Fresh pleas filed in SC seeking Ayodhya verdict review

Four who were party to the previous litigation filed four separate petitions on the November 9 verdict on Ayodhya

Fresh petitions backed by All India Muslim Personal Law Board were on Friday filed in the Supreme Court seeking review of the November 9 judgement, claiming “grave injustice” in deciding the Ayodhya dispute case against them.

The petitions settled by senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Zafaryab Jilani sought reconsideration of the judgement that decided the title in favour of 'Ram Lalla' for building a temple and awarded separate five-acre land to Muslims led by Sunni Waqf Board to construct Babri Masjid elsewhere in Ayodhya.

Review petitions were filed by Maulana Mufti Hasbullah, Mohd Umar, Maulana Mahfoozur Rehman and Mishbahuddin, and Haji Nahboob who are all supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). These petitions were filed by their counsel M R Shamshad, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Irshad Ahmad and Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi. UP's Peace Party chief Mohd Ayub also filed a separate petition.

Maintaining that there can be no peace without justice, President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Uttar Pradesh and legal heir of plaintiff M Siddiq, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi was the first one to file the review petition on December 2. He had sought a reconsideration of the five-judge Constitution bench decision and asked the court to allow the Muslim side to rebuild the Babri Masjid on the site.

Notably, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board had decided against filing the review petition in the matter.

Hasbullah, in his petition, maintained that the title could not have been given to Hindu parties on the basis of exclusive possession of entire site which never existed at any point in time since it was admitted that Muslims prayed at the site till December 1949. They were later prevented because of the attachment and unfair permission to Hindu worship following criminal trespass.

Among other grounds, their plea contended the November 9 verdict "condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it".

They further contended the judgment erred in allotting alternate land of 5 acres to the Sunni Waqf Board under Article 142 of the Constitution without any pleading for it.