Ayodhya verdict: All you need to know

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea in Ayodhya case

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea in Ayodhya case Photo: Facebook/@JAMIATULAMA.I.HIND.IN

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea in Ayodhya case Photo: Facebook/@JAMIATULAMA.I.HIND.IN  

There cannot be peace without justice, says Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind

Hardly a month after the Supreme Court permitted the construction of a temple in the disputed Ayodhya land, Muslim parties on Monday filed a petition seeking a review of the November 9 judgment.

Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, said he was conscious of the need to maintain peace and harmony, but there cannot be peace without justice.

With its judgment, Mr. Rashidi said, the court had effectively righted the illegal acts of Hindus. In fact, the court seems to have granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and allowed the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed land.

The petition said that through its judgment, the court seems to have acknowledged “few of the several illegalities committed by the Hindu parties, particularly in 1934 [damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid], 1949 [desecrating the masjid] and 1992 [demolition of the masjid]”. The court hads erred in “rewarding” these crimes.

The plea stated that the court had even gone on to “condone those very illegal acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts”. It had equated wanton acts of destruction and trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of assertion of claim over the disputed site, it said.

With its judgment, the court had violated the settled legal principle that it cannot shelter parties who based their claim on an illegal act. “Further, this Court has, in an attempt to balance the reliefs between the parties, while condoning illegalities of the Hindu parties, has allotted alternate land admeasuring five acres to the Muslim parties, which was neither pleaded nor prayed for,” the 217-page review plea contended.

The court wrongly applied its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, which in this case, was the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.

“The court committed an error apparent by elevating a mere look at the central dome by the Hindu parties to a claim of possessory title... The court did not appreciate that the structure in question had always been a mosque and had been in exclusive possession of the Muslims,” the petition said.

The court wrongly relied on travellers’ accounts and archaeological findings to decide issues of title, that too, despite noting that the travellers’ accounts were not conclusive and archaeological findings could not be the basis of deciding a title dispute, it said.

The court did not appreciate that the Babri mosque was a waqf property. “The Court erred in unevenly appreciating evidence and giving precedence to oral testimonies of the Hindu parties vis a vis the contemporary documentary evidence of the Muslim parties, which resulted in incorrect application of doctrine of preponderance of probabilities,” it stated.

A letter from the Editor


Dear reader,

We have been keeping you up-to-date with information on the developments in India and the world that have a bearing on our health and wellbeing, our lives and livelihoods, during these difficult times. To enable wide dissemination of news that is in public interest, we have increased the number of articles that can be read free, and extended free trial periods. However, we have a request for those who can afford to subscribe: please do. As we fight disinformation and misinformation, and keep apace with the happenings, we need to commit greater resources to news gathering operations. We promise to deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda.

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

Printable version | Jun 4, 2020 5:03:48 AM | https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jamiat-ulama-i-hind-files-review-plea-in-ayodhya-case/article30138573.ece

In This Package
Ayodhya verdict: 40 prominent persons file joint review plea
Four fresh review pleas filed in Ayodhya case
Sacked from Ayodhya case, says Muslim parties’ lawyer
You are reading
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