The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has filed the first review plea of the November 9 Ayodhya verdict in the Supreme Court.
The review petition argues that Article 142 (Inherent powers of Supreme Court) of the Constitution was erringly used by the apex court to override the factual existence of Babri Masjid at the disputed site and offer 5 acres of alternate land to the Muslim parties at a different location.
The petitioner has posed seventeen questions for consideration of the court in the review plea.
It says that the original suit was filed in a representative capacity for the entire Muslim Community and thus Maulana Syed Arshhad Rashidi, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind is entitled to seek review of the verdict which has “patent errors on the face” of the record.
It says the decree “virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place.”
While the review petition is under consideration of the court, the petitioner has also asked a stay on the transfer of land to the Board of Trustees which is supposed to be completed within 3 months from the date of the judgment.
The petitioner has also stated that although the November 9 verdict determined title of the disputed land and ordered alternate land for the construction of a mosque, “there can be no lasting peace without justice and accountability.”
It has been further submitted that while the apex court held the actions of the Hindus — of first desecrating the mosque, and several decades later, demolishing it – illegal, the grant of land to the Hindu parties, is as such ‘condoning’ of the illegality of their actions.
The unanimous verdict in the matter was given by the bench of former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, which the Sunni Waqf Board had decided not to contest but the AIMPLB put out a statement that the same was not the majoritarian view in the Muslim Community of India.
— India Legal Bureau