Filing review petition will harm Hindu-Muslim unity, claims Rizvi

News Network
November 24, 2019

New Delhi, Nov 24: Filing a review petition challenging the Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict will not be in the interest of Muslims and will "harm" Hindu-Muslim unity, National Commission for Minorities chairperson Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi said on Sunday.

The minority panel chief said filing the review petition would send a message to the Hindus that they were trying to put roadblocks in the way of building the Ram temple.

He also urged the Muslim side to accept the five-acre alternative land to be given for a mosque, saying they would be respecting the judiciary by doing so.

In an interview to PTI, Rizvi said the NCM had held a meeting after the Supreme Court verdict and all its members in one voice had said the verdict should be accepted.

The NCM chairperson said Muslims should help in building the temple in Ayodhya, while Hindus should help in the construction of the mosque. He said it would prove to be a milestone in strengthening the social harmony between the two communities.

According to Rizvi, filing of the review petition would send a message to the Hindus that the Muslim community wanted to put roadblocks in the way of building of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, which he said would "harm" Hindu-Muslim unity.

"Review petition should not be filed at all because all sides, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, had promised that the verdict given by the Supreme Court will be respected," Rizvi said.

He alleged that Muslim bodies like the AIMPLB and the Jamiat were going back on their word after making the proclamation that the apex court's verdict would be respected.

"Not just now, for years they have been saying that they will accept the verdict by the Supreme Court, then what is the need for review?" Rizvi asked.

He wondered what was the point of the Muslim bodies in filing a review petition if they were also saying the review petition would be rejected "100 per cent".

"The common Muslim of this country is not in favour of a review petition because he or she does not want that matters which have been settled are again raised and the community gets caught up in such things," the NCM chief said.

"So the question is for whom are you filing the petition for? Are you filing the petition to harm the brotherhood and disturb the harmony among the communities? Are you doing this for your personal satisfaction?" he asked.

Rizvi said just four-five members of the AIMPLB, including All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, were in favour of filing a review petition.

The NCM chief alleged that Owaisi does politics using Muslims and wants to "keep them caught up in such issues so that he gets the votes".

Rizvi underscored that leaders should avoid all this as there are several issues of Muslims and work should be done for that.

"This (review) will not be in the interest of Muslims. As the chairman of the commission, a number of Muslims meet me everyday and they say that review should not be filed," he said.

"It will not be in the interest of Muslims because the message will go to the Hindus that Muslims want to keep the temple issue unresolved which in a way will harm Hindu-Muslim unity," Rizvi said.

In its judgement in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on November 9, the Supreme Court had ruled that the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to deity 'Ram Lalla' (infant Ram), who was one of the three litigants.

The five-judge constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

Rizvi said the Muslim side should accept the five-acre land, adding that they would be respecting the government and the court by doing so.

"There are six-seven mosques in Ayodhya and Muslim population is not much so they suffice," he said. "But it is not an issue of mosque, if the Muslim side accepts the land to be allotted by the government, it will be respecting the government and the court."

The AIMPLB and the Maulana Arshad Madani-led Jamiat had announced last Sunday that a review petition would be filed against the Ayodhya verdict.

The board, after a meeting in Lucknow, had also said it was against accepting the five-acre alternative land given for a mosque as it "will neither balance equity nor repair the damage caused".

The Maulana Mahmood Madani-led faction of the Jamiat, however, has said filing a review would not be fruitful.

The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board has said it would not file a review petition in the Ayodhya verdict. The board will hold a meeting to discuss various issues related to the verdict at its meeting on Tuesday.

Comments

abbu
 - 
Monday, 25 Nov 2019

rizvi jiii where is unity now within muslims and hindu.... raise your voice on lynching ... and other cases which is happening everyday to the muslims.... where is brotherhood now... even majority of hindus are saying that this verdict is not correct.. what u say abt that....

patroit
 - 
Sunday, 24 Nov 2019

robber come and attack your house and demolish then you go to supreme court of india to get justic but the court say give the land to robber who demolished your house....wah re waaa what a justic of our hindu suprem court...in other word

 

if you say we have power now & we are majoriry then mark my word in commining centure we will build the masjid in same place...

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 5,2020

Ahmedabad, Jul 5: A woman police sub-inspector (PSI) with Ahmedabad Police was arrested and sent to three-day police remand, on Saturday, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 20 lakh from an Ahmedabad-based businessman — accused in two rape cases — in exchange for not applying a stringent act against him.

According to police officials, Shweta Jadeja, PSI and incharge of Mahila police station (West) in the city, was arrested by a team of Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) officials in Ahmedabad on Friday after the complainant in the case, the rape accused, approached the Crime Branch and stated that Jadeja had allegedly demanded Rs 35 lakh form him, in exchange for not booking him under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act.

The PASA Act in Gujarat gives power to the police to detain an accused and send them to a prison away from their native district. The complainant claimed that he already paid Rs 20 lakh of the total amount to Jadeja on February 3.

On Saturday, a sessions court awarded Jadeja a three-day remand with the Crime Branch, which will end at 11:30 am on July 7. Following this, the PSI will undergo a medical check-up and be presented before the magistrate again.

