Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind files review petition in SC against Ayodhya verdict

Maulana Madani, president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, had earlier told ANI in Saharanpur, the "apex court`s verdict is beyond the understanding of many people" adding "the purpose of filing the review petition is not because it is a matter of respect, but a religious issue."

Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Monday (December 2) filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the recently pronounced Ayodhya verdict. The plea was filed by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, who is the legal heir of original Ayodhya land dispute litigant M Siddiq. 

Maulana Arshad Madani, president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, had earlier told ANI in Saharanpur, the "apex court`s verdict is beyond the understanding of many people" adding "the purpose of filing the review petition is not because it is a matter of respect, but a religious issue."

"Our lawyers, including Rajiv Dhawan, have almost drafted the petition and will be filing it within two-four days. The mosque was not built on a temple. Our religion is our duty and we will make all efforts to save it. We will respect the decision which the court will give," he said.

Earlier, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said that those planning to file a review petition against the Supreme Court`s Ayodhya verdict should think over it as both parties have accepted the judgment. 

"It is the right of Muslim bodies to file a review petition. They have an opportunity. But this matter has been resolved now, so I would request all to think over it (decision to file a review petition). Both parties have accepted the judgment," he told media in Kolkata.

On November 14, the working committee of the Jamiat had constituted a five-member panel comprising of legal experts and religious scholars to examine every aspect of the Supreme Court verdict of November 9. 

In a 217-page petition, the Maulana Syed Arshad Madani submitted the following points for review of the verdict.

(i) This Hon’ble Court erred in granting a relief which virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid.
(ii) This Hon’ble Court erred in rewarding the crimes committed in 1934, 1949 and 1992, by giving the title to the Hindu parties, when it had already ruled that the said acts were illegal.
(iii) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the basic principle that no person can derive benefit out of illegality while granting title to the Hindu parties.
(iv) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the settled principle of law that a tainted cause of action cannot be sustained or decreed in a civil suit.
(v) This Hon’ble Court erred in wrongly applying Article 142 of the Constitution as doing complete justice or restituting the illegality could only be done by directing the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.
(vi) This Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by elevating a mere look at the central dome by the Hindu parties to a claim of possessory title.
(vii) This Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent by not appreciating that the structure in question had always been a mosque and had been in exclusive possession of the Muslims.

(viii) This Hon’ble Court erred in disregarding the rule of presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1860 on the question of namaaz in the Babri Masjid between 1528-1856.
(ix) This Hon’ble Court committed grave error by elevating the mere prescriptive rights of the Hindu parties, which were settled as far back as in 1886, to those of possessory title.
(x) This Hon’ble Court erred in entertaining Suit No. 5 of 1989, which was based on mere ‘impatience’, which can never be a valid cause of action for any list.

Last month, a five-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously said the entire disputed land spread over 2.7 acres will be handed over to a trust formed by the government, which will monitor the construction of a Ram temple at the site. The Supre Court had also added that an alternative five acres of land at a prominent location in Ayodhya should be allotted for the construction of a mosque following consultation between the Centre and the state government.