A curative petition was filed by the president of the Peace Party in the Supreme Court against the Ayodhya verdict. The petition has been filed before the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. The Supreme Court had awarded the title of the disputed land to the deity of Ram Lalla. It had also granted five acres of land to Muslims at an alternative site in Ayodhya for the construction of a new mosque. The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed in this matter last December.
In Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai, AIR 1960 SC 213, this Court held that:
The correct position in law, in our opinion, is that what one has to see is whether the illegality goes so much to the root of the matter that the plaintiff cannot bring his action without relying upon the illegal transaction into which he had entered. If the illegality be trivial or venial, as stated by Williston and the plaintiff is not required to rest his case upon that illegality, then public policy demands that the defendant should not be allowed to take advantage of the position. However, the matter is clear and the illegality is not required to be pleaded or proved as part of the cause of action and the plaintiff recanted before the illegal purpose was achieved, then, unless it be of such a gross nature as to outrage the conscience of the Court, the plea of the defendant should not prevail.”