The Ayodhya verdict by the Allahabad High Court on 30 September was yesterday challenged in the Supreme Court.

Representing one of the organisations in the original title suit, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH), Mohammad Siddiq alias Hafiz Mohammad Siddiq filed an appeal in the apex court raising 33 questions of law and fact, reported the Economic Times.

The Hindu reported that the appeal pleaded that the High Court’s judgment “has travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties because in none of the suits was there any prayer for partition; therefore, the High Court ought not to have decided the suit like a partition suit pertaining to the land in question”.

The appeal raised several questions — whether a myth, belief or faith could substitute history for purposes of application of law in force for the time being; whether in view of the fact that devotees of Ram demolished the building during the pendency of their suit, relief could be granted to such plaintiffs; whether the High Court, on the basis of belief and faith, could have competently decided the issue in the light of the fact that with respect to the structure all supportive evidence was available with effect from 1528 till December 6, 1992, whereas for the evidence prior to 1528, religious text and scriptures were taken into conspectus; whether the demolition of the structure (on December 6, 1992) was an act of vandalism; if the demolition was illegal, then certainly the relief was to return all plaints; also, if it was an act of vandalism then it should not have been given the seal of approval. It should have been deprecated by the court with all force at its command.