Uphill task in seeking review of Ayodhya verdict in SC as AIMPLB needs to prove 'grave error' in last judgement
Muslim Law board will face difficulty in convincing the Supreme Court that there was a grave error in the unanimous Ayodhya verdict. Also seeking open court hearing is difficult
NEW DELHI: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) decision to file a review petition against the SC’s verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case will face a major challenge as they will have to convince the apex court that there was a grave error in the judgment that needs to be reviewed.
The SC, in its verdict on November 9, said the disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants.
The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
According to SC rules, for a review petition to be admitted, petitioners first have to prove that there was an error in the unanimous judgement. In most cases, review petitions are usually dismissed.
“The land of the mosque belongs to Allah and under the Sharia, it cannot be given to anybody. The Board has also categorically stated that it was against taking five-acre land in Ayodhya in lieu of the mosque,” AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani said on Sunday.
Another challenge for the petitioners will be to seek an open court hearing as most of the reviews are decided in judges’ chambers.
With the apex court getting a new Chief Justice of India on Monday, the composition of the bench also changes and a new judge will be included but it needs to be seen whether CJI designate S A Bobde agrees to hear the case afresh or not.
According to legal experts, it needs to be seen whether the court accepts to admit the review in absence of any party in the original case approaching it and it can question their locus standi in the case.
Apart from a review, another option available for them is to file a curative petition in which concerned parties will have to prove that there are grounds which were not taken on record in the detailed judgment.
Moreover, it also needs to be seen how AIMPLB will challenge the unanimous verdict as it is difficult to point out errors in it.