'Ayodhya Verdict Based On Hindu Faith And Not Secular Grounds' : AIMPLB Backed Persons Seek Review [Read Petition]

Five persons supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Friday filed review petitions against the November 9 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid title dispute case.

The petitioners are Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Nahboob. 

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, along with Senior Advocate Zafaryab Jialni, have drawn the review petitions. Notably, Dhavan had said earlier this week that he had been 'sacked' from the Babri case by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, another party supporting the case. The President of the Jamiat,  Maulana Syed Asshad Rashidi, had filed the first review petition in the case last week. In a press release, the AIMPLB expressed "gratitude and thanks" to Dhavan.

Full View

The petitions filed through Advocates on Record M R Shamshad, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Ayubi state at the outset that the purpose of review was not to disturb the peace but is a quest for justice. As per the petition :

"In respect of this case Muslims has always maintained the peace but Muslims and their properties have been victim of violence and unfair treatment. This review is part of a quest for justice. The Judgment in Review erred in privileging peace over justice while not appreciating that there could be no peace without justice".

The petitions state that the SC judgment took advantage of the destruction of the mosque in 1992 by granting the entire 2.77 acres of land to the Hindu parties for construction of Ram Mandir. It is argued that the judgment condoned serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it.

It is further urged that title could not have been given to Hindu side on the basis of exclusive possession, as the exclusion of Muslims from the site was due to the acts of trespass committed by the Hindu parties in 1949, which was termed illegal by the Court itself.

Full View

"the judgment erred in accepting the juristic personality of the idol entitled it to the middle dome of the courtyard after holding that the idol was illegally and forcibly put there. An idol, as deity, cannot be simultaneously illegally placed and legally valid to claim the title", the petitions state.

The entire concept of restitution in the judgment is based on the unlawful destruction of the Muslim's place of worship.

"although the judgment claims that title had to be based on secular grounds and values (pr.204, 205, 788 (iv),) the emphasis on prayer and belief in the judgment shows that it was entirely based on Hindu faith and prayer, and condoned unpardonable illegalities in fact and law", the review petition state.

In the November 9 judgment, a 5 judges bench comprising the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer held that the Hindu parties had a better claim of possessory title over the land, and allowed the construction of a temple in the entire area of 2.77 acres, under the aegis of a trust created by the Central Government.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was an egergious act, and compensated the Muslim side by directing grant of 5 acres of alternate land for the UP Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of mosque. This was ordered by the Court to do "complete justice" invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Click here to download petition

Read Petition