Supreme Court dismisses all petitions seeking review of Ayodhya verdict
The Supreme Court today dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking a review of its November 9 Ayodhya judgment. The apex court also denied permission to 40 civil rights activists to file a review petition, as they were not parties to the original case.
The Supreme Court today dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review of its November 9 Ayodhya judgment. The apex court also denied permission to 40 civil rights activists to file review petitions, as they were not parties to the original case.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde comprised Justices DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S Abdul Nazeer, and Sanjiv Khanna. Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was replaced by Justice Khanna in the new bench, after the former retired from the his post last month. The bench heard the review petitions in-chamber, instead in open court.
Eighteen review petitions on Ayodhya land dispute verdict were filed in the court, of which nine were filed by those who were the original parties in the case. The other nine were filed by third parties. The majority of petitions were filed by Muslim parties which include – Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind and All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) – expressing their discontentment with the verdict.
The apex court in its historic judgment had ruled in favour of the Hindus parties by giving them 2.77 acres of the disputed site for the construction of a Ram temple and ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to allocate five-acre of land in a prominent place in Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board for constructing a mosque.
Jamiat-i-Hind in its petition filed on December 2 had contended that the judgment of the court amounts to giving validity to the Hindu parties’ action of demolishing the Babri Masjid. The verdict of the court seems to reward the criminal action of the Hindu parties by giving them title to the disputed site, said Jamiat in its petition.
They had further contended that despite acknowledging that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1993 amounted to a criminal action, the court went on to reward the crimes of the Hindu parties by giving judgment in their favour. If justice is to prevail, then it can be done in this case only by allowing restitution of the damage done to the Muslim parties i.e., ordering for the reconstruction of the Babri Masjid.
The Jamiat-i-HInd in its petition also said that the court gave precedence to oral testimonies of the Hindu parties and disregarded the documentary evidence produced by the Muslim parties to show that the structure in question had always been a mosque and had been in exclusive possession of the Muslims.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board contended that the court was wrong in awarding the title to the Hindu parties, since the court acknowledged the fact that the site was in exclusive possession of the Muslims and they entered and prayed at the disputed site uninterruptedly till 1949.
Their petition further contended that the judgment of the top court gives legal sanctions to the crimes committed by Hindu parties – criminal trespassing and vandalising the personal property. The petition added that the court erred in the verdict by handing over the possession of the disputed site to Ram Lalla, when the court itself had acknowledged that the idol was forcibly and illegally placed there by the Hindu parties.
One of the major Hindu parties, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha had also filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to allot 5 acres of land to Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque as a “compensatory measure”.
In their review petition, they argued that the Muslim parties have failed to prove the construction in question at the site is a ‘mosque.
The plea filed on behalf of the Hindu Mahasabha by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain also urged the top court to reconsider the references made by the court to the same structure as “mosque” or as a “masjid” and the same shall be expunged.
“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 the same may be substituted by the word ‘disputed structure’,” it read.
The petitioner had also made submissions as to why the Hindu parties should not be condemned for the demolition of the Babri mosque on December 6, 1992. The rationale that the petitioner gave for this submission is that Muslims never had a claim to the Ayodhya site. Even if there was a time when they offered prayers in the inner courtyard of the site, it amounts to an encroachment on the sacred land and place of worship for the Hindus.
On December 9, 40 activists and members of civil society, including historian Irfan Habib, economist Prabhat Patnaik, activist Harsh Mander, and sociologist Nandini Sundar had also filed review petitions, saying the said judgment errs in both facts and law.
Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.
A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.
During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.
“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing
While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.
The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.
Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife
The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.
He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.
Legal battle intensifies
Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.
With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.
The Congress has suspended five of its MLAs in Haryana for cross-voting during the recent Rajya Sabha elections, taking disciplinary action over what it described as “anti-party activities”.
The move came after the state unit reviewed the conduct of certain legislators during the polls, where some were found to have voted against the party’s authorised candidate.
Five MLAs suspended after disciplinary process
According to party sources, the MLAs were issued show-cause notices seeking an explanation for their actions. After reviewing their responses, the Congress disciplinary committee recommended suspension.
The decision was approved by the party leadership, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, and has been implemented with immediate effect.
Party calls it ‘grave indiscipline’
Haryana Congress chief Udai Bhan said the action was necessary to uphold party discipline, stressing that defying the official party line during elections weakens organisational unity.
He said the party takes such violations seriously and will continue to act against any form of indiscipline.
Leadership backs strict action
Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda supported the decision, saying it was taken after due consideration.
He noted that while Rajya Sabha elections are conducted through an open ballot system, allowing legislators some flexibility, the party retains the authority to initiate internal disciplinary action in cases of deviation.
Background
The action follows cross-voting reported during the recent Rajya Sabha elections in Haryana, which led to internal concerns within the party. The development has highlighted organisational challenges and prompted the leadership to take corrective steps to reinforce discipline.
Former Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh is set to be re-elected to the same post unopposed in the election due to be held later today. The date has been fixed by the Chairman under the relevant rules governing the conduct of business in the Upper House. According to sources, the deadline for submitting motions for the election was 12 noon on April 16. A total of five notices were received within the stipulated time, all proposing Harivansh for the post.
Multiple nominations, single candidate The motions were submitted by members across parties, including Jagat Prakash Nadda, Nitin Nabin, Nirmala Sitharaman, Sanjay Kumar Jha, and Jayant Chaudhary, each backed by seconding members. All five motions explicitly state that Harivansh be chosen as the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
No opposition nomination filed
Notably, no motion was submitted by the Opposition before the deadline. This effectively clears the path for a unanimous election, as there is no contest for the position. As per parliamentary procedure, motions will be taken up one by one. Once any one motion is adopted by the House, the remaining motions will not be put to vote.
Likely to be elected by voice vote In line with established practice, the first motion — expected to be moved by Nadda — may be adopted through a voice vote. Following this, the Chairman will formally declare Harivansh as elected Deputy Chairman. After the declaration, Harivansh will be escorted to the Chair by members from both the Treasury and Opposition benches, adhering to parliamentary convention.
APN News is today the most watched and the most credible and respected news channel in India. APN has been at the forefront of every single news revolution. The channel is being recognized for its in-depth, analytical reportage and hard hitting discussions on burning issues; without any bias or vested interests.