SC condoned illegal acts: Muslim parties plea on Ayodhya

Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi

New Delhi, Dec 2 :  The legal heir of original litigant M. Siddiq on Monday filed a review petition challenging the November 9 Supreme Court judgement in favour of Hindu parties in the Ayodhya title dispute.

The review plea said the apex court has erred on 14 key points while arriving at a judgment in favour of the Hindu parties. The Muslim parties also did not challenge the 14 findings of the top court judgement.

“By virtue of the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court has effectively granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place,” said the petition.

Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M. Siddiq, has filed the review plea on the Ayodhya verdict in apex court.

The petition contends the top court despite acknowledging several illegalities, committed by the Hindu parties, ruled against the Muslim parties.

“Particularly in 1934 (damaging the domes of the Babri Masjid), 1949(desecrating the Babri Masjid) and 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid), however, the top court has proceeded to condone those very illegal acts and has awarded the disputed site to the very party which based its claims on nothing but a series of illegal acts,” said the petition.

Therefore, the apex court has disregarded the legal principle by “lending its aid to a party which based its cause of action upon an illegal act”.

The petitioner said that he is conscious of the sensitive nature of the issue and understands the need to put a quietus to the issue in dispute so as to maintain peace and harmony in our country.

However, it is submitted that there can be no peace without justice.

“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,” said the petition seeking review of the judgement.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here