Ayodhya: Allocation of 5 acres to construct Mosque against Secularism, Hindu Mahasabha files Review Petition in SC

The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging its judgment in the Ayodhya dispute. Various Muslim parties have already approached the Court in review , questioning the correctness of the November 9 verdict, which saw the title to the disputed Ayodhya site being vested in the Hindu parties.

. The plea filed for the Hindu Mahasabha by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain and drawn by Advocate Hari Shankar Jain now calls on the Supreme Court to reconsider its direction to allot an alternative 5 acre government plot to the Muslim parties for the construction of a Mosque. It also seeks the expungement of observations against the Hindus in the judgment. The petition states,

. “… [the] H on’ble Court has directed to allot 5 acres land to the Muslims on the ground that there was a mosque whereas there was no mosque in view of the material on record and finding recorded by the Hon’ble Court in the judgment itself .”

. The plea also goes on to contend that since there is no material to prove that the “disputed structure” on the Ayodhya plot was a Mosque, as claimed by the Muslim parties. It is urged that references to the same as a “mosque” or as a masjid must be expunged.

. “ The Muslims have failed to prove that the construction in question was mosque, while on the other hand Hindus have proved that the place in question is being worshipped as birth place of Lord Ram and therefore, there is no material on record to declare the disputed structure as mosque…

. … the building in dispute could not be termed as mosque or masjid or Babari Masjid. In view of the fact and law concerning the case it would be desirable that the Hon’ble Court may delete the word Babri mosque/ Babri Masjid/mosque/masjid in paragraph 788(XVIII) and wherever occurs in the judgment and same may be substituted by the word ‘disputed structure’. “

. It is further argued that the allocation of an alternative site to construct a mosque , when the Muslim parties have not established that the “disputed structure” was a mosque, would violate the Constitutional principles of secularism.

. “ State cannot allot any land to construct mosque. A mosque can be constructed on the land which is dedicated to almighty and for which waqf has been created. No mosque can be constructed on the land on which State is the owner. The construction of mosque at the land owned by the Government will also be against the principles of secularism and part-III of the Constitution of India.”

. The petitioner goes on to contend that the secular ethos cannot be one-sided to disfavour the Hindus.

. “… the Hon’ble Court while favoring to en force secular principles must take into consideration the entire historical facts of the country right from 712 till 1947. The Hon’ble Court may also take into consideration the atrocities committed on Hindus in Kashmir in 1990 and the fact that a number of Hindus were made refugees in their own country and a number of temples were demolished by Muslims in free India. The secular ethos cannot be one sided and Hindus cannot always be put to disadvantageous position…

. … in this case the right of Hindus and Muslims to worship at the place in question is involved. The concept of secularism cannot be applied when two parties are litigating for establishing their religious rights. The observations made by the Hon’ble Court relating to secularism visa vis. with reference to this case is liable to be withdrawn .”

. The petitioner also adds that the Court’s observations regarding the application of the Places of Worship Act,1991 should not be treated as a binding precedent.

. “… the Places of Worship Act,1991 is not involved in the case and as such no argument was raised from the side of Hindus infavour or against the provisions of the said Act. The provisions of said Act are not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the observations made concerning the said Act may be declared as not a binding precedent.”

. Justifying the events of December 6, 1992

. The petitioner has also made submissions in some detail as to why the Hindu parties should not be condemned for the events of December 6, 1992, which saw the demolition of the Babri Masjid after a mob of over 20,000 kar sevaks stormed the disputed site.

. The petitioners firstly argue that the Muslims never had a claim to the Ayodhya site. It is contended that even if there was a time when they offered prayers in the inner courtyard of the site, it entailed an encroachment on the sacred land and place of worship for Hindus . On this aspect, the petition states,

. “… Those who have trampled the religious place of Hindus cannot be given prize for such illegal action and they cannot be allotted 5 acres of land to console them on the ground that Hindus have committed some wrong in 1934, 1949 and in 1992. Actually it was the anxiety of the Hindu community to liberate Shri Ram Janmabhumi and it was their plight to get justice from the historical wrong…

. … after independence without any further delay Hindus asserted their right and took complete charge of inner courtyard and that cannot be said to be any unwarranted or unlawful action.”

. The petitioner goes on to justify the conduct of the k ar sevaks in the backdrop of an alleged expectation that the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in the case was expected to be pronounced on December 6, at which point of time a vast number of devotees had already gathered in the area.

. “ Because it was expected that judgment will be pronounced before 6.12.1992. In these circumstances the State Government gave an undertaking that the structure will be protected. However, the judgment could not be pronounced before 6.12.1992 and same was pronounced on 11.12.1992. In these circumstances when lakhs of devotees assembled their patience broke and instead of symbolic Karsewa they climbed on the dome and the same was demolished.”

. While this was the case, the petitioner has also submitted that the Supreme Court did not call on the Hindus to explain these events, nor did it take into consideration “ all these facts before condemning the action of devotee s.”

. “… Hon’ble Court has not called upon Hindus to clarify their position for the actions taken in the year 1949 and in 1992. In these circumstances the observations made against Hindu community may be expunged.”

. This apart, the Supreme Court has also been urged to clarify that its observations in the November 9 Ayodhya judgment would not have any bearing on the criminal trial still underway in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

. “ … the criminal trial for demolishing the disputed structure on 6.12.1992 is going on before the Ld. SessionsJudge. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court may clarify that any observation made in the judgment will not affect the criminal trial.”

. [Read the Review Petition]

Ayodhya: Allocation of 5 acres to construct Mosque against Secularism, Hindu Mahasabha files Review Petition in SC

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories