The Peace Party of India, a political party from Uttar Pradesh, filed a curative petition on Tuesday in the Supreme Court against the November 2019 verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case, asking the top court to reconsider its decision, which the party said is based on faith.
Mohammed Ayub, the president of Peace Party of India, claimed in his curative petition that the title must be based on exclusive and unimpeded possession which has to be established by evidence.
“Hindus were never able to prove unimpeded possession with respect to outer or the inner courtyard,” he said in the petition, as accessed by Hindustan Times.
The petitioner further submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon patent errors and created rights based on illegal acts.
A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for the redressal of grievances. It is decided in-chambers by the judges.
Referring to a Jan 2019 application by the Central Government seeking modification of a 2013 Supreme Court order where the court had prohibited any religious activity of any kind on 67.703 acres of (not disputed) surplus land located near the Babri Masjid, the petitioner, according to ANI, stated, "As the government's application for modification is really an application for review under disguise, it would be appropriate to treat it as such, and a hearing in the open court should be provided to both sides."
The Central Government had sought the court's permission to transfer the entire non-disputed land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, the trust formed to construct the Ram Temple.
In a unanimous judgement on 9 November, 2019, the apex court had handed over the entire disputed land, where Babri Masjid once stood, to the deity Ram Lalla, one of the three litigants in the case, for the construction of a temple dedicated to Lord Rama. Calling the demolition of Babri Masjid an "egregious violation of the rule of law", the court also gave alternative five acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque at a prominent location in the same city.
A batch of 18 review petitions were filed against the judgment, which were all dismissed on 12 December by a five-judge bench which found no merit in them. The petitions were filed by various organisations including Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, as well as by a group of 40 activists and academicians.