As many as forty persons of different faiths have moved a review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ayodhya dispute..Seeking a Full Court hearing, the forty review petitioners have stated that while they were not parties to the original suit, they have filed for the review of the Court’s Ayodhya verdict of November 9, since the same has a direct impact on the “syncretic culture” of the country and the secular fabric of India..The petitioners have claimed that the Apex Court expanded the scope of the matter from that of a title dispute to one about faiths and the “battle” between them. In fact, the petitioners have stated that the Court has skipped over a number of important issues in the judgment while considering certain “irrelevant” issues..The forty review petitioners have also flagged their concern over the Apex Court of India placing “higher value” on one side of this “battle of faiths”. Further buttressing this point, it is stated that the Court failed to take into account that neither the Hindus nor the Muslims had successfully proven their exclusive possession of the disputed site at Ayodhya. Thus, the Court erred in ruling that the balance of probabilities lied in favour of Hindus. The petition states,.“The faith of a community cannot override the faith of another community and the practices of two faiths cannot and should not be compared as the expression of that faith can also differ.”.It is stated in the petition that the belief of the Hindus regarding Ayodhya being the birthplace of Lord Ram is undisputed. However, the existence of the Mosque at the disputed site is a documented fact. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court is violative of constitutional principles and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the petition states..The petition also invokes the Court’s observations regarding the incident of December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished. Despite the Court recognizing that the act of razing the Mosque was illegal, the Court has rewarded those people responsible for the illegal act by ruling in favour of the Hindus, the petitioners claim..“What the judgement does in effect is to reward those who broke the law three times over, defied the orders of the Supreme Court, and above all dishonoured the guarantees of India’s Constitution and the central article of faith of the equality of all religions in India’s struggle for freedom. This order would probably have been inconceivable if the mosque still stood at the disputed site.”.It is averred that the Court has failed to take into account that the December 1992 incident led to communal violence across the country and claimed hundreds of lives. The petition goes on to say that the decision of the Court is “dangerously complicit in violation of the Constitutional provisions”..On these grounds, the forty petitioners have sought for the constitution of the Full Court for hearing the review. This matter is no longer a title dispute, but is one “about the core of India’s constitutional morality, and the principles of equal citizenship, secularism, justice, rule of law and fraternity”, the petition states..The petition is drawn and filed by Advocates Suroor Mander, Ankita Ramgopal, and Aditi Saraswat. Advocate Prashant Bhushan is slated to argue the matter..The long list of review petitioners includes renowned activists, academicians, and intellectuals. The petitioners in the matter are: Prabhat Patnaik, Irfan Habib, Apoorv Anand, Neera Chandoke, Deb Mukherjee, Tanika Sarkar, Madhu Bhaduri, Harsh Mander, Jayati Ghosh, Amitabha Pande, Nandini sundar, Shabnam Hashmi, Farah Naqvi, Akar Anil Patel, Navhsaran Singh, Natasha Badhwar, Ganshyam Shah, Meena Gupta, Som Sundar Burra, Gauhar Raza, Johanna Lokhande, Sumit Sarkar, Amit Bhaduri, John Dayal, Sharad Chandra Behar, Gopalakrishnan Sankar, Shah Alam Khan, Shireen Moosvi, Ziya Us Sala, Ramesh Rawat, Sayed Ali Nadeem Resavi, Dimple Oberoi, Ramesh N, Kapil Chawla, Devika Singh, Kalyan Kundu, Sujata Patel, Uma Shankari, Pamela Philliose and Achin Vinayak.
As many as forty persons of different faiths have moved a review petition against the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ayodhya dispute..Seeking a Full Court hearing, the forty review petitioners have stated that while they were not parties to the original suit, they have filed for the review of the Court’s Ayodhya verdict of November 9, since the same has a direct impact on the “syncretic culture” of the country and the secular fabric of India..The petitioners have claimed that the Apex Court expanded the scope of the matter from that of a title dispute to one about faiths and the “battle” between them. In fact, the petitioners have stated that the Court has skipped over a number of important issues in the judgment while considering certain “irrelevant” issues..The forty review petitioners have also flagged their concern over the Apex Court of India placing “higher value” on one side of this “battle of faiths”. Further buttressing this point, it is stated that the Court failed to take into account that neither the Hindus nor the Muslims had successfully proven their exclusive possession of the disputed site at Ayodhya. Thus, the Court erred in ruling that the balance of probabilities lied in favour of Hindus. The petition states,.“The faith of a community cannot override the faith of another community and the practices of two faiths cannot and should not be compared as the expression of that faith can also differ.”.It is stated in the petition that the belief of the Hindus regarding Ayodhya being the birthplace of Lord Ram is undisputed. However, the existence of the Mosque at the disputed site is a documented fact. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court is violative of constitutional principles and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the petition states..The petition also invokes the Court’s observations regarding the incident of December 6, 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished. Despite the Court recognizing that the act of razing the Mosque was illegal, the Court has rewarded those people responsible for the illegal act by ruling in favour of the Hindus, the petitioners claim..“What the judgement does in effect is to reward those who broke the law three times over, defied the orders of the Supreme Court, and above all dishonoured the guarantees of India’s Constitution and the central article of faith of the equality of all religions in India’s struggle for freedom. This order would probably have been inconceivable if the mosque still stood at the disputed site.”.It is averred that the Court has failed to take into account that the December 1992 incident led to communal violence across the country and claimed hundreds of lives. The petition goes on to say that the decision of the Court is “dangerously complicit in violation of the Constitutional provisions”..On these grounds, the forty petitioners have sought for the constitution of the Full Court for hearing the review. This matter is no longer a title dispute, but is one “about the core of India’s constitutional morality, and the principles of equal citizenship, secularism, justice, rule of law and fraternity”, the petition states..The petition is drawn and filed by Advocates Suroor Mander, Ankita Ramgopal, and Aditi Saraswat. Advocate Prashant Bhushan is slated to argue the matter..The long list of review petitioners includes renowned activists, academicians, and intellectuals. The petitioners in the matter are: Prabhat Patnaik, Irfan Habib, Apoorv Anand, Neera Chandoke, Deb Mukherjee, Tanika Sarkar, Madhu Bhaduri, Harsh Mander, Jayati Ghosh, Amitabha Pande, Nandini sundar, Shabnam Hashmi, Farah Naqvi, Akar Anil Patel, Navhsaran Singh, Natasha Badhwar, Ganshyam Shah, Meena Gupta, Som Sundar Burra, Gauhar Raza, Johanna Lokhande, Sumit Sarkar, Amit Bhaduri, John Dayal, Sharad Chandra Behar, Gopalakrishnan Sankar, Shah Alam Khan, Shireen Moosvi, Ziya Us Sala, Ramesh Rawat, Sayed Ali Nadeem Resavi, Dimple Oberoi, Ramesh N, Kapil Chawla, Devika Singh, Kalyan Kundu, Sujata Patel, Uma Shankari, Pamela Philliose and Achin Vinayak.
