india

Updated: Nov 18, 2019 03:17 IST

A little over a week after the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid title suit paved the way for the construction of a Ram temple, two prominent Muslim bodies decided on Sunday to seek a review of the judgment.

The decision by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) puts the focus on the review process, a judicial mechanism devised by the apex court. Ordinarily, a Supreme court verdict is the final word on an issue, but the rules of the top court provide for a mechanism of a review petition. In a review petition, which has to be filed within 30 days of the verdict, an aggrieved party or parties can seek a review of any decision on grounds of error.

“Generally, the review petitions are not heard in the open court room, but taken up by the Judges in their chambers. However, if the merits of the case are strong, and the aggrieved parties seek an open court hearing, the matter is even heard in open court room,” said Supreme Court advocate Anil Mishra.

The Ayodhya case was decided unanimously on November 9 by a five-judge bench, headed by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and also comprising justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. Gogoi retired on Sunday. When the review petitions are filed, it will be placed before Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, who will decide on constituting a bench to relook at the matter. With Gogoi’s retirement, a new judge will replace him on the bench to hear the review petition. The AIMPLB has already said that it will file the review within 30 days of the verdict. Because it was not a party in the suit, it has roped in three litigants -- Mohammad Umar Khalid, a resident of Ayodhya town; Misbahuddin, a resident of Ayodhya district and Mehfusur Rehman, a resident of Tanda town in UP – to file the review petition. The JUH, whose UP general secretary Ashhad Rashidi is a petitioner in the case, will also file a review petition.

“Usually the court does not unsettle a decision, unless a strong case is made out,” said Supreme Court advocate Viplav Sharma. “After the November 9 verdict, the Muslim side has been talking of filing a review petition. But they will have to move fast, as the court has set a three-month deadline for the government to set up a trust for building a temple at the site,” he added.