- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Ayodhya Order ‘Unjust’, Will Decide About Filing A Review Petition, Says Sunni Waqf Board Lawyer Zafaryab Jilani
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Terming the historic Babri Masjid at the disputed site in Ayodhya as “invaluable”, Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani stated that the construction of another mosque at another location, as ruled by the Supreme Court in its verdict, is “unacceptable”.“After the Supreme Court order, it looks like we will file a review petition. But a final decision will be...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Terming the historic Babri Masjid at the disputed site in Ayodhya as “invaluable”, Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani stated that the construction of another mosque at another location, as ruled by the Supreme Court in its verdict, is “unacceptable”.
“After the Supreme Court order, it looks like we will file a review petition. But a final decision will be taken only after consultation with our legal team,” Jilani stated.
“A mosque is invaluable. What is five acres? Even 500 acres is unacceptable,” Jilani said when asked about his reaction to the Supreme Court verdict which gave the disputed land in Ayodhya to the Hindus to construct a temple and five acres of alternate land to Muslims to construct a mosque.
“The Sharia does not allow us to give the mosque to anyone, not even as a gift,” Jilani stated, adding that the final decision about accepting the land will be taken by the Sunni Waqf Board.
Jilani maintained that the Sunni Waqf Board respected the Supreme Court, but disagreeing with the judgment is every citizen's right. “We respect the judgment but we are not satisfied. The judgment is not as per our expectations,” he said.
Rajiv Dhawan, the other lawyer who represented the Muslims or the Sunni Waqf Board, evaded a reply.