There are six appeals moved to the Supreme Court regarding the decree of Allahabad High Court on the title suit of Babri Masjid case and many a secular lawyer hailing from non-Muslim communities are voluntarily assisting the Muslim lawyers in the case, said Advocate Aejaz Maqbool while addressing the weekly meeting of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind at its headquarters in the national capital on 7 December. Advocate Maqbool is one of the advocates who are representing the Muslim petitioners in the Supreme Court in Babri Masjid cum Ram Mandir issue. The learned speaker further informed the audience that the Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over the Panchayat-style decree of the High Court and hopefully such a decision is not expected from the apex court.
When asked as to how much time will the Apex Court take to pronounce its verdict in the case, he said since the matter falls into the orbit of most contentious ones and likely to be referred to a constitution bench soon, it is very hard to predict how much time it will take. He added that the issue of distribution of river water between two states is supposedly one of the most contentious matters in the Supreme Court and one such case involving the Punjab and Haryana over the water of Ravi and Vyas has been pending since 1984.
The advocate further added, in response to question “Will Muslims be able to rebuild the mosque on the site if the decree of the court goes in their favour?”, that the Supreme Court has enough body to get its decision implemented. He further said, declining the fear of many about superseding of judges in the Supreme Court by the ruling party so as to get a decree in someone’s favour, that it is next to impossible and the time has much changed as compared to that of Indira Gandhi.
Advocate Maqbool maintained that both the High court and the Supreme Court believe that the mosque was demolished on 6 December 1992 and there is no controversy over it. What is to be decided is whether it was built after bulldozing a temple. The report of the Archaeological Survey of India stating that the agency has discovered “some significant things” is not a proof at all. The senior advocate went on elaborating the issue and said that if one digs even the headquarters of the Jamaat, there is possibility that he might find something beneath it. Then, does it go to suggest that the headquarters was built after demolishing some building or so.