Jamiat seeks review of the Ayodhya verdict of SC

NEW DELHI: The president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Uttar Pradesh, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, filed a petition on Monday to review the Supreme Court on November 9, which gave 1,500 square yards of disputed land for the construction of the Ram temple and five acres to be assigned to the Sunni Waqf Board in another part of Ayodhya.

The petition, filed through lawyer Ejaz Maqbool only six days before the expiration of the 30-day window available to request the revision of an SC ruling, did not express words to express the disappointment of Muslim parties with the verdict, which according to one side sustained the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 as a criminal act in violation of the orders of the apex court, but granted the same land to the Hindus for a Ram temple.

Rashidi said he was aware of the sensitive nature of the issue and understood the need to silence the issue in dispute to maintain peace and harmony in our country, however, it is claimed that there can be no peace without justice.

Requests for review are normally tried in the chamber by the same bank that issued the judgment and without the assistance of attorneys of the parties in dispute.

In the trial, the SC has recognized some of the various illegalities committed by the Hindu parties: damage to the domes of Babri Masjid in 1934, placement of idols surreptitiously inside the inner courtyard to desecrate the mosque on the night of December 22-23 . , 1949, and the demolition of the mosque in 1992. However, the SC proceeded to condone these very illegal acts and has awarded the site in dispute to the same party that based its claims on nothing more than a series of illegal acts, he said Rashidi in his Petition of 217 pages, including supporting documents.

The petitioner also questioned the balancing act performed by the SC, using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, to grant five acres of land in a prominent place in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board. Rashidi said this came as condoning the illegalities of Hindu parties for decades. He said that five acres to the Waqf Board did not declare (during the arguments) nor prayed for them (in appeals that contest Allahabad HC's verdict). Respondents in the review request include 'Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman in Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Ayodhya'. The Allahabad HC had in its judgment of September 30, 2010 divided the disputed land into three equal parts and handed one to Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board.

The SC, in its November 9 ruling, handed over all the disputed land to the temple of Ram Lalla, rejecting the claims of Nirmohi Akhara and Waqf Board. However, he assigned five acres in an alternative place to the board.

Rashidi did not seek the revision of the SC ruling on several points: the rejection of Nirmohi Akhara's claim as prohibited by limitation; Ram Janmasthan is not a legal entity; the deity is not a perpetual minor for the purpose of limitations; Vishnu Hari's inscriptions were not recovered from the disputed site; The Waqf Board lawsuit was not prohibited by limitation; the courts cannot correct historical errors; The inability of the ASI report to respond if a pre-existing structure was demolished to build Babri Masjid; the finding of the title cannot be based on archaeological evidence; The Law of Places of Worship (Special Provision), 1991, is intrinsically related to the obligation of a secular state and reflects the commitment to the equality of all religions.

comments