PM pats Sunni Wakf Board for distancing itself from Sibal's argument

 

Sibal had pleaded in the Supreme Court as the court assembled to hear the appeals challenging the 2010 verdict of Allahabad High Court in the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid case urging the court to defer the hearing till July 2019 so that the general elections due in that year could be completed.

This appeal of Kapil Sibal who is also a senior Congress leader attracted criticism compelling the Congress party to distance itself from his views. Similarly, the Sunni Wakf Board, also dissociated itself from Sibal’s statement.

“Yes, Kapil SIbal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party. His statement in the Supreme Court yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest”, said Haji Mehboob, petitioner in the case.

For this bold stand the Sunni Wakf Board received a pat form none other than the Prime Minister himself. Narendra Modi congratulated the Board for distancing itself from its lawyer Kapil Sibal’s argument on postponing the hearing in the Ayodhya lawsuit over the title till July 2019.

“The Sunni Waqf Board must be congratulated for their brave stand on the matter and disassociating themselves from the statement of Kapil Sibal ji,” the PM was quoted as saying by ANI.

Haji Mehboob, petitioner in this case clarified his stand on the issue and said that the Board has nothing to do with Sibal’s argument even though he represented the Board in this matter.

ANI quoted him as saying that ‘we have got nothing to do with his statement as we are not connected to any political party or do politics. Every Hindu and Muslim of the country wants a solution to this issue at the earliest’.

“Yes Kapil Sibal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party, his statement in SC yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest,” he added.

As the hearing began in the court on Tuesday, the lawyers of the SunniWakf Board including senior lawyer Kapil Sibal raised questions on the ‘hurry’ in hearing the matter now and demanded that the case be referred to a Constitution Bench and hearing be deferred till July 2019.

The Supreme Court, however, refused the argument and adjourned the hearing till February 8, 2018.