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.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 27,2020

Ayodhya, Jul 27: With days to go for the August 5 "bhoomi pujan" ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, the mosques adjacent to the demolished Babri Masjid premises are spreading the message of a peaceful coexistence of Hindus and Muslims.

There are eight mosques and two mausoleums located close to the 70-acre Babri Masjid premises mandated by the Supreme Court for a temple of Sri Ram.

Azaan and namaaz are offered in the mosques and the annual "Urs" is held at the mausoleums without any objection from the local Hindus.

The eight mosques located near the upcoming Ram temple premises are Masjid Dorahikuan, Masjid Mali Mandir ke Bagal, Masjid Kaziyana Achchan ke Bagal, Masjid Imambara, Masjid Riyaz ke Bagal, Masjid Badar Paanjitola, Masjid Madaar Shah and Masjid Tehribazar Jogiyon ki.

The two mausoleums are Khanqaahe Muzaffariya and Imambara.

"It is the greatness of Ayodhya that the mosques surrounding the Ram temple are giving a strong message of communal harmony to the rest of the world," Haji Asad Ahmad, the corporator of the Ram Kot ward, said. The Ram temple area is situated in Ahmad's ward.

"Muslims take out the 'juloos' of Barawafaat that goes through the periphery of Ram Janmabhoomi. All religious functions and rituals of Muslims are respected by their fellow citizens," the corporator said.

Asked for a comment on the presence of mosques near the upcoming Ram temple premises, the chief priest of the temple, Acharya Satyendra Das, said, "We had a dispute only with the structure that was connected to the name of (Mughal emperor) Babur. We have never had any issue with the other mosques and mausoleums in Ayodhya. This is a town where Hindus and Muslims live in peace."

"Muslims offer namaaz, we perform our puja. The mosques around us will strengthen Ayodhya's communal harmony and peace will prevail," he added.

Both Hindus and Muslims have accepted the Supreme Court verdict over Ram Janmabhoomi, Das said, adding, "We have no dispute with each other."

Sayyad Akhlaq Ahmad Latifi, the "sajjada nasheen" and "pir" of the 500-year-old Khanqaahe Muzaffariya mausoleum, said Muslims in Ayodhya are performing all religious practices freely.

"We offer prayers five times a day in the mosque at Khanqaah and hold the yearly 'Urs'," he added.

"What a scene would it be -- a grand Ram temple surrounded by small mosques and mausoleums and everyone offering prayers according to their beliefs. That will be representative of the true culture of India," Mahant Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri, the chief priest of the Sarayu Kunj temple adjacent to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises, said.

Reacting to the presence of mosques and mausoleums near the Ram Janmabhoomi premises, Triloki Nath Pandey, the decree holder of the land as the "first friend of Ram Lalla" as mandated by the Supreme Court, said, "We do not have any objection to either those mosques or any other mosques. We will not trigger a dispute regarding any structure, Ayodhya must live in peace and communal harmony."

Mahant Raju Das, the priest of the Hanumangarhi temple, said, "The presence of the mosques tells the story of Ayodhya's communal harmony. A Ram mandir will be built and there will be no objection to the mosques or religious practices of Muslims."

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
January 1,2020

Jan 1: The ban on the practice of instant triple talaq, making it a penal offence and the increase in the strength of Supreme Court judges were two of the major achievements of the law ministry in 2019.

In July, Parliament gave its nod to The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019. The new law makes talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband void and illegal.

It makes it illegal to pronounce talaq three times in spoken, written or through SMS or WhatsApp or any other electronic chat in one sitting.

According to the new law, any Muslim who pronounces the illegal form of talaq upon his wife shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

During the year, four new judges were appointed to the Supreme Court in September, taking its strength to 34, the highest-ever.

However, vacancies in high courts and lower courts are on the rise and convincing state governments and the 25 high courts to come on board to create an all-India judicial service to recruit judges for the subordinate courts tops the agenda of the Law Ministry in 2020.

