Muslim bodies reject CJI's proposal

The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Sunni Central Waqf Board (SCWB) remained sceptical of the Supreme Court's suggestion for an out-of-court settlement on the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

"We will not initiate any talks with the opposite parties (Hindus) for an out-of-court settlement, since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court," AIMPLB member and Legal Advisor Zafaryab Jilani told DNA. He, however, added that Muslims are not opposed to any initiative by the apex court under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

"The apex court has its jurisdiction under the law and it can initiate any such out-of-court settlement process," said Jilani. The AIMPLB member, who is also the SCWB's lawyer, pointed out that the High Court had also used this power under Section 89 to settle the issue outside court but failed. "The HC verdict came after exploring a possibility of an out-of-court settlement," he said.

Jilani said that such talks in the past were initiated with the opposite parties but had failed due to the latter asking Muslims to give up their claim and construct the mosque away from the disputed site in Ayodhya.

"It may be a matter of faith for Hindus but Muslims in the country will go by the Constitution of India. We will also go by the apex court's verdict. Till then, there is no question of Muslims accepting any offer for an out-of-court settlement on the case."

Jilani also stated that BJP leader Subramanian Swamy was not a party in the case and the apex court had only made an observation and not passed any ruling.

Reacting sharply to ongoing debates on TV channels, he alleged Swamy as well as BJP spokespersons were "lying to the people of the nation by distorting facts."

Jilani recalled that many attempts had been made in the past by former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar in 1990, Sankaracharyas, and spiritual leaders including Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, but their attempts had failed due to the rigid stance of opposite parties asking Muslims to shelve their claims on the disputed site.

"We have always submitted documentary evidences, court rulings since 1885 in all such meetings but in each meeting the opposition parties would only press for surrendering the land to them instead of submitting proofs to support their claim on the birthplace of Lord Rama at the disputed site," rued Jilani.

In the Ayodhya title suit, the three-member Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench comprising Justice SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice DV Shram had given a split verdict in about 8,000 pages dividing the entire disputed site by awarding one-third equally to the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akahada and Ram Lalla.

The SCWB had appealed against the HC judgement in the Supreme Court and since then the case is pending in the apex court. So far, no hearing has been able to take place till date due to the shifting and the translation of truck-loads of voluminous documents into English.

Hindus have, however, welcomed the apex court's move. They however said their doors were always open for any negotiations to settle the dispute outside of court. Mahant Ramdas of Nirmohi Akhada said, "We appeal to Muslims again to withdraw their claim on the disputed site which is the birthplace of Lord Rama."

Responding to this, Iqbal Ansari — who is now a party in the case after death of his father Hashim Ansari — the oldest petitioner in the case — said that they had tried for an out of court settlement many times but had failed to meet with any success.

"My father had always tried for an out of court settlement but VHP leaders never allowed talks to progress due to their vested interests," Ansari said.

The deadlock between the two sides showed as another petitioner in the case, Haji Mehboob added that the Muslim community were ready for talks but would neither withdraw their case nor give up their claim on the disputed land in Ayodhya.

In contrast, VHP spokesman Sharad Sharma said making a law for paving the way for the construction of the temple was the only way to settle the dispute.