Never miss a great news story!
Get instant notifications from Economic Times
AllowNot now

You can switch off notifications anytime using browser settings.
The Economic Times
Stock Analysis, IPO, Mutual Funds, Bonds & More

SC should have given 5 acres for temple elsewhere, says Jamiat Chief

New Delhi: The Supreme Court should have given the five acres of alternate land to the Hindu side to build a temple elsewhere and the verdict is completely opposite to what the evidence pointed to, Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind president Syed Arshad Madani has told ET.

The organisation is a party in the Ayodhya case and will file a review plea before Supreme Court. “In the Supreme Court judgement, all evidence points to the left while the verdict goes towards the right. The judgement accepts that Muslims performed prayers there from 1857 to 1949, concedes that the mosque was damaged in 1934 and Hindus were fined for the same, admits installation of idols there in 1949 was a wrong act and calls the mosque’s demolition in 1992 an illegal act,” Madani told ET He added that SC does not say the Mosque was built by demolishing a temple. “If so was established, we would not stake a claim. The very people who demolished the mosque have been granted the land to build a temple now,” Madani said.

He said as per the evidence, “what should have happened was that the Hindu side should have been given five acres of alternative land to build a temple elsewhere but SC has done the opposite.” Under Islam, a mosque would not be considered one under Islam if it was built by demolishing a temple, he said. “But the SC has not said so. Then how can the land be handed over to the Hindu side?” he said. Madani also told ET that they would argue in their review plea that the use of Article 142 in the present case has been wrong. “Article 142 exists in the Constitution for a specific purpose, which is to do acts for public good. But in this case it does not apply as injustice has been done with us,” he said.

Madani added that he was sure that the review will not succeed. “When despite all the evidence, the judgement did not come in our favour, how can we assume that the review will come in our favour? But it is our legal right to file a review, so we will try to reach the place as far as we can go in this legal fight for our land,” he told ET.
Stay on top of business news with The Economic Times App. Download it Now!