The Supreme Court of India(SCI) on Thursday Dec 12,2019 dismissed a clutch of petitions seeking review of its Dec 9,2019 judgement in the Ayodhya case, which cleared the way for construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde, which took up the petitions for consideration in-chamber, said it did “not find any ground… to entertain” them
“Applications for listing of review petitions in open court are dismissed. The review petitions are dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of… We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers filed therewith. We do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same,” the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, said in its order.
The review petitions had been filed by -
- Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, who is the legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and the Uttar Pradesh president of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind
- 5 petitioners “supported” by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
- Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and
- Nirmohi Akhara among others
In his plea, Rashidi contended that the November 9 judgment amounted to “rewarding” the crimes committed by “Hindu parties”. He said “complete justice… can only be done by directing” the Centre and Uttar Pradesh to carry out “the reconstruction of Babri Masjid”
He said the SCI has “acknowledged few of the several illegalities committed by the Hindu parties, particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecrating the Babri Masjid), and 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid), but this Hon’ble Court has proceeded to condone the said illegal acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts”.
The review petitions “supported” by the AIMPLB also cited similar concerns, and said the judgement “condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass and violation of rule of law, including damaging the mosque and eventually destroying it”
The Hindu Mahasabha questioned the court’s decision to grant 5 acres to the Muslim side
There was also a petition by 40 “concerned citizens” who were not party to the original litigation, including economist Prabhat Patnaik, historian Irfan Habib and activist Harsh Mander. Dismissing the pleas of those who were not party to the case, the court said: “Applications for permission to file review petitions are dismissed. In view of the denial of permission to file review petitions, applications for listing of review petitions in open court as well as review petitions are rejected.”
No comments:
Post a Comment