After the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya, Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), who was the lawyer to the litigant Sunni Waqf Board, said that they respected the verdict, but would seek a review. "We respect the verdict but the judgment is not satisfactory. There should be no demonstration of any kind anywhere on it," he said, reported ANI. "We will file a review petition if our committee agrees on it. It is our right and it is in Supreme Court's rules as well."
Zafaryab Jilani, All India Muslim Personal Law Board: Respect the verdict but the judgement is not satisfactory. There should be no demonstration of any kind anywhere on it. #AyodhyaJudgment pic.twitter.com/g956DuJ5sB
— ANI (@ANI) November 9, 2019
Kartik Chopra, spokesperson to Nirmohi Akhara, said that they were grateful that the SC had recognised their fight of last 150 years and given the Nirmohi Akhara adequate representation in the trust which will administer the temple. The Supreme Court had ruled that the Nirmohi Akhara was not a shabait (devotee) of Lord Ram and noted Ram janmabhoomi was "not a juristic person".
Kartik Chopra, spokesperson, Nirmohi Akhara: Nirmohi Akhara is grateful that SC has recognised our fight of last 150 years and has given the Nirmohi Akhara adequate representation in the trust to be set up by the Central Government to build & manage the Shri Ram Janmasthan Temple
— ANI (@ANI) November 9, 2019
Iqbal Ansari, son of Hamid Ansari who was one of the oldest litigants in Ayodhya case, said: "I am happy that Supreme Court has finally delivered a verdict. I respect the judgment of the court."
Varun Kumar Sinha, lawyer of Hindu Mahasabha, said that it was a historic judgment. With this judgment, the Supreme Court has given the message of unity in diversity.
ALSO READ: Ayodhya site to be handed over to trust for building temple, says SC
Fourteen appeals were filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties—the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
On the Hindu side, Nirmohi Akhara—a denomination of Ram-worshipping sadhus—claimed historical worship rights over the shrine. Ram Lalla (infant Ram) was represented in court (deities can appear as minors by law) by Devaki Nandan Agarwal, a retired High Court judge, in 1989; Trilok Nath Pandey later became Ram Lalla's "friend". Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, also a litigant on the Hindu side, was a VHP-backed organisation that has been aggressively pushing for the construction of a temple at the site.
Hashim Ansari, a Muslim man who lived in Ayodhya, was the oldest litigant in the Babri mosque case, and his son Iqbal Ansari has since taken over the helm. Sunni Waqf Board is the major litigant on the Muslim side, arguing that they had full possession of the title.
