 will file a review petition on the Ayodhya verdict that was delivered by a Constitution Bench on November 9, headed by the then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi.){kind=link}
On the 27th Anniversary of the Babri Masjid Demolition on Friday, December 6, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) will file a review petition on the Ayodhya verdict that was delivered by a Constitution Bench on November 9, headed by the then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
AIMPLB counsel Zafaryab Jilani gave a statement that it was the collective resolution of the Board as the verdict did not do justice to the Muslim parties. He had also said that Islamic Jurisprudence does not accept land in lieu of a disputed mosque property. Despite the verdict, Jilani has maintained that the land legitimately belonged to Muslims and any compensation in lieu of it was unacceptable.
Earlier this week, AIMPLB had said they are hoping that senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan would continue representing them, after news broke out that the Advocate on Record of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Ejaz Maqbool, had ‘sacked’ the lawyer in their review petition, which became the first to be filed on the Nov 9 verdict.
Md Wali Rahmani, general secretary of AIMPLB, issued a statement, “A team of senior advocates and advocates on record is busy in drafting the review petition, which will be then settled by advocate Rajeev Dhawan.”
The Muslim community stood divided over whether to file a review petition or bury the hatchet by accepting the 5-acre land that apex court ordered to be given to the Muslim parties in lieu of the disputed 2.77 acres disputed land at Ayodhya. The Sunni Waqf Board, the forerunner in the 40 days marathon hearing of the case, said it will not file a review petition.
Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi, the Chairman of the National Minority Commission had advised against a review petition as that would harm the Hindu-Muslim Unity in a way that a review might bring a stay on the construction of the Ram temple, which would impact the social harmony between the two communities in general.
Voices from different corners of the justice fraternity have opined that the conclusions of the judgment are not matched by its reasons, rather they are mutually destructive.
— India Legal Bureau