This story is part of
Ayodhya verdict: All you need to know
SHOW MORE 32 STORIES

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

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

December 02, 2019 05:12 pm | Updated 09:17 pm IST - NEW DELHI

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

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.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.