Muslim League welcomes Ayodhya verdict, calls for self-restrainthttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/respect-supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-people-must-exercise-self-restraint-iuml-6111800/

Muslim League welcomes Ayodhya verdict, calls for self-restraint

"We respect the verdict of the Supreme Court. People must not engage in violence. They must exercise self-restraint," Panakkad Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal, state president of IUML told indianexpress.com.

Muslim League welcomes Ayodhya verdict, calls for self-restraint
(From L-R) IUML leaders Muhammad Basheer, PK Kunhalikutty and Panakkad Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal. (Source: Facebook, Wiki Commons)

Welcoming the Supreme Court’s judgment in the decades-old vexed Ayodhya case, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), the most significant Muslim political party in the country, dissuaded people from engaging in violence.

“We respect the verdict of the Supreme Court. People must not engage in violence. They must exercise self-restraint,” Panakkad Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal, state president of IUML, told indianexpress.com.

Follow Ayodhya verdict LIVE UPDATES

IUML leader and Lok Sabha MP from Malappuram PK Kunhalikutty informed that the party has scheduled a meeting on Monday morning to discuss the verdict. “We respect the SC ruling. The IUML will meet Monday morning where the Ayodhya verdict will be discussed,” he said.

In an unanimous verdict, a five judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi ruled that the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya will be handed over to a trust for the construction of the Ram temple. The apex court also directed the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government to allot a 5-acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board at a “suitable, prominent site” for building mosque.

Advertising

WATCH | Ayodhya Verdict: RSS welcomes judgment, Owaisi calls it ‘victory of belief over facts’

Muhammad Basheer, Lok Sabha MP from Ponnani, however, expressed his dissatisfaction with the verdict but said that the Supreme Court judgment is the law of the land.

“I’m not satisfied with the verdict. I don’t agree with the view that the judgment is balanced. But the Supreme Court judgment is the law of the land. What strategy needs to be taken post this verdict can be discussed later. The future course of action can be decided later. We can arrive at a conclusion after discussing with like-minded parties,” he told indianexpress.com.

EXPLAINED | Why Hindus won claim over both the outer and inner courtyard at disputed site

The top court’s ruling was on appeals against the 2010 Allahabad HC verdict, which had ruled that three parties—Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, and Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board— were in joint possession of the disputed land in the absence of a better title, and had directed a three-way partition.

“We have already concluded that the three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible,” the court had said in its 1,045-page verdict.