scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeIndia48 academicians and activists will move Supreme Court against Ayodhya verdict

48 academicians and activists will move Supreme Court against Ayodhya verdict

The petitioners include economist Prabhat Patnaik, historian Irfan Habib, author Farah Naqvi, sociologist Nandini Sundar and activist Shabnam Hashmi.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: At least 48 academicians and activists will file a review petition in the Supreme Court next week against its verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi case, with economist Prabhat Patnaik as the lead petitioner.

Activist and former IAS officer Harsh Mander, one of the petitioners, told ThePrint that the petition will be filed before 9 December. The petitioners have demanded that their plea be heard by a full bench of the top court.

In a unanimous verdict delivered by a five-member Constitution bench last month, the plot at the centre of the dispute — where the Babri masjid was demolished in 1992 — was set aside for the construction of a Ram temple. The Muslim petitioners were promised another five-acre plot within Ayodhya.

Some of the other prominent names behind the fresh petition are historian Irfan Habib, author Farah Naqvi, sociologist Nandini Sundar, activist Shabnam Hashmi, poet and scientist Gauhar Raza, author Natasha Badhwar, activist Aakar Patel, economist Jayati Ghosh, historian Tanika Sarkar, and retired diplomat and former Aam Aadmi Party member Madhu Bhaduri.

The summary of the petition, which has been accessed with ThePrint, says the verdict treated the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case as a dispute between the Hindus and Muslims in India.

It further adds that the case was between “self-styled organisations which claim to represent the sentiments and interests of Hindus and Muslims, but have no explicit mandate to do so, nor empirical evidence that they enjoy wide support of people of these faiths”.

The verdict also substitutes the names of the litigating individuals and organisations as “Hindus” or “Muslims”, argues the petition.

“The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a militant Hindutva outfit and close affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, does not represent Hindus at large, any more than the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf represents India’s Muslims [sic],” it says.

“…The Supreme Court has itself expanded the scope of the case from a Title Suit for ownership and possession of property to a debate about the faith of Hindus and Muslims… but it has never heard Hindus and Muslims beyond the petitioners in the case; by doing so it has given every Indian the right to seek relief of the court on the issue of the title suit,” it adds.


Also read: Hindu Mahasabha will challenge Supreme Court grant of 5 acres to Muslims in Ayodhya


‘Differential standards of proof’ 

The petition goes on to argue that the Supreme Court had “erroneously used differential standards of proof for both parties”.

“It held that ‘the Muslims’ had failed to prove that they had exclusive possession of the inner courtyard, however it was enough in the case for ‘the Hindus’ to show that they believed that the Ram Janamsthan lay under the central dome of the mosque,” the petition says.

The Ayodhya case, it adds, is a dispute about what kind of country India is and will be in the future, to whom it belongs, and on “what terms must people of different identities and beliefs live together in this vast and teeming land”.


Also read: CJI Bobde says SC verdict not final word on allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

24 COMMENTS

  1. “Rama is not a God; but he is a fantasy hero” Rajagopalachari, First Governor-General of India and a great Brahmin leader.

  2. I am at a loss in my efforts to understand the intelligent arguments of the 48 intellectual academics and activists. There is self-contradiction in claiming that other groups who entered the fray in the litigation over the Babri musjid in the last 100 or more years are not representing the entire polymorphous integrated population of India and they did not obtain the mandate by inviting universal suffrage or a referendum of the entire population of India to represent them in this litigation. It is an unrealistic and impractical expectation. There were various petitioners over the last 100 plus years and various different contending parties who can be for the sake of convenience referred to by a summary identification with a label “Hindus” and “Muslims” using common sense. In all legal documents abbreviations to identify groups are a common practice and usually the preamble to the documents specify such meanings of the words. In common usage of the language, if organizations like Muslim League of India or Hindu Mahasabha, etc. use the words Muslim and Hindu, any average politically savvy educated citizen understands clearly that such organizations do not represent all Muslims nor all Hindus but garner their strength from their limited number of dues-paying members or other financial resources to finance litigation they enter into to spearhead their activism in the
    cause of justice as viewed by them. Now the 64 dollar question is, using the same argument, how does this group of 48 petitioners represent the entire population of “New India” that is fully integrated, and how do they claim that they are superior in their vision of India and its population about how the people should live with one another. Implicit here is that they are superior to the Supreme Court of India. They need to prove that they have a mandate of the majority of all India population to move this petition for review using their own argument.

