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.
Agencies
March 16,2020

Amaravati, Mar 16: Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy said that paracetamol is the only medication for coronavirus.

He said that COVID-19 is lethal for those have comorbid conditions including blood pressure, asthma and kidney diseases.

"There is no need to get panic about Coronavirus. Its impact is majorly on senior citizens aged above 60 years. It is dangerous to those suffering from diabetes, blood pressure, asthma and kidney diseases. For others, it is not so much dangerous. And paracetamol is the only medication for coronavirus," Reddy said on Sunday while addressing a press conference on the postponing of the local body elections as coronavirus cases continue to rise.

"In case anybody coming from foreign countries is found suffering from cough, cold and fever, bleaching powder should be sprayed on their belongings and things they use. The government is creating awareness on such precautions," he added.

Reddy slammed the State Election Commissioner's decision of postponing the local body elections for six weeks and alleged that the SEC was acting at the behest of TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu.

The opposition has targeted Reddy on his statement, saying the chief minister is behaving "ignorantly" and "irresponsibly" on the issue of coronavirus.

"While Telangana CM had changed his stand and closed shops and theatres in his state, Jagan Reddy is speaking as if there is no need for any panic. This CM is behaving ignorantly and irresponsibly," said Naidu.

Andhra Pradesh has reported one case of coronavirus. The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases across India has risen to 110.

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
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

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
June 10,2020

New Delhi, Jun 10: India on Wednesday reported a spike of 9,985 more COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours, taking the country's COVID-19 count to 2,76,583, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

279 deaths were reported in the last 24 hours taking the total death toll to 7,745.

The total number of active cases has reached 1,33,632 while 1,35,205 patients have recovered. While one person has migrated.

With 90,787 cases, Maharashtra reported the highest number of coronavirus cases in the country followed by Tamil Nadu with 34,914 cases.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), 1,45,216 samples were tested in the last 24 hours while overall 50,61,332 samples have been tested so far.

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.