Ayodhya case: Muslim side files review petition in SC
Muslim side on Monday filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the November 9 judgement in the Ayodhya dispute which gave the title of the land to Ram Lalla for the building of a Ram temple and awarded separate 5-acre land for them to construct the mosque which was razed down in 1992.
President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Uttar Pradesh and legal heir of plaintiff M Siddiq, Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi sought a reconsideration of the five-judge Constitution bench decision, saying the judgement 'virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place'.
The review petition filed by advocate Ejaz Maqbool contended that the apex court acknowledged several illegalities committed by the Hindu parties, particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949 (desecration of the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid).
However, the court has proceeded to condone those very illegal acts and awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts.
Maintaining that there can be no peace without justice, the Muslim side contended the top court ought to have appreciated that the present suits were filed in a representative capacity and that the parties were to be held responsible for the illegal acts of desecration and demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1934, 1949 and 1992 respectively.
'The judgment by holding that the events of December 6, 1992, were an egregious violation of the rule of law. In such circumstances, complete justice under Article 142 and restitution of the illegality, can only be done by directing the Central Government as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh for the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid,' it said.
'The court grossly erred in ignoring the settled principle of law i.e. ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no right of action can have its origin in fraud). The acts of the Hindu parties amounted to a fraud on the Constitution. In such circumstances, no right whatsoever could have been claimed or sustained on the basis of such acts.' it added.
The Muslims side further said the court has permitted the Hindu parties to take benefit of their illegal actions which was also prohibited by settled rule of nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (no man can take advantage of his own wrong).