SC dismisses all 18 petitions seeking review of the historic Ayodhya verdict

The five-judge SC bench headed bu CJI SA Bobde has dismissed all petitions seeking review of Ayodhya verdict of November 9, which in a landmark decision handed over the entire disputed land to Ram Lalla, the deity, for a Ram temple to be built at the site.

The Supreme Court which today conducted an in-chamber hearing of a bunch of review petitions filed against the Ayodhya ruling rejected them after finding no merits.

A 5-judge bench, headed by the then CJI Gogoi, had in a unanimous verdict on November 9 decreed the entire 2.77 acres disputed land in favour of deity ‘Ram Lalla’ and also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque in Ayodhya.

Eighteen review petitions have so far been filed in the apex court against the November 9 decision, of which eight were filed by those who were parties in the Ayodhya land title dispute and rest by third parties who were not directly involved in the decade-old legal battle.

The review petitions have been filed by Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Mohammad Umar, Haji Mehboob, Misbahuddin, Haji Asad Ahmed, Shia Central Board of Waqfs and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha who were litigants in the title suit. Moreover, a group of 40 academicians and activists, including Irfan Habib, Jayati Ghosh, Nandini Sundar and Prabhat Patnaik, had also filed a petition to review the SC’ November 9 decision.

The petition, settled by senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Zafryab Jilani, said he did not wish to “disturb the peace of this great Nation”, but “any peace must be conducive to justice”.

The plea said, “Muslims have always maintained the peace but Muslims and their properties have been a victim of violence and unfairness treatment. This review is part of a quest for justice. The judgment under review erred in privileging peace over justice while not appreciating that there could be no peace without justice.”

On December 2, the first plea seeking review of Ayodhya verdict was filed in the apex court by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, the Uttar Pradesh president of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.

On December 6, six more petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking review of its November 9 judgement, which included one by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) which had chosen December 6 as the date to file the review petition as it was the anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition, sources said.

Then two more review petitions were filed on December 9, one by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and the other one by a group of intellectuals.

While the Hindu Mahasabha had decided to file a review petition against the judgement wherein the apex court also granted 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Masjid which was demolished in 1992, the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (JuH), a key Muslim litigant in the Ayodhya title suit had made several flip-flops before filing the review petition.

The petitioners, known for their consistent Left-leaning stance on diverse issues, agreed that there is no doubt about Ayodhya being the birth-place of Lord Rama, but said that there is no conclusive evidence of the existence of a temple at the site where Babri mosque was built.

Source : OpIndia

Related Tags

Hindu IssuesRam Janmabhoomisave temples

Notice : The source URLs cited in the news/article might be only valid on the date the news/article was published. Most of them may become invalid from a day to a few months later. When a URL fails to work, you may go to the top level of the sources website and search for the news/article.

Disclaimer : The news/article published are collected from various sources and responsibility of news/article lies solely on the source itself. Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) or its website is not in anyway connected nor it is responsible for the news/article content presented here. ​Opinions expressed in this article are the authors personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of HJS and HJS is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article. ​