Supreme Court is supreme but not infallible, says Owaisi
I have to accept the Supreme Court judgment. But I have a right to also respond to it, critique it, give my opinions about it. Don’t I have a right to comment on the judgment and express my dissatisfaction with it?
AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi termed the Supreme Court verdict a “victory of beliefs over facts” and said he will ask the All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) to seek a review. “The Supreme Court was supreme but not infallible,” he said.
Expressing his dissatisfaction, Mr Owaisi said that the BJP is preparing the roadmap to a Hindu Rashtra through Ayodhya.
The MIM leader said he did not know whether the AIMPLB would proceed for a review petition or not, and whether it would accept land for the mosque or not, but his personal opinion was that the five acres for the mosque should be rejected.
Mr Owaisi told the media that the country is proceeding towards Hindu Rashtra. Starting from Ayodhya, the Sangh Parivar and the BJP will exploit the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizen Amendment Bill.
He said that even those who politically disagreed with him ought to mark his words which would prove true in the future.
“If Babri Masjid had not been demolished in 1992, then what kind of verdict would the Supreme Court have delivered?” Mr Owaisi wondered.
“Muslims of India have faith in the Constitution of India,” he said. “We were contesting the case for our legal right. Though Muslims are poor and weak and discriminated against, they are not so miserable that they could not buy five acres of land for the Masjid. If I ask the people of Hyderabad, they will donate so much that I can build a mosque in Uttar Pradesh. We don’t need alms from anyone. We don’t need patronage from any corner.”
THE ASIAN AGE
SUNDAY | 10 NOVEMBER 2019 | NEW DELHI
The case brings to a closure a contentious issue of the past several decades, in fact, since the nation became independent. What is your response to it? Do you have any apprehensions?
There are many cases in front of our courts, including the site disputes in Kasi and Mathura, which are pending. Though the Supreme Court had mentioned the Places of Worship Act 1991, other parties will refer to this judgment as a precedent.
A masjid caught up in legal contention exists in Varanasi, the Lok Sabha constituency of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Sangh people will now argue that we accept the 1991 Act, but we have a right on the undercroft of the masjid.
In Lucknow, there is dispute on Teele Wali Masjid. Some day, they (Sangh) might tell you that they do not a have dispute on the masjid itself, but we have claims on cortile area. I have apprehension that the Sangh Parivar will drag many mosques to court now, claiming that temples existed in those places centuries ago. We will all realise only in future, when other courts start reacting to those cases, in the light of this judgment, of its fullest consequence.
Will either the AIMPLB or you as a leader of a political party or as an individual seek a further review of this judgment?
As the national president of the AIMIM, I will respect any and all decisions that the AllIndia Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) might take in response to the Supreme Court verdict on the Babri MasjidRam Janmabhoomi dispute. As far as the future course is concerned, the Muslim Personal Law Board and its counsels had presented their stand with sincerity. Our counsels presented their contentions in full length, backed with strong research and facts. The AIMPLB may choose to file a review petition, but I can’t say whether the court would reconsider the judgments and its findings in response to a review petition.
In the past you had categorically stated you would accept any judgment of the Supreme Court. What has changed now?
I have to accept the SC judgment. But I have a right to also respond to it, critique it, give my opinions about it. Don’t I have a right to comment on the judgment and express my dissatisfaction with it?
Is it or is it not permissible any more, in keeping with the rights bestowed by the Constitution, to express my views? Is it a contempt of court? I have a right to freedom of expression in India.
Should
not
the Muslim
community accept the verdict in the larger interest of the community and creating harmony?
The question of accepting the verdict for the sake of amity does not arise, because I would like to ask you first — was this judgment delivered for the sake of brotherhood? The judgment must deliver and uphold justice, based on evidence, on the title dispute. Who told you we are against harmony? Though the judgment of the Supreme Court is final, according to the Sharia, there was a mosque there, and it will always remain a mosque.
What do you have to say about the Sangh Parivar today?
I want to inform all people of the Sangh Parivar that we, Muslims of India, are respectable citizens of India and we will always remain. We will tell our generations to come that there was a masjid for 500 years, which the Sangh demolished in front of the eyes of the world, with conspiratorial collusion of the Congress Party on December 6, 1992. We were ditched by the Supreme Court judgment. Describing the demolition of Babri Masjid as vandalism is an understatement. Why should we forget the killing of Mahatma Gandhi and the demolition of the Babri Masjid?
How do you feel Congress Party?
about
the
It is very unfortunate, and late, but finally the true colours of the Congress have been exposed. If not for the hypocrisy of the Congress, then those idols would not be placed inside a mosque in 1949. Had the idols not been placed, the masjid would have still existed. It was Congress PM Rajiv Gandhi who unlocked the Babri Masjid. It was Congress PM P.V. Narasimha Rao who failed to save the masjid from demolition. Muslims were deceived by all these so-called secular political parties. Now, Muslims have to emerge as politically strong, without depending on these parties.
Why are you asking for rejection of five-acre land for building a new mosque?
I do not know whether the Muslim Personal Law Board would proceed to file a review petition or not. I don’t know whether it would accept the five acres for the mosque or not. But in my personal opinion, we should reject the stand of giving us five acres of land for a new mosque.
Muslims of India have full faith in the Constitution. We were contesting the case for our legal rights, not some land given to us as alms. Though Muslims are very poor and weak, even though we have been discriminated against, no one can deny this simple truth — Muslims are not so miserable that they could not buy a piece of five acres of land for a masjid. If I ask the people of Hyderabad, they will donate so much that we can build a mosque in Uttar Pradesh. We need no alms from anyone. We do not need patronage from any corner.