The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed all petitions seeking review of Ayodhya verdict which cleared the way for construction of Ram Temple. The Apex court, which took a total of 19 review pleas for consideration in-chamber, rejected them after finding no ground to entertain them.
“Applications for the listing of review petitions in open court are dismissed. We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers filed therewith. We do not find any ground, whatsoever, to entertain the same. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed,” a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde said while rejecting 10 out of 19 pleas filed by original litigants to the title dispute. The apex court, which also considered the nine petitions filed by “third parties” who were not part of the original litigation, denied them permission to file a review petition in the matter.
“Applications for permission to file review petitions are dismissed. In view of the denial of permission to file review petitions, applications for listing of review petitions in open court, as well as review petitions, are rejected,” said the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S A Nazeer, and Sanjeev Khanna, while dismissing the pleas filed by “third parties”.
Among the 10 original litigants, whose review petitions were dismissed, eight were filed by the Muslim parties which include those supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. The key Muslim litigant, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, had decided not to seek a review of the unanimous November 9 verdict. Nirmohi Akhara and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha were the two Hindu bodies whose review pleas were rejected by the bench.
Among the nine “third parties” were 40 rights activists who had jointly moved the top court seeking review of its verdict. 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, have said they are “deeply aggrieved” by the verdict as it “errs in both fact and law”.
With the dismissal of these review pleas, the parties to the litigation are left with the legal recourse of filing a curative petition only. A curative petition is the last legal recourse in the apex court for curing the defects and is also heard in-chamber unless a prima facie case is made out for reconsideration of the verdict.