    The second point, the verdict of the Supreme Court takes into account all the previous court actions over 100 years or more and verdicts and analyzes them in detail. If these 48 intellectuals and the activists had an opinion and a say is there any reason they could not enter the fray earlier in the game stating that they represented the larger integrated population of “New India”?

    The third point, the constitutional committee of the Supreme Court is the highest authority on the Constitution of India and its verdict whether it is a conjoint view of 5, or 9, Supreme Court judges to be considered acceptable by the nation who respects these Supreme Court Justices or not. Why have the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Committee of Supreme Court Justices if they are not the ultimate authority? There is no common sense understanding in this new litigating group that the buck stops there. In a democracy, citizens do have the freedom to express all views and seek justice when there is an injustice.

    From that point of view, these academicians and intellectuals or activists can exercise their right to stir the pot but these are some of the self-same activists and academicians who have been stirring the pot for the last 27 years. They are doing this without ever going through corridors of the temples of justice when they had all the opportunities to do so for 27 years. It only shows a deep distrust or mistrust in the authority of the Supreme Court and refusal to accept the basics of democracy and its tenets and institutions. That fits their description as the leftists or communists who do not truly believe in democracy and will do anything to disrupt the democratic process as they have done in many countries under the name of liberalism or claiming themselves to be illuminated intellectuals.

    • So the Supreme Court of India gives verdict in favour of Hindus, under an anti-Muslim ultra Hindu-extremist party, whose all supporters, voters, followers and prominent Hindu extremist politicians (Modi – Amit – Pragya Thakur – Yogi — who have bloody history of oppressing the Muslims) hate Muslims?

      You have democratically elected a religious fanatic party whose main election slogan was to make the Ram Temple at the disputed territory, from where a historical Mosque was demolished by radical Hindus, mostly belonging to this ruling Hindu extremist party, and slaughtered thousands of Muslims. Yet, you are shamelessly talking about who represents Muslims or Hindus.

      So radicals, extremists, nationalists, religious fanatics are now the champions of democracy, not liberals who gave the democracy..

    • Hindu-extremists are facing the heat. Who have democratically elected a fascist anti-Muslim Hindu-extremist party on the basis of prejudice and discrimination towards the Muslim community.

      These bigot Hindus who are reeking of hatred for the Muslim minority while shamelessly calling themselves as democracy, tolerant secular state, expect from others to accept a lousy Hindu majority appeasing verdict by a court, under the ruling of a radical Hindu fanatic government (which has got acquitted and bailed out all criminals from Hindu background, who have had cases against them for the crimes they had committed against the Muslim minority – for example Pragya Thakur, an accused Hindu terrorist nun who was involved in the two terrorist bomb blasts that killed 100 Indian Muslims in 2006-2008).

      World’s only sheethole where the majority Hindus get the perks while fooling the whole world about its fake secular & democracy credentials. Had this happened with the Hindu minority in a non-secular Muslim state like Pakistan, under Hafiz Saeed as Prime Minister, these Hindu bigots would have shouted by saying ‘what can you expect from a mullah, jihadi, Muslim, Sharia, ruled terrorist country’.

      But these shameless Hindu-extremists expect from non-Hindus to ignore that radical Hindu fanatic BJP (a political wing of Hindu terrorist RSS) is not a radical Hindu party of purely anti-Muslim Hindu fanatics. And that, Modi was not involved in the massacre of the 50,000 Muslims of Gujarat, and Amit did not kill Muslims in extrajudicial killings, and Hindu terrorist Pragya Thakur didn’t kill 100 Muslims, Hindus do not lynch Muslims for cows under a radical Hindu party, and that millions of Kashmiri Muslims are not locked up by a Hindu-extremist anti-Muslim party and its rogue military (which gives a dame about the laws).

  3. Look at the audacity of this guy called Irfan Habib. First he sends his handpicked “eminent historians” to lie before the court and now he wants supreme Court the verdict.