Besides creating a consensus on setting up the All-India Judicial Services, the ministry will also have to focus on filling up vacancies in the high court. On an average, the vacancies stood at 400 throughout this year.

With more than 5,000 positions of judicial officers in district and subordinate courts lying vacant, the Law Ministry has pitched for setting up all-India judicial services.

The sanctioned strength of the judicial officers in district and subordinate courts was 22,644. The number of judicial officers in position and vacant posts is 17,509 and 5,135, respectively.

The government has proposed that while states and high courts can recruit judicial officers, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) can hold pan-India entrance tests.

The ministry has made it clear that such services would not encroach on the powers of the states.

As of now, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate courts is the responsibility of the high courts and state governments concerned.

The Narendra Modi government has given a fresh push to the long-pending proposal to set up the new service to have a separate cadre for the lower judiciary in the country.

But there is a divergence of opinion among state governments and respective high courts on the constitution of the All India Judicial Service (AIJS).

One of the problems cited is that since several states have used powers under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to declare that the local language would be used in lower courts even for writing orders, a person say selected from Tamil Nadu may find it difficult to hold proceedings in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The other point of opposition is that an all India service may hamper the career progression of state judicial services officers.

Another key issue the ministry has to handle in 2020 is vacancies in the 25 high courts.

Throughout 2019, on an average, the high courts faced a shortage of 400 judges.

According to Law Ministry data, as on September 1, the high courts had 414 vacant positions as compared to the sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges. The figure was 409 in August and 403 in July, as per the data.

A three-member Supreme Court collegium recommends the names of candidates for appointment as high court judges. In case of appointments to the Supreme Court, the collegium consists of five top judges of the top court.

High court collegiums shortlist candidates for their respective high courts and send the names to the law ministry.

The ministry, along with background check reports by the Intelligence Bureau, forwards it to the Supreme Court collegium for a final call.

The government has maintained that appointment of judges in the high courts is a "continuous collaborative process" between the Executive and the Judiciary, as it requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional authorities.

Vacancies keep arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of judges and increase in judges' strength. In June last year, the vacancy position stood at 399, while it was 396 in May.

In April, 399 posts of judges were vacant, while the figure was 394 in March. The vacancy position in February stood at 400 and in January, it was 392, according to the data collated by the Department of Justice.

Over 43 lakh cases are pending in the 25 high courts.

Another priority would be the finalisation of the memorandum of the procedure to guide the appointment and transfer of the Supreme Court and high court judges. The issue had now been pending for over two years now with the SC collegium and the government failing to reach a consensus.

Successive governments have also been working on making India a hub of international arbitration. It has taken several steps to change laws dealing with commercial disputes.

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 27,2020

Global health experts on Wednesday said novel coronavirus is here to stay for more than a year and called for aggressive testing to prevent its spread.

In an interaction with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, health experts Professor Ashish Jha and Professor Johan Giesecke talked about the COVID-19 pandemic as part of the series being aired on Congress social media channels.

While Jha exuded confidence that a vaccine will be available in a year's time, Prof Giesecke said India should practice a lockdown that is as 'soft' as possible, as a severe lockdown will ruin its economy very quickly.

"When the economy is opened up after lockdown, you have to create confidence among people," Harvard health expert Ashish Jha told Gandhi.

Jha is a professor of Global Health at TH Chan School of Public Health and Director, Harvard Global Health institute.

He said coronavirus is a '12-18 months' problem and the world is not going to be free of this till 2021.

The expert also called for the need for aggressive testing strategy for high-risk areas.

Gandhi, while interacting with the experts, said life is going to change post COVID-19.

"If 9/11 was a new chapter, this will be a new book," he remarked.

Professor Johan Giesecke, former chief scientist, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control said India should have a 'soft lockdown'.

"The situation that India is in, I think, you should have a soft lockdown, as soft as possible," he said.

"I think for India, you will ruin your economy very quickly if you have a severe lockdown. It is better, skip the lockdown, take care of the old and the frail...," he noted.

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.