Supreme Court
Police personnel deployed outside Supreme Court ahead of the Ayodhya verdict Saturday | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint
Text Size:

New Delhi: The All India Hindu Mahasabha is gearing up to file a review plea against the Supreme Court’s 9 November Ayodhya verdict that granted an alternate five-acre land to the Muslims.

The plea is likely to be filed next week.

The Hindu Mahasabha has two factions — one headed by Swami Chakrapani and the other by Shishir Chaturvedi. The review plea will be filed by the Chaturvedi faction.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who represents the Hindu body, is challenging the verdict on two main grounds.

Firstly, the Hindu Mahasabha is going to state in the plea that the case was primarily a title suit, so when the court has given exclusive possession of the inner and outer courtyard to the Hindus, there was no need to grant an alternate land of 5 acres to the Muslims.

Secondly, the Hindu Mahasabha is set to argue that when the question before the ongoing criminal trial is about the destruction of the “Masjid ka Dhaancha” or the upper tomb, then the conclusion arrived at by the top court on 9 November that the mosque in entirety was demolished would have repercussions on that trial.


Also read: Jamiat’s Ayodhya review petition should succeed but won’t. Here’s why

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.

SUBSCRIBE NOW


“The court has also held the demolition to be a violation of the rule of law. This itself will have an impact on the ongoing case in Lucknow and, hence, we seek reconsideration on this aspect too,” Jain told ThePrint.

Right after the Supreme Court verdict, which ordered the central government to formulate a scheme in three months to construct a Ram temple on the undisputed site in Ayodhya, the Hindu Mahasabha had called it “a historic” judgement.

“With this judgment, the Supreme Court has given the message of unity in diversity,” it had said.

Apart from the Hindu Mahasabha, the other parties challenging the Supreme Court verdict are the Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind, independent parties backed by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Peace Party Of India.


Also read: Frustration over Ayodhya verdict is not coming from Muslims but Left-illiberals


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

1 Comment Share Your Views

1 COMMENT

  1. Five acres of compensatory land allotment was in any case a red herring. Viewed from the perspective of the minority community, it could hardly constitute “ complete justice “. So it is better to remove the distraction and let the judgment stand on its own feet.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here