Union minister Uma Bharati on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute, saying it was an important matter. “It is an important day for me, and I welcome the Supreme Court decision on Ayodhya. I hope for a verdict soon,” she said.
Along with veteran politicians LK Advani and Murali Manohar Joshi, Bharti is one of the BJP leaders who face charges of criminal conspiracy in the politically-sensitive 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case. The Supreme Court had ordered a Lucknow sessions court to hold day-to-day trials of the case and conclude it in two years by 19 April, 2019.
Bharti also went on to say that Ayodhya is an important religious location for Hindus as it is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, but it does not hold such a significance for Muslims.
"This is not a matter of a religious dispute. Ayodhya is an important religious place for Hindus because it is the birthplace of Lord Ram. For Muslims, it is not a religious place; for them, it is Mecca, just like it is the Vatican City for Christians. This matter was turned into a religious dispute, and finally, it got transformed into a land dispute," she said.
This isn't a matter of religious dispute, as Ayodhya is an important religious place for Hindus because it is the Ram Janambhoomi but for Muslims, it isn't a religious place, for them it is Mecca. This matter was created &it finally got transformed into a land dispute: Uma Bharti pic.twitter.com/DK1MGnPajo
— ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018
Earlier on Thursday, the Supreme Court declined to refer to a five-judge constitutional bench a plea on the Ayodhya dispute. The Muslim litigants had insisted that the matter be heard by a larger bench claiming that the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land in three parts — giving one to deity of Ramlala Virajman, another to Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara and a third to the Muslims — relied on a 1994 top court judgment.
In a majority judgment, held that this 1994 judgement of the Supreme Court in the Ismail Faruqui case, which held that a mosque was not integral to Islam and namaaz could be offered anywhere, need not be revisited. In a 2:1 verdict, the court maintained that the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence, and the previous verdict has no relevance to it.
Updated Date: Sep 27, 2018 18:47 PM