court.

Pin drop silence and strong army presence greeted the courts

He much awaited and much debated verdict in the Ayodhya case is finally out and the lead up to the same was pretty dramatic in Lucknow. A member of the legal team who was present in the court hall where the verdict was delivered said that there was pin drop silence in the court hall as the three judges read out their verdicts.

It is probably for the first time that we have seen three judges reading out their verdicts separately in the court hall. In normal course when are concurring opinions one of the judges reads out the operative portion of the order. However here all three judges read their respective verdicts separately giving reasons for passing the order.

The three judge special bench of the Lucknow Bench were not assigned any other matter today. The cause list had only this one matter listed for all three of them. The lawyers said that they were giving finishing touches to the verdict in the morning and they were at the court hall by 3 PM. We expected it to get over by around 3.30 PM, but it went on for nearly one and half hours since they all read out their verdicts individually. However they did not go deep into the reasoning of the verdict which runs into nearly 8000 pages.

Once the verdict was pronounced, there were a couple of disappointed faces in the court, but not once did any of them show any sort of dissent or try arguing further with the Bench. They accepted the verdict and sought leave to move the Supreme Court which was granted. None of the judges said anything which was not in the order such as an oral observation or anything of that sort. The order was pronounced, signed and the judges left the court.

However the party which had the verdict in its favour rushed to the media centre at the district collectors office. Around 12 of them sporting their robes walked in showing the media the victory symbol. Once on the dais in front of the eager media, the first thing they said, “the title suit filed by the Waqf Board has been dismissed. The court has declared that it is Ram Janmabhoomi. It took the media a while to figure out what was happening and on being asked several times they had to keep repeating what the court had said. This was then followed by pushing by camera persons and there were at lest 5 minor altercations before the draft copy of the operative portion was finally made available.

Lawyers said that they had never before witnessed such an event. It looked as though the high court was taken over by the army. Yes it did cause a lot of inconvinence to the other litigants, but everyone cooperated in the large interest of security.

Petitioner Tripathi happy as his stand is vindicated

Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who had made a last ditch attempt to settle the ayodhya dispute out of court says that this is welcome judgment. Speaking through his counsel, Prashanth Chandra in Lucknow, he says that the verdict basically upholds the preamble of what the central government had said when it acquired land around the disputed site in the first place.

He further goes on to add that every effort has been made by the court to reach an amicable solution and it is not as though the court has completely disregarded the feelings of the Muslims. The union government when it acquired land around the site had stated that there would be a Temple, Mosque and a library. This particular verdict is very much in that direction since it attempts to accommodate everyone.
When we sought for an out of court settlement we had thought that an amicable solution would have been reached. At that point of time there were more persons who were opposing our claim. Tripathi feels that he is vindicated in this judgment for two reasons. First and foremost the larger picture of the judgment indicates that there can very well be an amicable solution to the dispute. Secondly Tripathi was one of the applicants in this dispute who had challenged the claim of the Sunni Waqf Board on the title suit. He has won this case with the title suit against the board being dismissed.

Muslims disappointed with Ayodhya verdict

The Muslim Community has reacted with shock at the latest verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court which ruled that the disputed site is Ram Janmabhoomi and also the suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board is barred by limitation and hence was dismissed.

Professor Mohammad Sulaiman, senior member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board who has been part of the litigation told, “we are obviously disappointed.The case has only been dismissed on technical grounds opn account of adverse possession. However we are happy that the court has no where ruled that the Muslims had demolished a temple and built a mosque.

It is not the final verdict and we have the Supreme Court to move. The High Court has given three months time to negotiate on the issue of the outer courtyard and also ordered maintaining of status quo for three months until the parties go in appeal

I cannot give you a time frame as to when the appeal will be filed. We need to prepare well and build a good case to put up before the highest court of the land. We hope that the supreme court will take into consideration the tradition of this particular case and not decide on the issue of adverse possession and we will be extremely disappointed if that court does the same.

Zafrayab Jilani, the lawyer for the Waqf board said that they will go the supreme court. This is not the end of the matter here and the verdict will be final only when the Supreme court decides. However if the supreme court also rules against us then we will abide by it.

Maulana Kalbe Jawad a proiminent shia cleric from Lucknow we are not sad neither happy since we all know this is not the final verdict.

Shariyat Law doesnt let us compromise the mosque

Historic Ayodhya verdict is victory of judiciary

Zafaryab Jilani, Mushtaq Ahmad Siddiqi and Syed Irfan Ahmad, Advocates, representing the Muslim side in the Ayodhya title suits have stated today’s judgement should not be taken by the people of India in the sense of victory or defeat of any party or community but rather they should take it as the victory of the Rule of Law and independence of judiciary.

Today’s judgment is likely to strengthen basic features of the constitution and confidence of the people, especially of the minorities, upon the independence of judiciary and Rule of Law. Today the Special Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench is likely to pronounce the judgement in a case which had started more than 60 years ago and about which the general feeling of the countrymen was that the same may never be decided. Our Judiciary is likely to vindicate today that it is not influenced by any considerations other than those which are recognized by the law of the land.

