Namaz at mosque integral to Islam? SC refuses to refer matter to larger bench: Here's what apex court said
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer to a larger Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam that arose during the hearing of Ayodhya land dispute.
The issue had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts.
A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Today's judgement was delivered in two parts. One by Justice Ashok Bhushan and CJI Dipak Misra, and second by Justice S Nazeer.
Here's what SC judgements said:
Justice Bhushan and CJI Misra's judgement:
#We have to find the context in which 5 judges delivered 1994 verdict in Ismail Farooqi case that mosque is not integral to Islam
#Earlier finding that mosque is integral to Islam was made in context of land acquisition
#Observations in Ismail Faruqui on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of acqusition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case
WATCH: Landmark judgements delivered by SC so far this week
#The observation in para 52 of Ismail Faruqui has to be understood in the context of immunity from acquisition
#Ismail Faruqui held that all temples, mosques chruches etc. are liable to be acquired under eminent domain of the State
#The use of "particular significance" in Ismail Faruqui judgment is only in the context of immunity from acquistion
#The judgment in Ismail Faruqui will not impact decisions in suits; the observations in that judgment only wrt immunity from acquistion and won't affect suits
#SC declines to refer to 5-judge bench for reconsideration of remarks in '94 judgement that mosque is not integral to Islam.
#Civil suit has to be decided on basis of evidence and previous verdict has no relevance
Justice Nazeer's judgement
#Justice S A Nazeer disagrees with CJI and Justice Bhushan. Holds what is essential to religion as laid down in Ismail Faruqui was arrived at without comprehensive examination, needs to be re-examined in detail.
#Questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui have permeated the Allahabad High Court verdict
#Ismail Faruqui needs to be brought in line with Shirur matt case
#Justice Nazeer refers to recent SC decision on female genital mutilation and says present matter be heard by larger bench
Conclusion:
Three judge Bench of Supreme Court will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority. Next hearing fixed for October 29.
Also read | Ayodhya Dispute: A timeline of what has happened so far
(With inputs from PTI)
Watch video:
