English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

“They want the Muslims to surrender their claim”

Published

9 years ago

on

Image courtesy: www.amu.ac.in

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Former UP additional advocate general Zafaryab Jilani has been fighting the Babri Masjid case from 1986. He is convener of the Sunni Control Waqf Board and is representing this body and other plaintiffs in this longstanding dispute. In a chat with Rashme Sehgal, he puts forward his views on the case

What do you feel about the latest initiative of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Khehar for an out-of-court settlement to this long pending dispute?

I am not in favour of an out-of-court settlement. From 1986, we have seen several attempts at arriving at negotiated settlements. Many of these initiatives have come from the highest levels but these have failed to resolve the matter.

What is the other side insisting upon? They want the Muslims to surrender their claim. They do not want an out-of-court settlement with us. Rather they want an out-of-court surrender from us. This has been going on for the last 27 years. They want us to give up claim on the title to the Babri Masjid mosque and build the mosque elsewhere across the Saryu river. This is what the BJP spokespersons have been reiterating again and again.

Is relocation such a major problem for the Muslim community?

Our acceptance of this proposal will imply that Muslims have no right to retain their mosques in any part of the country. Today they are demanding this place; tomorrow they will demand another place. Where is the justification for us to agree to move? Are we second class citizens in our own country?

Up to 1941, all court cases accepted the Babri Masjid mosque. In 1941, the Nirmohi Akhara was the only body in existence.

But the BJP claims they are expressing the sentiment, the astha, of crores of Hindus?

The astha is not created in one or two years. This is something which grows over hundreds and thousands of years. Earlier worship started in 1885 in the chabutra located outside the mosque. Then on December 22 1945, the idols were kept under the middle dome of the mosque.

But what led the Babri Masjid Action Committee to reject the verdict of the Allahabad High Court which had asked for a three-way division of the 2.77 acre site? The Allahabad High Court had opined that the land be equally divided between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and  Ram Lalla represented by the Hindu Mahasabha ?

The judgement was against the law of the land. The verdict accepted two arguments. The verdict proceeded on the premise that Hindus have faith in Rama and that the middle dome is the birthplace of Rama. The other side was not able to muster any other evidence. My question is, is the country ruled by the rule of law or is it ruled by faith?

The Muslim community is not willing to give up their title keeping the sensibilities of the Hindus in mind?

There is no existence of faith in a property dispute. The right to property is equal for all. Faith, on the other hand, is a personal matter. Issues of property are decided by the law of the land. This point of view has been upheld by the Supreme Court also as far back as 1994.

I ask this question only because this case has dragged for years and years?

We are ready to argue our case before the law courts. The lapses have been on the part of the government. By now the government should have moved an application to set up a special court which could hear this basis on a day-to-day basis. The other side has refused to accept a legal notice for the last six years. We finally had to get it published in a newspaper which cost us thousands of rupees. It is for the Supreme Court to act.

But why is it so important for the Muslims to reconstruct the Babri Masjid at the same place where the earlier mosque had been located?

Why don’t you ask the other side the same question?  Why are you repeating the same question to me? Till 1949, there was no issue of a Ram Mandir at the site of the Babri Masjid. There was a chabutra outside the Babri Masjid and the Hindus had worshipped there but this chabutra was built only in 1886.

But with Adityanath Yogi as chief minister of UP and Narendra Modi as prime minister, the BJP can introduce a bill in Parliament and state assembly to construct the Ram temple on the site.

I am reemphasising this—let the law of the land prevail. Even if such a law is passed, it can be nullified by a Supreme Court judgement. If any such law is passed, it is liable to be struck down.

What about the pending cases against BJP leaders including LK Advani and Uma Bharti ?

The cases have been pending for some time now. The judgement should be decisive and given at the earliest.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Women’s quota bill fails in Lok Sabha as it falls short of two-thirds majority

Women’s reservation proposal failed in Lok Sabha after securing 298 votes, below the required two-thirds majority

Published

9 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Parliament

Government secures 298 votes in favour, 230 against; proposal does not pass constitutional threshold

The proposed amendment related to women’s reservation failed to pass in the Lok Sabha on Friday after the government could not secure the required two-thirds majority.

The bill received 298 votes in favour and 230 against, falling short of the constitutional threshold needed for passage. As a constitutional amendment, it required the support of at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

Despite securing a simple majority, the government was unable to gather sufficient support to meet this requirement.

Debate continues over two days

The discussion on the bill extended late into Thursday and continued on Friday, with members from both sides participating in the debate on women’s representation in legislative bodies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged members to support the proposal, calling for wider consensus on the issue.

Implications of the outcome

The failure of the bill underscores the challenges in securing broad political agreement on constitutional amendments, especially those related to representation and electoral reforms.

The proposal was aimed at advancing women’s representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies, an issue that has remained under discussion for several years.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi faces FIR order as Allahabad High Court acts on dual citizenship plea

High Court allows plea in Rahul Gandhi citizenship case, paving the way for further legal process.

Published

12 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Rahul Gandhi

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has allowed a petition seeking legal action in connection with allegations related to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s citizenship status, marking a fresh development in the case.

The petition was filed by a political worker, who had approached the court seeking directions for registration of a case over claims that Gandhi may have held foreign citizenship. The High Court, while hearing the matter, passed directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.

The development comes after a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow had earlier declined to order registration of an FIR, reportedly observing that it lacked jurisdiction in matters concerning citizenship.

Background

The case is linked to allegations that Rahul Gandhi may have held British citizenship. Under Indian law, dual citizenship is not permitted. However, these claims remain part of the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by any court.

During earlier hearings, the High Court had sought records and considered material presented by the parties involved.

What happens next

With the High Court allowing the plea, the matter is expected to proceed as per due legal process. This may involve examination by the appropriate authority and further judicial review at subsequent stages.

The case carries both legal and political significance given Rahul Gandhi’s role as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Continue Reading

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com