These cases relating to the title and possession of Babri Masjid are apparently between two communities but actually they relate to the secular fabric of the country. The personality of Lord Rama is not at all in dispute who has been described as “Imam-e-Hind” by the great poet of the East, Allama Iqbal who had composed the “Taranai Hind” (Sare Jahan Se Achcha Hindostan Hamara). The issue of Babri Masjid does not relate even to the rule of Babar who had defeated Ibrabim Lodi to take over the reigns of the country.

Today’s Historic Judgment is likely to decide the controversy on the basis of admissible evidence and principles of law recognized by our judicial system. Whatever may be the findings of the court, one thing is likely to be vindicated today that our Judiciary is competent and has the courage to decide each and every sort of dispute.

Today’s judgement should not be taken by the people of India in the sense of victory or defeat of any party or community but rather they should take it as the victory of the Rule of Law and independence of judiciary. Any party to the dispute which may feel dissatisfied with the judgment as a whole or with any portion thereof, has the remedy of approaching the Supreme Court. As such we have to behave in a very responsible and disciplined manner and should not express our sentiments or feelings in any such manner which may offend the feelings or sentiments of others.

The judges who will decide if it’s temple or mosque

The entire nation’s eyes are on the three men who will walk into court hall number 21, Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court at 3.30 PM where they will pronounce the historic verdict in the Ayodhya title suit on Thursday. After much delay which was followed by a deferment plea in the Supreme Court, Justices Sudhir Agarwal, S U Khan and Dharam Veer Sharma will finally tell the nation whether there will be a temple or a mosque on the disputed 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya.

Amidst tight security in and around the High Court, the three judges will get to work at 10.30 AM when they will give finishing touches to the final order. Legal experts point out although their decisions have already been made they would ink the operative and final portion of the judgment only on D-Day considering the sensitive nature of the issue. Judges across the country normally follow this procedure when the matter is so sensitive in nature. The Allahabad High Court had witnessed a similar scene when it pronouced the verdict in which it nullified the election of Indira Gandhi.

The three judges will pen down the operative portion of the verdict from 10.30 Am onwards and then would assemble in court hall 21 at 3.30 PM where they will read out the operative part of the verdict in front of the lawyers representing the parties to the suit. Once the judgment is read out, the parties have a couple of options before it. The aggrieved party could seek a stay of the order seeking time to move the Supreme Court or could just abide by it and approach the Supreme Court at a later date. However the indication is that either of the parties is likely to move the Supreme Court as early as Friday even if it means they would access only to the operative portion of the verdict. The new laws state that a party can approach the Supreme Court with the operative portion instead of wait for a complete certified copy of the order in matters of urgency.

This verdict which is sure to create history will be the last one for Justice D V Sharma. Justice Sharma who had passed the dissenting verdict in the deferment plea will retire on October 1. An expert in civil laws, Justice Sharma a bachelor is known to be a very religious person. Lawyers in Lucknow say that he is a simpleton and cooks his own food at home. After graduating in Arts, he passed his LLB in the year 1970 and served as the Chief Law Officer for the UP financial corporation. Prior to being promoted as a District and Sessions Judge in the year 2002 he served as Principal Secretary in the Parliamentary Affairs Department. He was appointed judge of the High Court in 2005 and became a permanent judge in the year 2007.
Justice Khan who was appointed as High Court judge in 2002 graduated from the Aligarh Muslim University with a science degree in the year 1971.

In the year 1975, he got his law degree and started his practice in the Aligarh Civil court. He later began his practice in the Allahabad High Court before being elevated as judge.
Justice Agarwal graduated in law from the Meerut university in the year 1980 and commenced practice in the Allahabad High Court immediately after that. He was elevated in the year 2005 after serving as the additional advocate general in the year 2003. Justice Agarwal joined the Bench comprising Justice Khan and Sharma only in the year 2008. He specialized with taxation issues but was moved to the civil side later. Justices Khan and Sharma have been on this special bench since the year 2005.

Ayodhya case: Waiting for the verdict

Courts normally dont entertain deferment of verdicts

The Ayodhya verdict will be out on Thursday at 3.30 PM with the Supreme Court giving the go ahead today. Legal experts feel that although this case is extra ordinary in nature and the Supreme Court could have interefered under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, it is the delay factor in this particular case which prompted it not to entertain the petition.

Justice N Sathosh Hegde says that law and order is a ground that can be cited before the Supreme Court of India, but litigants must realize that the courts do not have the infrastructure to maintain law and order and it is entirely the duty of the state and the union governments.

There have been instances in the past when the Supreme Court has refused to give a hearing when law and order problems were cited. In both the Cauvery Waters case and also the Mandal case, the same ground was cited and in both instances the Supreme Court was very clear on the role of the government. In the Cauvery waters case, when Karnataka had suggested that releasing water to Tamil Nadu would create a law and order problem, the court had told the Chief Minister to either rule or quit. The situation was similar in the Mandal case with the Supreme Court telling the government to do its job in protecting law and order and letting the Supreme Court its job in passing an order.