“We had originally demanded a seven-day remand. The accused officer has been sent to three-day remand for further investigation in the case,” said a senior police official in Ahmedabad.

According to police, complainant Kenal Shah — managing director of GSP Crop Science Private Limited, a crop solution-based company in Ahmedabad — is allegedly facing two separate rape cases under IPC section 376.

PSI Jadeja was first entrusted with the investigation of a rape case against Shah in January this year, lodged at Mahila police station (West).

The rape case complaint is of 2019. Another rape case against Shah was being probed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes Against Women), Mini Josef, wherein the investigation was reportedly completed.

As per the remand application report filed by the police, Jadeja had allegedly threatened Shah through his brother Bhavesh Shah — a joint managing director at GSP Crop Science Private Limited — and initially demanded Rs 25 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against the accused. The bribe amount was then settled at Rs 20 lakh and in February, the accused allegedly paid the amount via an office accountant to one Jayubha, allegedly a representative of Jadeja, from a finance office in Jamjodhpur area of Ahmedabad.

The report further stated that after the initial amount was paid, a third complaint was allegedly made against Kenal by a security officer at his office, Yograjsinh, for criminal intimidation. After the third complaint, PSI Jadeja had contacted Bhavesh again and demanded an additional sum of Rs 15 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against Kenal. The complaint from the security officer was not converted into an FIR and Shah has not been jailed yet.

However, It was after the demand of Rs 15 lakh that complainant Kenal approached the Crime Branch on June 27. An FIR was lodged against Jadeja at Ahmedabad DCB police station under sections seven and twelve of the Prevention of Corruption Act, charging her for “public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act”.

“Now that we have received the remand of the accused officer from the court, we will try to trace and recover the alleged Rs 20 lakh amount she received in this case,” said Deepan Bhadran, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

Shweta Jadeja is a PSI of the 2016-’17 batch and a resident of Vastrapur in Ahmedabad, while her native place is in Keshod of Junagadh district. The police have not recovered the bribe amount she allegedly accepted as of late Saturday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 24,2020

Lucknow, May 24: The Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh has banned Corona patients from keeping mobile phones inside isolation wards of COVID-19 hospitals in the state.

Patients admitted in dedicated L-2 and L-3 COVID hospitals will no longer will allowed to take mobile phones along with them in the isolation wards in order to check the spread of the infection.

According to an order issued by the state government late on Saturday night, two mobile phones will now be available with the ward in-charge of the COVID care centres so that patients and talk to their family members and administration if required.

Further, the orders specify that the mobile numbers should be communicated to the family members of the patients also.

Director General Medical Education, K.K. Gupta, who issued the order, has informed all concerned officials and directors of dedicated COVID hospitals.

"To facilitate the communication between COVID-19 patients admitted in clinics, with their family members, or anyone else, ensure that two dedicated mobile phones while adhering to infection prevention norms, are kept with ward in-charge of COVID care centre," the order said.

According to the latest data available on the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh now has 5,735 cases of Corona positive patients and the numbers have been growing steadily since the past ten days.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 29,2020

New Delhi, Feb 29: Former Union Minister M J Akbar told a Delhi court on Friday that journalist Priya Ramani had defamed him by calling him with adjectives such as 'media's biggest predator' in the wake of #MeToo movement in 2018 that harmed his reputation.

M J Akbar made the allegations before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja through his lawyer during the final hearing of a private criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Priya Ramani. Akbar resigned as Union minister on October 17, 2018.

Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct around 20 years ago when he was a journalist.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, said that the allegations were intentional and malafide.

“When you call someone media's biggest predator, it is per se defamatory. Calling a person with such adjectives is on the face of it defamatory. In the eyes of the people, Akbar's reputation was harmed... The per se effect was lowering of my (Akbar) reputation in the eyes of the right thinking members of the society,” she told the court.

She said there was no due process in the allegations. “It has a cascading effect. Embarrassing questions were asked. I (Akbar) am a person of greatest integrity... There was no due process in the allegations. You cannot just make allegation and let that person suffer,” she added.

Luthra said that if there was any grievance, it had to be raised then and there before the appropriate authority.

“We need to realise the effect has what we say or what we do. It's not like she went to any authority or raised any grievance. Opportunity was there, rights were there but to attack so person behind their back on social media...knowing that his whole life will be adversely affected? It's not right,” she said.

M J Akbar has denied all the allegations of sexual harassment against the women who came forward during #MeToo campaign against him.

Akbar had earlier told the court that the allegations made in an article in the 'Vogue' and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it as the complainant had deposed them to be false and imaginary and that an “immediate damage” was caused to him due to the “false” allegations by Priya Ramani.

Ramani had earlier told the court that her “disclosure” of alleged sexual harassment by Akbar has come at “a great personal cost” and she had “nothing to gain” from it.

She had said her move would empower women to speak up and make them understand their rights at workplace.

Several women came up with accounts of the alleged sexual harassment by M J Akbar him while they were working as journalists under him.

He has termed the allegations “false, fabricated and deeply distressing” and said he was taking appropriate legal action against them.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.