English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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.

Published

6 years ago

on

Supreme Court

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi alleges institutional bias, questions electoral system during Berlin address

Rahul Gandhi alleged that India’s institutions and electoral system have been weaponised to favour the BJP, remarks that sparked a strong political response.

Published

45 mins ago

on

December 23, 2025

By

Rahul-Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has said that India’s institutional framework is facing a serious challenge and has been used to favour the ruling BJP. Speaking during an interaction at the Hertie School in Berlin, Gandhi questioned the functioning of key institutions and the electoral machinery, remarks that triggered a sharp political response from the BJP.

Gandhi said the Congress believes there is a problem with the electoral system and alleged that several institutions have been captured. Referring to investigative agencies, he claimed that bodies such as the CBI and the ED have been used as political tools. According to him, cases filed by these agencies overwhelmingly target those opposing the BJP, while leaders from the ruling party face none.

He also pointed to what he described as a stark financial imbalance between the BJP and the opposition, claiming a funding ratio of 30:1. Gandhi said this disparity reflects how institutions are being used to consolidate political power.

Opposition strategy and INDIA alliance

The Congress leader said merely pointing out problems in elections is not enough and stressed the need for the opposition to build a system of resistance that can effectively counter the ruling party. He added that the challenge now goes beyond electoral contests and is about presenting an alternative vision for the country.

On the INDIA alliance, Gandhi said the unity among opposition parties is rooted in their rejection of the ideological position of the RSS. While acknowledging that tactical contests between alliance partners will continue, he said they remain united when it comes to opposing laws they disagree with and working together in Parliament.

BJP hits back at remarks abroad

Gandhi’s comments delivered overseas drew a strong reaction from the BJP. Party president and Union minister JP Nadda accused him of speaking against India while Parliament is in session and claimed that he was undermining the country’s image at a time when the Prime Minister is receiving global recognition.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla also criticised Gandhi, alleging that he routinely travels abroad to defame India. He accused the Congress leader of making misleading claims about the country’s institutions and economic activity while praising China.

Continue Reading

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

18 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

18 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com