The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed all 18 review petitions challenging the November 9 verdict in Ayodhya title dispute.
The pleas were dismissed by a five-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde.
The bench held that the review petitions were lacking in merit. The bench also added that those who are not parties to the suit cannot be permitted to file a review thus dismissing pleas sought by 40 activists.
On November 9, a five-judge bench, headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, had in a unanimous verdict decreed the entire 2.77-acre disputed land in favour of deity 'Ram Lalla' and directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot at a prominent place to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque in Ayodhya.
Following the verdict, on December 2, the first plea seeking review of the Ayodhya verdict was filed in the apex court by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and also the Uttar Pradesh president of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.
On December 6, six petitions were filed in the apex court seeking review of its Ayodhya judgement.
On December 9, two more review petitions were filed, one by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and the other by 40 persons, including rights activists who have jointly moved the court seeking review of its verdict.
Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi had sought review of the verdict on 14 counts and said that "complete justice" could only be done by directing reconstruction of Babri Masjid.
He had also sought an interim stay on the operation of the verdict in which it had directed the Centre that a trust be formed within three months for construction of the temple at the site.
Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, which sought a limited review of the November 9 verdict, had moved the court against the direction to allot a five-acre plot to Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque in Ayodhya.
It had also sought deletion of findings declaring the disputed structure as a Mosque.
The review plea filed by 40 persons, including historian Irfan Habib, economist and political commentator Prabhat Patnaik, activists Harsh Mander, Nandini Sundar and John Dayal, had said they are "deeply aggrieved" by the verdict as it "errs in both fact and law".
It had sought a full bench for hearing the review plea saying it is not merely a title dispute but a "contestation about the core of India's constitutional morality, and the principles of equal citizenship, secularism, justice, rule of law and fraternity".
(With agency inputs)