All India Majis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asadudddin Owaisi criticised verdict stating he wasn’t satisfied with the allotment of land for the construction of a mosque. He said in part, “We have full faith in the Constitution, we were fighting for our right, we don’t need 5-acre land as donation”. Other Muslim organisations aren’t happy with the verdict either; citing that the court tried to have it both ways with the judgment.
SC’s Ayodhya Judgment is notable because:— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 9, 2019
It highlights that any dispute can be amicably solved in the spirit of due process of law.
It reaffirms the independence, transparency and farsightedness of our judiciary.
It clearly illustrates everybody is equal before the law.
In an interview with The Wire, Justice A.K. Ganguly, who retired in 2012, questioned the judgment stating that the court gave the demolition a ‘premium’, despite themselves calling it a criminal act. “It encourages a very unfortunate trend… a totally non-secular trend” he said and that if it were up to him, he would have directed the restoration of the mosque. The Tribune editorial stated that the Supreme Court lost an opportunity to put an end to similar disputes – “The Supreme Court should not have arrived at this verdict before deciding on the criminal culpability of those who destroyed the Masjid and cleared the ground for the temple. It needs to be underscored that the Indian apex court lost a great opportunity to instil in the minds of the litigants and the nation at large the idea of reconciliation, closure and peaceful co-existence”. In August 2010, the Allahabad High Court passed a judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute by a three-judge panel. In a 2-1 verdict, the court stated that the land was to be split into three parts – one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara (a religious denomination for the Ram temple) and one-third to the party for 'Ram Lalla’. The summary of the verdict was essentially that no one party could stake claim over the land and that it could only be done by equal allotment. However, the Supreme Court in its judgment stated that this was legally sustainable. The SC judgment on this stated in part, “Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible”. Maneesh Chhibber, in a column for The Print, writes on why the apex court differed by quoting its judgment – “The Supreme Court did hold in its ruling that the demolished Babri Masjid was not abandoned – that the mere cessation of namaz by Muslims cannot lead to the inference that the mosque was abandoned – and so have lost possession. Maintaining public peace and tranquillity, it can be said, is why the Supreme Court has done what it did today with its Ayodhya verdict”.
"The judgment is against our expectations. We presented solid evidences to prove our stance. Our legal committee will review the judgment.
We have sincerely tried to fulfill our responsibility to restore the demolished #BabriMasjid": GS of @AIMPLB_Official#AYODHYAVERDICT— All India Muslim Personal Law Board (@AIMPLB_Official) November 9, 2019
More columns by Varun Sukumar