6 seek review of Ayodhya verdict: Claim Nov 9 judgment condoned illegalities

New Delhi: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Friday said that the Ayodhya verdict, which stated that the entire disputed site must be handed over to a trust for the construction of Lord Rama’s temple, was a “failure rather than a fulfilment of complete justice” as the judgment was “contrary to law and self-contradictory”.

Pointing to a number of “illegalities and inaccuracies”, the petition seeking the review of November 9 verdict also claimed that the judgment was “violative of the complete justice that was invoked”.

Petitions seeking the reconsideration of Novem-ber 9 judgment were filed by Maulana Mahfoozurahman, Misdahuddin, Mohd. Umar, Ahadf, Hasbollah, Hazi Mahboob. All six petitioners are backed by the AIMPLB.

“The judgment is flawed in privileging peace over justice while not appreciating that there could be no peace without justice,” read the petitions seeking the reconsideration of Ayodhya verdict.

“By giving the title of the disputed site to the idol of Ram Lalla”, the petitions read, the Supreme Court judgment “appears to have rewarded the Hindu parties for all the illegalities committed by then throughout particularly in 1932, 1949 and 1992 including preventing Muslims from offering prayers at the mosque.”
At the outset, the petitioners backed by AIMPLB said that they were seeking the reconsideration of the verdict in their “quest for justice” and “not to disturb the peace” but in the “spirit” that any “peace must be conducive to justice.”

The petitioners have emphasised on peace in the wake of a statement by Muslim intelligentsia appealing against seeking the reconsideration of the verdict in the larger interest of peace and tranquillity.  

The AIMPLB-backed petitions would see senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Zafaryab Jilani arguing their case if they are heard in open court.
Normally review petitions are decided by judges in their chambers by circulation. However, in some cases, the petitions seeking reconsideration of a verdict are heard in the open court.  

The petitions, which were drafted by Mr Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Mr Uzmi Jameel Husain and Mr Daanish Ahmad Syed, were filed by Mr Shakil Ahmed Syed.

The review petition, largely on the lines filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind on December 2, says that the de facto effect of the verdict is to“destroy the mosque if it still existed” and giving antecedent title to the Hindus.

“The judgment thus takes advantage of the destruction of the mosque in effectively holding that had the mosque not been destroyed in l992, this judgment would have ordered it to be destroyed,” says the petition seeking the reconsideration of the November 9 verdict.