New Delhi: The Supreme Court is slated to begin an in-chamber review on the petitions filed against the Ayodhya verdict on Thursday, i.e., December 12.  The review petitions seek to re-examine Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict delivered on November 9.

As per the apex court’s order, Hindus were granted the disputed Janmabhoomi-Babri site for building a Ram temple and Muslims were allotted an equivalent five-acre land elsewhere in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

Here’s All You Need to Know About The In-chamber Review Petitions Filed Against Ayodhya Verdict:

1) The in-chamber review petitions will be heard by a new five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and other Justices namely Ashok Bhushan, S A Nazeer, D Y Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna. Notably, Justice Khanna has replaced the retired Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

2) The in-chamber review of 18 petitions will commence at 1:40 PM on Thursday. A bulk of the petitions have been filed by the Muslim parties expressing dissatisfaction with the Ayodhya verdict.

3) A review plea agianst SC’s Ayodhya verdict was first filed in the apex court on December 2 by Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi.

4) While the All India Muslim Personal Law Board had supported the filing of five petitions on December 6, the Peace Party of India had filed one on the same day.

5) A review petition was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara on Wednesday seeking clarification on its role and representation in the trust which was directed to be created as per the SC verdict. “It is submitted the role of Nirmohi Akhara has not been spelt out with specificity which is necessary to rule out ambiguity and future disputes,” stated the review plea of Akhara as quoted by news agency IANS. In the plea, the Akhara has also sought for the restoration of its other temples, added the report.

6) A month after the SC ruling, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha had filed a review petition on December 9. Yet another review petition was filed by 40 people, including academicians and activists over the issue of Ayodhya judgment. “The faith of one of the communities was consequently regarded higher than the other, thereby violating the secular principle embedded in the Constitution”, noted the petitioners, as quoted by news agency IANS.