12 C
New Delhi
Saturday 25 January 2020

Ayodhya verdict: SC dismisses all 18 review petitions

The AIMPLB and other Muslim parties had filed petitions against the verdict, even as the main litigant Sunni Waqf Board stayed away, while the Nirmohi Akhara had asked for 'sahabiyat' rights and a place in the temple-building trust

The Supreme Court has dismissed all 18 review petitions filed in connection with the Ayodhya verdict. The apex court had on 9 November ruled that the disputed land would go to Ram Lalla Virajman in a historic verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. Several Muslim parties had moved a review petition in the Supreme Court against this order.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) filed a petition against the verdict, even as the main litigant Sunni Waqf Board stayed away, while the Nirmohi Akhara filed a review petition with some of its demands.

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Sanjeev Khanna unanimously rejected the review petitions. CJI Bobde, Justices DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer were also part the constitutional bench that pronounced the historic Ayodhya judgment.

Ayodhya verdict review plea by Nirmohi Arena

The Nirmohi Akhara had filed a petition not against the Ayodhya verdict but on the decision of sahabiyat rights (right to enter the sanctum sanctorum), possession and limitation. The Nirmohi Akhara in its petition had also asked for a role in the trust of Ram Mandir.

Petition of the Muslim side

The petition filed by the AIMPLB and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on behalf of the Muslim side. The first petition to reconsider the court’s decision was filed on 2 December by Maulana Syed Arshad Rashidi, the heir of M Siddique, one of the original litigants and the president of Uttar Pradesh Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind. In this petition, 14 points were requested to be reconsidered. His appeal was that ‘complete justice’ can be done in this case only by directing the reconstruction of Babri Masjid.

A review of the judgment was filed by Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Mohammad Omar, Maulana Mahfuzur Rahman and Misbahuddin. All of them were parties to the first lawsuit as well.

The Ayodhya verdict

In November, a five-member Constitution bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, in a unanimous decision, decreed 2.77 acres of disputed land in favour of Ram Lalla Virajman, the residing deity recognised as a perpetual minor by the Indian judiciary, thus requiring a guardian that will represent him in the court.

The rejection of the review petitions has paved the way to build Ram temple on the plot in Ayodhya. The court directed the Union government to allot 5 ac of land to the UP Sunni Waqf Board for construction of the mosque in Ayodhya.

Stay on top - Get daily news in your email inbox

Sirf Views

Pandits: 30 Years Since Being Ripped Apart

Pandits say, and rightly so, that their return to Kashmir cannot be pushed without ensuring a homeland for the Islam-ravaged community for conservation of their culture

Fear-Mongering In The Times Of CAA

No one lived in this country with so much fear before,” asserted a friend while dealing with India's newly amended citizenship...

CAA: Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste

So said Winston Churchill, a lesson for sure for Prime Miniter Narendra Modi who will use the opposition's calumny over CAA to his advantage

Archbishop Of Bangalore Spreading Canards About CAA

The letter of Archbishop Peter Machado to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, published in The Indian Express, is ridden with factual inaccuracies

Sabarimala: Why Even 7 Judges Weren’t Deemed Enough

For an answer, the reader will have to go through a history of cases similar to the Sabarimala dispute heard in the Supreme Court

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

For fearless journalism

%d bloggers like this: