Ayodhya verdict has received another set of plea review on Wednesday when around forty eminent personalities from academics and rights activism filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s verdict. Few of the names include Prabhat Patnaik, Aakar Patel, Irfan Habib, Harsh Mander, Farah Naqvi, Nandini Sundar, Shabnam Hashmi, John Dayal, and Jayati Ghosh. The review petition has been filed through the senior advocate Prashant Bhushan.
Previously, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) filed four review petitions last Friday. Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi had also sought an interim stay on implementing the directives of the Supreme Court. Country’s apex court had directed the Union government to form a trust within three months for the construction of a Ram temple at the site.
Challenging the November 9 verdict, the petition says that the verdict could have on the “social fabric” of the country. On November 9, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi-led bench unanimously gave the whole of 2.7 acres land to the Ram Lalla and said that the government has to form a trust that will oversee the construction of a Ram temple at the site. It also allotted a separate land piece (twice the size of disputed land) to the Muslim party (Sunni Waqf Board).
In the review petition, the petitioners have also raised their concerns over the language in which judgment was delivered. It said that though the court wanted to settle it purely as a property suit between the parties, the very first paragraph of the judgment pertains to be the one between the two religious communities. The scholars have also pointed out the “different standards of proof” which have been applied in assessing the claims of the concerning parties, The petitioners have termed the constitutional bench’s verdict as “erroneous”.
According to The Wire, the petition says: “The court was legally mistaken for offering the control of the whole land to the government. While the Constitution of India does give the state the responsibility of ensuring equity, transparency, and justice in religious institutions, its secular character does not support the state to facilitate or construct religious places of worship. This is precisely the consequence of the Court’s order.” The petition also says that though the Muslim party had failed to prove their exclusive possession of the inner courtyard, how can the same clause is applicable to testify the case for ‘the Hindus’ who show that they believed that the Ram Janamsthan lay under the central dome of the mosque.