Muslim body file review plea in Supreme Court on Ayodhya verdict

In a big breaking, Muslim bodies have filed a review petition in the Supreme Court on Monday on the Ayodhya verdict. The review petition has stated that the top court has erred in granting relief to the Muslim parties. However, the petition clarified that the petitioner is not filing the review petition on the whole judgement but parts of it. Listing the points, the petition said that the top court has erred in their judgement while deciding on the crimes in 1934, 1949, 1992. It went on to say that the top court has "wrongly applied Article 142'. It also stated that the top court's decision to not appreciate the Babri mosque as Waqf property is wrong. 

Republic TV has accessed the review petition and the parts on which the review is filed is given below:

Despite the above findings, it is submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on record and warrants a review under Article 137 of the Constitution of India. The following are apparent errors which warrant the Review of the impugned judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble Court reported in 2019 (15) SCALE 1: -

(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 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 an 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. 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 lis.

(xi) This Hon’ble Court erred in relying on travelers’ accounts and archaeological findings in order to decide issues of title, despite noting that travelers accounts were not conclusive and archaeological findings could not be the basis of deciding a title dispute. Further, despite noting that only the facts after the annexation of Oudh in 1856 were to be considered for adjudicating the present dispute, this Hon’ble Court proceeded to rely upon the facts prior to 1856.

(xii) This Hon’ble Court erred in equating wanton acts of destruction and trespass committed by the Hindu parties to acts of assertion of claim over the disputed site.

(xiii) This Hon’ble Court erred in not appreciating that the Babri mosque was a Waqf property.

(xiv) This Hon’ble Court erred in unevenly appreciating evidence and giving precedence to oral testimonies of the Hindu parties vis a vis the contemporary documentary evidence of the Muslim parties, which resulted in incorrect application of doctrine of preponderance of probabilities.

WATCH | Supreme, not infallible: Owaisi unhappy with SC's Ayodhya verdict

Supreme Court's Ayodhya verdict

Pronouncing the landmark judgment in the Ayodhya dispute case on November 9, the Supreme Court, delivered a unanimous judgment in the title suit of the disputed area awarding it to the Hindu parties for the construction of a temple. It also directed the Centre to come up with a scheme within three months to set up a trust which will hand over the outer courtyard and inner courtyard of the site for construction of a temple. Apart from this, the SC stated that an alternate land of 5 acres is to be allotted to Muslims for the liberty of constructing a mosque, either by the central govt or the State govt, in a suitable and prominent place in Ayodhya. CJI Ranjan Gogoi, while delivering the unanimous judgment, dismissed the claims of the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. He also termed that the three-way division of the disputed land by the Allahabad HC in its 2010 verdict is wrong.

WATCH | Ayodhya Verdict: AIMPLB unhappy over SC order, likely to appeal

READ: SC Ayodhya verdict: VHP calls controversy over setting up trust 'irrelevant'