Friday, Aug 14, 2020 | Last Update : 07:02 AM IST

142nd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra54831338184318650 Tamil Nadu3145202563135278 Andhra Pradesh2641421709242378 Karnataka1964941126333511 Delhi1494601343184167 Uttar Pradesh140775887862280 West Bengal98459671202059 Telangana8647563074665 Bihar8274154139450 Gujarat71064542382652 Assam5883842326145 Rajasthan5249738235789 Odisha4592731785321 Haryana4163534781483 Madhya Pradesh3902529020996 Kerala3811424922127 Jammu and Kashmir2489717003472 Punjab2390315319586 Jharkhand185168998177 Chhatisgarh12148880996 Uttarakhand96326134125 Goa871259575 Tripura6161417641 Puducherry5382320187 Manipur3752204411 Himachal Pradesh3371218114 Nagaland30119738 Arunachal Pradesh223115923 Chandigarh1595100425 Meghalaya11154986 Sikkim9105101 Mizoram6203230
  India   All India  03 Dec 2019  Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea against Ayodhya verdict

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files review plea against Ayodhya verdict

Published : Dec 3, 2019, 3:20 am IST
Updated : Dec 3, 2019, 3:20 am IST

Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi is the president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in Lucknow.

Arshad Madani
 Arshad Madani

New Delhi: The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of its November 9 verdict giving the ownership of the disputed site at Ayodhya to the idol of Ram Lalla for the construction of a Ram temple, that it said not only amounted to condoning the illegal acts of the Hindu parties but also rewarding them.

Noting that he was conscious of the sensitive nature of the issue and that he understands the need to put an end to the dispute in order to maintain peace and harmony in India, petitioner Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi asserted there could be no lasting peace without justice or accountability.


Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi is the president of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in Lucknow.

Pointing to “errors” in the November 9 order, the plea for reconsideration says that by directing a temple to be built at the disputed site amounted to destruction of the Babri Masjid if it had not already been demolished on December 6, 1992.

The direction for a “temple to be built at the disputed land, which 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 Supreme Court in its verdict had noted three of the several illegalities committed by the Hindu parties, the review petition says 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”.

Monday was the 24th day since the judgment was pronounced on November 9. The plea for reconsideration of verdict can be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of the judgment.

The three illegalities pointed out by the petitioner seeking the recall of the November 9 order includes damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid in 1934, desecrating the Babri Masjid by placing the idols of Ram Lalla under the central dome in 1949 and the  demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.


The petition contended that instead of awarding the disputed site to the Muslim parties, it was given to the Hindu parties, knowing well that their claim over the disputed site was based on three acts of illegalities in 1934, 1949 and 1992.

It further says the court “erroneously” exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 directing the allotment of five acres of alternate land, which was neither pleaded for nor sought by any of the parties.

Saying the Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992 in brazen violation of multiple orders of the Supreme Court, the review petition has noted that even the court had in its November 9 order said the events of December 6, 1992 were an “egregious violation” of the rule of law.


In these circumstances, justice could have been done by directing the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government to reconstruct the Babri Masjid, but instead the court was in “grave error” by handing over the disputed site to the Hindu parties, “who had not approached the court with clean hands and indulged in repeatedly flouting the orders of this court”.

While Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi filed the petition on Monday, another plea by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board is likely to be filed in the coming days, before December 9.

Tags: jamiat ulama-i-hind, ayodhya verdict