The marathon 40-day hearing of the Babri Masjid title dispute has concluded on Wednesday in the Supreme Court. The Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its judgement.
Babri Masjid. (File Photo: IANS)
Iqbal Ansari, one of the main litigants in the Babri Masjid case, said that he would accept the Supreme Court decision in the Ram Janmabhomi-Babri Masjid title suit and would not file any petition challenging the verdict. He said that he is happy that the case was reaching to the its logical conclusion. Iqbal’s father Hashim Ansari was the oldest litigant in the Babri masjid case.
“For almost 70 years, Ayodhya has witnessed politics over the dispute and now I hope that the city will see some development too,” Iqbal said. He said that he had vowed to carry on the fight of his father and had fulfilled his promise.
Advertisement
“My father died in July 2016. He was 95 and he worked as a tailor and then opened a cycle repair shop. He was associated with the Babri title suit since 1949 and was among those arrested for breaching public harmony when the idols of Ram were planted in the mosque,” said Iqbal.
Advertisement
“It was his wish that I should continue to contest the case after him,” said Iqbal Ansari.
In 1952, Hashim Ansari was sentenced to two years in jail for giving azaan for namaz at the disputed site.
Later in 1961, Hashim Ansari and six others became the main plaintiff in the title suit filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board in the Faizabad civil court.
The marathon 40-day hearing of the Babri Masjid title dispute has concluded yesterday in the Supreme Court. The Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved its judgement after hearing the appeals filed by the Hindu and Muslim sides for the disputed 2.77 acre land in Ayodhya.
The high octane final day of hearing witnessed drama in the court room. Senior advocate, Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board tear up a document in the courtroom during the hearing, while the Chief Justice and the judges, threatened to walk out of the court room if the decorum was not restored.
Advertisement