Justice Hegde says that in the Ayodhya case, there is every chance of a law and order problem, but an order has to be pronounced and it cannot be kept in the cold storage forever. The Supreme Court while passing todays order was clear that the petitioner had a long time to seek such a settlement. The Bench headed by the Chief Justice asked the petitioner as to why he had taken so long to wake up and also added that this should have been done a long time ago. It reaches a maximum limit in some cases and the Supreme Court does take into account the delay factor and also says that the onus on maintaining law and order is entirely upon the governments and if they are unable to do so then they are a failure.

Justice Hegde also points out that in pleas seeking deferment of reserved orders, the Supreme Court normally does not interfere. When it is its own order it may take a call but normally does not interfere in verdicts of other courts unless it is an extraordinary situation in larger public interest. The Supreme Court would have set an unwanted precedent had it deferred the verdict since it would have become a matter routine before it.

SC gives green signal to pronounce Ayodhya verdict

A last ditch attempt to settle the Ayodhya verdict out of court was rejected by the Supreme Court of India which gave the green signal to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court to go ahead and pronounce the verdict which has been reserved for almost two weeks.

Prashanth Chandra, senior Counsel for Ramesh Chandra Tripathi who argued the case before the High Court told that all attempts to mediate the matter out of court have come to an end with the verdict of the Supreme Court. There is nothing more we can do now in this case and we too will wait for the verdict of the High Court. However we hope that the people will maintain calm and realize that the verdict of the High Court is not the final one since one of the aggrieved parties is sure to move the Supreme Court after this verdict.

He said that a date for the pronouncement of the final verdict by the High Court will either be fixed today in the evening or by tomorrow. It would depend on when the parties are able to get certified copies of the Supreme Court’s verdict.

Over the past few days several attempts were made to settle the matter out of court. There were many persons who had come forward to sort out this issue, but a majority of the parties to the title suit preferred a verdict. Moreover the Government of India too made it clear that it wanted no uncertainity on the matter.

The ball currently is in the court of the state administration of Uttar Pradesh and it is up to it to maintain calm following the verdict.

Meanwhile security in Uttar Pradesh continues to remain tight. Security was put in place when the High Court had first fixed a date for the verdict. The High Court remains a fortress with 140 sub inspectors, 800 constables, 200 reserve police force and 104 head constables guarding the building. The Nepal border continues to remain sealed since there are specific IB inputs that persons across the border may try to cross over and create trouble taking advantage of the situation.

SC rejects plea to defer verdict on Ayodhya case

With the Supreme Court rejecting the plea to defer the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, it is the Special Bench of the High Court which will fix a date to pronounce the verdict.

The legal team of the Waqf Board told that the verdict of the Supreme Court will now be communicated to the High Court based on which the date for the verdict will be fixed. They say that once they get a certified copy of the order they will make it available to the Lucknow Bench and a date for the pronouncement of orders will be fixed tomorrow itself.

The litigants to the title suit will communicate this order to the Special Bench of the High Court by evening today and seek a date for the pronouncement of the verdict. They are now awaiting a copy of the order following which they will make the same available to the Lucknow Bench.

In addition to this a communication from the Supreme Court too would go to the High Court informing about this verdict.

Both parties to the litigation will urge the High Court to fix a date soon. They say that the matter has to be pronounced by 11 AM on October 1 since one of the Judges on the Special Bench, Justice D Sharma will retire at that time.

It is now the prerogative of the Bench which heard the title suit to fix a date for the verdict, legal experts say.

Ayodhya petitioner not set up-Lawyer

We need more people who do not have a direct interest in the title suit coming up to fight the case out in the Supreme Court since the general misconception that my client has been set up should go at once. Prashanth Chandra, senior counsel who was representing Ramesh Chandra Tripathi at both the High Court and the Supreme Court told

The verdict was much needed in public interest and we are hopeful that we will be able to convince the court that the matter should be settled out of court. This is a national issue and cannot be decided by two parties alone.

There is a lot being said about my client Ramesh Chandra Tripathi and the fact that he has been set up by someone to intentionally delay the verdict. This is not at all true and the fact is that he had given up following the High Court verdict which refused to defer the judgment. Why is that we people joined hands pooled in money and sent him to Delhi in the first place. He did not even have the money to purchase a train ticket leave alone file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.

It is not sufficient if just one Tripathi fights this case out. We would like to call on a lot of people to come forward and argue before the Supreme Court and convince the highest court of the land that the matter is extremely sensitive by nature and needs to be settled amicably at any cost.

Our line of argument before the Supreme Court will not change and we would be seeking the intervention of dispassionate people to come forward and settle this issue. I understand that the two parties who are battling the title suit are not interested in a compromise and it is obvious since they will have their own individual grounds. But what needs to be seen here is larger national interest and a verdict of this nature will only wreck the common man.