The executive meeting of all Indian Muslim Private Law Committees (AIMPLB) was chaired by President Maulana Syed Rabey Hasani Nadvi. Here we have discussed the ten conclusions that are predominantly presented in the Supreme Court's (Yo's) verdict.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has announced that it will file a petition for reconsideration of the Supreme Court's Ayadia ruling. This decision was made by a private legal committee at an executive meeting at Mumtaz Degree College in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh. Kasim Rasul Ilyas said on behalf of the board that the board decided to file a petition for a hearing on the Supreme Court's decision. He said the board also decided that the five acres of land given to the temple were not approved.
The executive meeting of the individual legal committees was held by the chairman, Chairman Maulana Syed Rabey Hasani Nadvi. In this, the ten conclusions given in the Supreme Court's Ayodia ruling were mainly discussed. The Supreme Court considered from 1857 to 1949 that the three domed buildings and temple interiors of the Babri Masjid were in Muslim possession and use. The last Namaz was read on December 16, 1949. On the night of 22/23 December 1949, the Ramachandraji statue was unconstitutionally placed under the dome between the Babelite and the land below the middle dome. .
This is the three main reasons for review petition
- When it was unconstitutional to forcibly hold Rama Chandra G idol and other statues on the night of December 22, 1949, how is this decree considered as & # 39; god & # 39; According to Hindu theology, there can be no god.
- When the occupation of Muslims and the prayers of Namaz at the Babrig Masquerade from 1857 to 1949 were considered proven, on what basis was the land of the mosque given to litigation number 1 of litigation number 5?
- During the use of Article 142 of the Constitution, the honorary judges did not consider the exchange or transfer of mosque land to be in violation of the law on the above under the Waqf Act 104-A and 51 (1) of 1995. How can land be granted in lieu of mosque grounds under statutory prohibitions / bans In the second ruling, the Supreme Court of Honbleble made it clear that the honorary judge had no restrictions on exercising the authority of Article 142.
Because of the above facts and other errors apparent in the Supreme Court's decision, the Board decided to consider these facts and file a petition for review. According to the committee, the petition also stated that the mosque would not accept any other land instead of the mosque land. Muslims did not go to the Supreme Court and take their rights elsewhere.
Post Ayodhya: AIMPLB will file a petition for deliberation on the Supreme Court ruling based on these three points.