40 citizens seek full bench to review Ayodhya verdict

Forty eminent citizens on Monday approached the Supreme Court for setting up a full bench to reconsider the November 9 judgement in the Ayodhya case, saying it was not just a title dispute but a contestation about the core of India's constitutional morality and the principles of equal citizenship, secularism, justice, rule of law and fraternity.

Though not a party to the dispute, the citizens including Prabhat Patnaik, Irfan Habib, Harsh Mander, Jyati Ghosh, Nandini Sundar, Shabnam Hashmi and Akar Patel said they were aggrieved by the judgement, containing inherent contradictions and legally deficient and manifestly unjust reasonings.

They said that the judgement has violated the secular principles of the Constitution since it sought to uphold, by choosing to give exclusive ownership of the disputed land to the Hindu parties, for building of the Ram temple, while rewarding the Muslim parties with a poor compensation of a plot of land of five acre elsewhere.

“There is an inherent contradiction in the judgment inasmuch as it recognizes the act of the destruction of Babri Masjid as illegal and yet, legitimizes the collective motive of the mob by directing the construction of the temple in its place,” their 41-page petition filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan said.

The orders passed were “morally abhorrent and constitutionally invalid” and would not have been possible if the Babri Masjid was still standing today. The judgment is therefore unsustainable in light of various illegal acts committed by different militant Hindutva outfits to dispossess the Muslims of their place of worship, it added.

“This case has a critical bearing and profound implication across generations for the upholding of many fundamental rights, including equality, life, and freedom of worship, and therefore they believe that every citizen of India has the right, and indeed the duty, to intervene in order to seek steps to defend and uphold their constitutional rights, to preserve the secular and democratic character of the Indian republic,” they said.

They claimed the top court has erred by placing higher value on the “faith” of the Hindus while dismissing the practice of “faith” by the Muslims.