Intellectuals, Hindu Mahasabha seek review of Ayodhya ruling

Hindu Mahasabha and a group of intellectuals moved the Supreme Court on Monday seeking review of its verdict in the Ayodhya dispute for disparate reasons.

While the Hindu Mahasabha has opposed portions of the judgement that condemned desecration and eventual destruction of the Babri Masjid structure and allotment a 5-acre plot to the Muslims to build another mosque, 36 intellectuals have sought a reconsideration of the ruling as violative of the basic constitutional value of secularism, saying it placed one community’s faith above that of another.

The second petition filed through activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan by intellectuals like Nandini Sundar, Irfan Habib, Prabhat Patnaik, Harsh Mander and Shabnam Hashmi claimed the verdict transformed the 'title suit' into a 'battle of faith between the Hindus and Muslims'.


Given that both parties could not establish exclusive ownership of the disputed land, the court, by handing the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land over to the Hindus to the exclusion of the Muslims, placed the religious beliefs of one community over that of another, they claimed. This, they said, was a violation of the principle of secularism.

The judgement in effect rewards those who broke the law thrice, defied court orders, and dishonoured the guarantees of the Indian Constitution, they argued, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 carved up the land between the Hindus and Muslims in a 2:1 ratio. Both sides had appealed to the top court against the ruling.

The SC had on November 17 ordered that all the disputed land be handed over the deity, Ram Lalla, for a temple, and the Muslims be given five acres of prime land elsewhere in the city to build a mosque.