Babri masjid a fact, temple merely a belief: Petitioners

Published on Dec 10, 2019 06:53 AM IST
The petitioners who are not original parties to the suit, submitted that they belong to various Indian faiths including Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist and Jain apart from people with atheist and agnostic convictions and they are deeply aggrieved by the judgment of the court.
The judgment’s tenor, language and operative orders expanded the scope of the case from a title dispute to a battle about the “faith” of the Hindus and the Muslims, the petitioners claimed.(AP Photo)
The judgment’s tenor, language and operative orders expanded the scope of the case from a title dispute to a battle about the “faith” of the Hindus and the Muslims, the petitioners claimed.(AP Photo)
Hindustan Times, New Delhi | By, New Delhi

The existence of the Babri Masjid is a fact that has been historically documented while the existence of the Hindu temple on which the Babri Masjid was built is merely a belief of the Hindus, a review petition filed today by 40 civil rights activists in Supreme Court challenging the November 9 verdict in Ayodhya dispute claimed.

The petitioners who are not original parties to the suit, submitted that they belong to various Indian faiths including Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist and Jain apart from people with atheist and agnostic convictions and they are deeply aggrieved by the judgment of the court.

The petitioners, including Harsh Mander, Nandini Sundar, Irfan Habib and Apoorvanand have challenged the rationale of the court in awarding the 2.77-acre disputed site to Ram Lalla Virajman, the child deity, while giving Muslims an alternative site of 5 acres for the construction of a new mosque.

The judgment’s tenor, language and operative orders expanded the scope of the case from a title dispute to a battle about the “faith” of the Hindus and the Muslims, the petitioners claimed.

The petitioners submitted that faith of a community cannot override the faith of another community and the practices of two faiths cannot and should not be compared as expression of faith can differ. In its judgment, the court weighed the proof adduced by both parties showing their worship on the disputed land over the centuries. However, when coming to a decision, it unfairly placed a higher value on the proof given by one side over another, the petitioners argued.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close Story
SHARE
Story Saved
×
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, August 12, 2022
Start 15 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now