While hearing the review petitions over the landmark Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court, today, rejected all 18 petitions filed by parties from both the sides against its November 9 judgement.
These petitions, filed by All India Muslims Personal Law Board and the Nirmohi Akhara among others, were heard by a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde in-chamber.
At least 40 other petitions by civil rights activists were declined apex court on the ground of not being parties to the original case.
The Muslim petitioners argued that they are not against the peace but justice matters and peace should come along with justice.
One of the petitions had said the top court’s verdict in the case: “Condones serious illegalities of destruction, criminal trespass, and violation of rule of law including damaging the Mosque and eventually destroying it”.
The Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original petitioners, sought the clarification over its role. The apex court in its order had asked the centre to provide “adequate representation” for the Ayodhya based body in the trust that is to be formed to oversee the construction of a temple at the spot.
After the top court dismissed the review petition the petitioners are only left with the final legal resort available to them of filing a curative petition.
In a landmark judgement on November 9, a five-member bench, headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a unanimous verdict in over seven decade-long case that gave all 2.77 acres of disputed Ayodhya land to Ram Lalla (the infant Lord Ram).
The top court also directed the central government to provide the Sunni Waqf Board five acres of land, in a “suitable, prominent place in Ayodhya”, to build a mosque.
The judges had referred to a report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that confirmed a structure existed before the mosque but did not specify if it was a temple. In a 1,045-page order, the court admitted Muslims had been wrongly deprived of the mosque.
Nevertheless, the court said: “…on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.