NEW DELHI — Six petitions seeking review of the November 9 judgement in the Ayodhya title case were filed in Supreme Court on Friday. The apex court in its verdict handed the site, where Babri Masjid once stood, to the Hindu parties for construction of the Ram temple.
The petitions, filed by Mufti Hasbullah, Maulana Mahfoozur Rehman, Misbahuddin, Mohammad Umar and Haji Nahboob, were overseen by senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Zafaryab Jilani — all supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).
These five review petitions, which are settled by senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Zafaryab Jilani, have been filed through advocate M R Shamshad.
The sixth one review petition has been filed by Mohammad Ayub, reports PTI.
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”.
On November 9, a 5-judge bench, headed by the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had in a unanimous verdict decreed the entire 2.77 acre 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 review petition pointed out that, “the idols were in the outer courtyard after 1857 and never in the inner courtyard except by criminal trespass on December 22-23, 1949.
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 temple.. .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.
The first review petition was filed on December 2 by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and Uttar Pradesh President of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.
Rashidi stated in his review plea that “complete justice” could only be done by ordering reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.
The plea sought direction for the reconstruction of Babri Masjid. Rashidi has sought review of the verdict on 14 counts.