Zafaryab Jilani, the lawyer for the Sunni Waqf Board, while addressing a press conference after the Supreme Court's verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, said that the Muslim board was not satisfied with the judgement and will soon decide on the further course of action.
"We will examine the SC judgment and then decide if we file a review petition," he said during the press conference, adding, "We appeal to public to maintain peace, the public must not think it as victory or defeat."
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court formed to resolve the Ayodhya dispute paved the way to build a temple through central government-monitored trust and ruled that Muslims must get alternate land to build a mosque.
The court has given the central government 3 months to formulate a scheme for the trust that will make necessary regulations for the management of the trust.
The court said that until the trust takes over it, the possession of the property shall continue to be with the receiver.
It added that suitable land of 5 acres should be handed over to the Sunni Waqf Board. The directions for allotment of land to Muslims are issued under Article 142.
The pronouncement of judgment, which lasted for more than 30 minutes, began with the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition by a group of Shias claiming their rights to the disputed site.
The SC also said the Nirmohi Akhara suit was barred due to limitation. “Claim of Nirmohi Akhara only had intermittent charge of management rights,” it said.
Further, the court said that while Lord Ram was a juridical person, Ram Ram Janmbhoomi was not.
The court noted that there is adequate material in the ASI report to conclude that Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. “The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure,” said the court citing the ASI report.
The court said that ASI has, however, not confirmed the existence of a temple. “ASI refrained from submitting if the underlying structure was demolished,” it said.
SC, however, said that archaeological findings can't be the only basis of the judicial process.
The court noted that evidence suggested that prior to 1856, there was no exclusion of Hindus from the inner sanctum. “Muslims have not shown evidence of curious possession of the mosque,” it said, noting that travellers provide a detailed account of Hindus' worships.It concluded that there was no evidence that access and possession of the land were exclusive to Muslims.