  4. The ‘ usual suspects ‘ are the list !! People with no credibility whatsoever . The common factor that binds them is Hinduphobia. And one of them is Arun Shourie’s ‘ Eminent Historian’ !! And one who is responsible for the roots that followed 06 Dec 1992

    • The land of Islamophobia who have democratically elected radical anti-Muslim Hindu-extremist party are calling others with stolen and fake non-existent term.

  5. Supreme Court gave an unanimous ruling. These idiots don’t like the result; well it too bad. What standing do these idiots have in the property dispute? The court should summarily dismiss the petition as these people have basis to seek a review.

  6. habib n his minions back at their job. he was the man instrumental in viciating the atmosphere back in ’88-’89 n he is back doing the same thing again.
    he was caught lying on the issue of the inscription being stolen from the lucknow museum, on which rather than backing down he changed his own story.
    his stooges were caught by the allahabad high court (lucknow bench) trying to pass guesses n opinions as facts n the very same cabal is back to their tricks.
    why can’t these left wing crooks let the country be. what’s their grouse?

    • There are also Hindu activists behind this, not just Habib. But because a Muslim historian is involved, a Dhoti Hindu only targets him. A Dhoti Hindus who believe in mythology as reality, are calling out others as guess stories.

    • A true Hindu-extremist spotted. This is why Supreme Court gave verdict to appease radical Hindus who hate Muslims. There was no temple there.

  7. Let it be clear that India belong to Hindus who had allowed people of other faith to freely live and prosper in India. Except Muslims and Christians, people of other faiths never had ambition to subjugate and rule Hindus with the power of sword. Except for religious conversions, Christians are not a problem for Hindus. Its the Muslims who are the exception as they continue to dream to rule over Hindus by backdoor provided by democracy i.e. piggyback on Italian Sonia’s Congress. Muslims had got their own home land in the form of Pakistan. All Hindu hater Muslims would never be happy living with Hindus. Such Hindu haters should leave India and live in islamic states.

    • Get some proper education, brother; and get rid of your hate politics. “Hindu” is a name given by an academician who simply grouped all varieties of every kind of practice existing in India by that name for want of any other word, and you are gulping it blindly. India belongs to everyone who is born in this country – be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, Parsis, those with no religion, whatever.

    • Like londonstan but even they are getting wiser. They have to move the land of Sharia jurisdictions where they will find what real democracy is!

    • @Dev: Look at this gaimooter Hindu who is burning in hatred for Muslims but this Kaaloo is calling others as Hindu haters. Which Hindus, upper-caste minority Hindus, or low-caste majority Sudra Hindus? Hindus have never allowed others to live freely in last 72 years of history since gaining freedom of the Britain. You Hindus have adopted the name ‘Hindu’ which was given by the Muslims from Arabia & Persia.

      That is why Hindus carried out pogrom of 100 Christians in Odisha, in 2008. You Hindu-extremists here are burning in hatred for Muslims, by trying to humiliate & subjugate them through radical Hindu-extremist elected party, but you Dhoti Hindu are trying to portray Muslims in bad-light. These Hindus shamelessly flock to Islamic states of Dubai, Malaysia, Kuwait, Qatar for searching for a cheap job, or supply their women, to earn a few bucks. When a mass murderer Modi receives dog-belts from the rulers of Islamic lands, these Dhoti Kaaloo Hindus jump up in the air.

    • MUSLIM GIVEN NAME “HINDU”

      “The word Hindu itself is a foreign one. The Hindus never used it in any Sanskrit writing that is those which were written before the Mohammedan invasion.” [p. 22, An Essay on Hinduism, by Kelkar]

  8. Law is a complex subject that can be argued either way. However, with all due respect, the judgment does not pass the test of equity. The four hundred and fifty year reality of a mosque versus intangible faith. 2. If the intention was to bring closure, for people to move on, the proposed national NRC and CAB will not allow that to happen. For the minority community, it will be as if successive waves of a powerful incoming tide are washing over them, an elemental force of nature they cannot withstand.

    • Fundamental Right of Right to faith bypasses everything. What’s this craving for Equity in a verdict ? If the Muslim side, would have won the case, will this dumb argument of Equity would have been raissd. No. This is the law of the land, if you are able to respect that. Unless and until, we are driven by pure Hindu hate.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular