Live
- Guv inaugurates 19th edition of Qadir Ali Baig Theatre Festival
- SCSC, Grace Cancer Foundation launch cancer screening for Cyberabad police
- JSP demands inquiry into irregularities in tourism department
- Female Aghori’s self-immolation bid causes uproar in Srikalahasti
- Student outfits urge immediate release of Group-IV exam results
- MNREGS works worth Rs 80 cr taken up: Collector O Anand
- Mega job fair for unemployed youth tomorrow
- Tirupati Co-op bank auctions immovable properties
- CM lays stones for two sub stations in Tirupati district
- Chief Minister Revanth Reddy Starts Musi River Revitalization Yatra
Five more Ayodhya case verdict review petitions filed in SC
Five petitions, supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), were filed in Supreme Court
New Delhi: Five petitions, supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), was filed in Supreme Court on Friday seeking review of the November 9 judgement in the Ayodhya title dispute, handing the site to the Hindu parties for construction of the Ram temple.
The petitions, filed by Mufti Hasbullah, Moulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Mahboob, were overseen by senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Zafaryab Jilani.
The AIMPLB, in a statement, said it shall support the filing of the review of the judgement, and the senior counsel have settled the draft considering the nature of the case.
Jilani told media persons that "if review petitions were to be heard in open court, then Dhavan will present the case (supported by AIMPLB) before the court".
A 5-judge bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had in a unanimous verdict decreed the entire 2.77 acres disputed land in favour of deity "Ram Lalla". The top court also directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to UP Central Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque in Ayodhya.
"The idols were in the outer courtyard after 1857 and never in the inner courtyard except by criminal trespass on December 22-23, 1949, said the review petition. Jilani said that the court acknowledged that idols were illegally placed in the inner courtyard, and still ruled against the Muslim parties.
"Accepting that the railing put up by British for the purpose of defining title, it is incongruous and wholly incorrect to assume that Hindus, who stood at the railing looking at empty space in the middle dome of the inner courtyard (where there was no idol) with their backs to the idols in the outer courtyard, could claim possession or title..", said the review petition.
The review petition also highlighted the limitation of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report in the case. "The ASI concluded that it could not be established that a mosque was built after destroying a templea.. .no conclusion can be reached on the balance of probabilities that the Muslims did not pray between 1528-1856 since the site was always under Mughal and later, the Nawabs rule," said the petition.
On December 2, the first review petition was filed by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and Uttar Pradesh President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, saying that without justice there is no peace, and the apex court, through its verdict, condoned the illegal act. The plea sought direction for the reconstruction of Babri Masjid. Rashidi has sought review of the verdict on 14 counts.
