New Delhi: The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking the reconsideration of its November 9 verdict giving ownership of the disputed site at Ayodhya for the construction of Lord Rama’s temple, saying it not only amounted to condoning the illegal acts of Hindu parties but it also awarded them.
Pointing out that he was conscious of the sensitive issue and understood the need to maintain peace and harmony in the country, petitioner Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi (president, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Lucknow) asserted that there could be no lasting peace without justice and accountability.
Pointing to the “errors” in the judgment, the plea for reconsideration says by directing a temple to be built amounted to the destruction of Babri Masjid if it had not been demolished on December 6, 1992.
The direction “virtually amounts to a mandamus to destroy, because had the Babri Masjid not been illegally demolished on December 6, 1992, the execution of the present order would have required the destruction of an existing mosque to make space for a proposed temple”, says the petition.
Though the top court in its verdict had noted three of the illegalities committed by the Hindu parties, the JUH’s review petition says that yet it proceeded to “not only condone the said illegal acts but to award the same by allotting the disputed site to the Hindu Parties.”
Today is the 24th day since the judgment by the five-judge Supreme Court bench and the plea seeking reconsideration was to be filed within 30 days. The three illegalities included damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid in 1934, the desecration of the Babri Masjid by placing the Ram Lalla idols under the central dome in 1949, and the demolition in 1992.
The petition contended that instead of awarding the disputed site to the Muslim parties, it was given to Hindu parties knowing well that their claim over the disputed site was based on three acts of illegalities committed in 1934, 1949 and 1992.
It further says that the top court “erroneously” exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 directing the allotment of five-acres of alternate land which was neither pleaded for nor prayed for by any party.
Contending that the Babri Masjid demolition was in brazen violation of multiple orders of the top court, the review petition pointed out that even the November 9 judgment had called the events of December 6, 1992, an “egregious violation” of the rule of law.
In such circumstances, complete justice could have been done by directing the central government and the Uttar Pradesh government to reconstruct the Babri Masjid.
Instead, the top court was in “grave error” in handing over the disputed site to Hindu parties “who had not approached the Court with clean hands and indulged in repeatedly flouting its orders.”
Though Maulana Rashidi today filed the petition, another by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is likely to be filed before December 9.
