Ayodhya verdict: All you need to know

Four fresh review pleas filed in Ayodhya case

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File   | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

Petitions were filed by Maulana Mahfuzurahman, Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Misbahuddin and Haji Mahboob.

‘The Supreme Court would have ordered the destruction of the 16th century Babri Masjid had it still been standing.’

‘The court took advantage of the destruction of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks on December 6, 1992 and permitted a temple on the very land where the centuries-old structure once stood before it was razed down.'

These are the contentions raised in the review petitions filed in the Supreme Court on Friday by Muslim parties against the Ayodhya judgment.

Friday marks the 27th anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition.

“The de jure, indeed de facto, effect of the direction in the judgment is to destroy the mosque if it still existed. Giving antecedent title to the Hindus, means that the site belonged to them in l992. The judgment, thus takes advantage of the destruction of the mosque in effectively holding that had the mosque not been destroyed in l992, this judgment would have ordered it to be destroyed,” Maulana Mahfuzurahman, represented by advocate Shakil A. Syed, said in his review plea.

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 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.”

Similar petitions were filed by Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Misbahuddin and Haji Mahboob in the course of the day. They are represented by advocates M.R. Shamshad, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Aiyyubi. They were parties in the Ayodhya land dispute appeals.

These petitioners are backed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The first review petition was filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.

The review petitions argued that Hindus could not have been given ownership of the land on the ground that they had exclusive possession of the entire site.

The petition said that it was admitted that Muslims entered and prayed at the site till December, 1949. They were later prevented because of the attachment (of the land). Hindu worship at the site was unfairly permitted though it had followed criminal trespass into the mosque and installation of idols.

The petitions asked how the court could accept the illegal installation of the idols and, at the same time, conclude that the idols had a valid claim to title on the land as a juristic personality. Besides, the title for the idol and area (swambhu) was claimed in law for the first time only in 1989.

“The judgment under review condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law, including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it,” the review petitioners argued.

They said the property was a waqf in the possession of Muslims “at all times”. Hindus had only prescriptive rights to prayer. “Since it is undisputed that Muslims were praying at the site till December 16, 1949, and entered the mosque through the outer courtyard, it proves that Hindus were never in exclusive possession.” 

The pleas said the judgment concluded that Hindus have the title despite accepting that Muslims did not abandon the mosque and that Muslims were illegally dispossessed.

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Related Topics
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Feb 19, 2020 10:28:14 AM | https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ayodhya-verdict-four-pleas-filed-in-supreme-court-seeking-review/article30212568.ece

In This Package
Ayodhya verdict: 40 prominent persons file joint review plea
You are reading
Four fresh review pleas filed in Ayodhya case
Sacked from Ayodhya case, says Muslim parties’ lawyer
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea in Ayodhya case
Ayodhya verdict: Muslim Personal Law Board to file review petition
U.P. Sunni Waqf Board not to file review plea in Ayodhya case
Krishna temple (left) and Shahi Idgah (right) exist side by side. Security camps were added following the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.
What does the Places of Worship Act protect?
Ayodhya land exempted in Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act: Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya
Ayodhya verdict | Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Ruins don’t always indicate demolition, observes Supreme Court
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court not to entertain claims against actions of Mughals
Ayodhya verdict | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, rules Supreme Court
Supreme Court's judgment in Ayodhya case: reactions
Ayodhya: How a religious issue became a political hot potato
Ayodhya verdict | Supreme Court agrees Muslims were wronged but allows Ram temple
Ayodhya verdict quashes claim of ‘land as a legal entity’
Ayodhya verdict | Addendum quotes Tulsidas, Ain-i-Akbari for birthplace proof
People react after Supreme Court's historic verdict on the Ayodhya land case, in Jaipur, on November 9, 2019.
Ayodhya verdict | Sunni Waqf Board not to seek review of judgment
Time to celebrate: Residents lit firecrackers in Ayodhya on Saturday after the Supreme Coourt delivered the verdict.
Ayodhya split on predictable lines
Ayodhya verdict | Vindicated by unanimous verdict, says L. K. Advani
Ayodhya verdict | Unimpeded right in outer courtyard wins whole site for Hindus
Ayodhya verdict | Constitution can resolve knotty issues, says Modi
When did the dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi start, and why did it take so long for a resolution?
Highlights of the Ayodhya verdict
Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute: The story so far
Ayodhya title dispute: A quick recap of the final hearings
Ayodhya verdict: decoding Allahabad HC's nine-year-old majority judgment under challenge in SC
Ayodhya verdict: as it happened | Temple at disputed site, alternative land for mosque, says Supreme Court
File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya, for a possible temple at the disputed site.
A chronology of the Ayodhya dispute
What are the Ayodhya appeals all about?
Chronology of Ayodhya case
Timeline: Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute
Next Story