Supreme Court verdict could impact whether a temple will be built at Ayodhya or not.
The Supreme Court has refused to revisit its 1994 ruling that the government can acquire land that a mosque is built on. In the Ismail Farooqui judgement, the court had ruled then that namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere and a mosque is not essential. The ruling will not be referred to a larger bench, the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said. It could also be one of the last verdicts that Chief Justice Misra deliver, before he retires.
In 1994, the Supreme Court said that namaz could be offered anywhere and that a mosque was not necessary. This cleared the way for the government taking over the land where the 16th century Babri mosque was razed in December 1992 by Hindu hardliners who believed it was built on Lord Ram's birthplace.
Muslim litigants say that this decades-old verdict played a big role in the disputed land in Ayodhya being divided in 2010 into three parts by the Allahabad High Court: it split the land between Hindu and Muslim parties, though the main part was given to Hindus. The Babri Masjid, a 16th century mosque was destroyed in 1992 by karsewaks or right-wing volunteers who said that it had to be brought down so that a temple could be built to Lord Ram, who they say was born right here.
Here are the LIVE updates on the story:
It is for the country's benefit that the dispute associated with Sri Ramchandra Bhoomi gets resolved at the earliest. Majority of this nation wants a solution to this at the earliest. We appeal that this matter be resolved as soon as possible: UP CM Yogi Adityanath to ANI.
The Supreme Court has decided to hold hearing on the Shri Rama Janmabhumi case from 29th October 2018 by a 3-member bench. We welcome this decision and are confident that a just verdict will be reached over the case at the earliest: RSS
The Ayodhya case will be heard from October 29, the Supreme Court said.
Majority judgement will please majority, minority judgement will please minority.The very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved. It is not about arithmetic, but of convincing everybody that the Supreme Court should have spoken in one voice: Rajiv Dhawan, Petitioner's counsel in Ayodhya title suit case to ANI.
I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram janmabhoomi appeals: Alok Kumar, VHP Working President on Ayodhya matter
Mahant Dinendra Das, head of the Nirmohi Akhara and one of the litigants in the case, called for an early verdict in the Ayodhya case. "We are very happy. We want that the ram janmabhoomi judgement should come as soon as possible, it will make happier," he said.
Ijaz Maqbool, lawyer for the Petitioner, says Muslim community always said it is only a land dispute and it has to be dealt with accordingly.
"Everyone has to accept the verdict. Majority judgement said the Observations made in 1994 are only in the Context of acquisition. Court made it clear these observations won't affect the title suit," he says.
Three-judge Bench will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority
The majority judgement today says that the 1994 observations by the Supreme Court were only related to that specific issue of acquisition, and not to the larger question of whether a mosque is essential to Islam
Justice Abdul Nazeer dissents
- 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
Supreme Court to hear main Ayodhya case on October 29 week
Breaking: Supreme Court has declined plea to refer the Ismail Farooqui judgement to the larger bench
"We have to find the context in which five judges delivered 1994 verdict in Ismail Farooqi case that mosque is not integral to Islam. Law is not always logical at all. Farooqi judgement said every temple mosque church and be acquired. Mosque not essential part of religion made in a specific context of acquiring. That Statement is in context of the issue whether it has immunity from acquisition," Justice Bhushan has observed.
Justice Ashok Bhushan has begun reading the order. He says that there are two opinions
Mohd. Iqbad Ansari, one of the litigants in the Babri Masjid case, says that the he has confidence that the court will rule in their favour. "Mosque is an integral part of Islam. Let the court give judgment, even the judges are religious people and of different religion. Muslims have never done anything that will hurt the sentiments other people," he was quoted by news agency ANI.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to revisit the issue of whether namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere - or whether a mosque is an essential part of the practice of Islam and is needed for congregation and to pray.
Land Belongs To Lord Ram: Litigant In Ayodhya Case
- Congress has diverted the issue with adding impractical arguments in the original case
- If the land belongs to Ram temple and had been registered
- Even archaeology survey of India had also proved that there are evidences of Lord Ram
- Without stretching the issue judgment should be made
- That land belongs to Lord Ram and Ram temple should be built there
Muslim cleric Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali on Ismail Faruqui case
- The Supreme Court's verdict relating to Ismail Faruqui will be essential as it has direct connection with Ayodhya case
- Our advice is that Faruqui's case should be referred to the larger constitutional bench
- Any matter relating to any religion requires the checking up of the source of that that religion which is a constitutional requirement
- The main sources in Islam are Quran, Hadis and Islamic law
Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim peritioner, argued that the appeal from 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment dividing the disputed site into three parts could be heard only after the main issue is decided as a preliminary issue.
Mr. Dhavan persisted that it was necessary to reconsider observations in 1994 Ismail Farooqi judgment that praying in mosque was not an essential feature of Islam, as that the impugned judgment of the High Court had relied on such observations.
If the top court on Friday decides to revisit the issue of whether namaz can be offered anywhere, the other, larger hearing - on who the disputed land in Ayodhya belongs to - will stop till this matter is resolved; that means a verdict on whether a temple can be built in Ayodhya, an important commitment of the ruling BJP, is unlikely before the elections in 2019.
The verdict on the case is expected around 2 pm.
3 judges who will hear the case
Chief Justice Dipak Misra
Justice Ashok Bhushan
Justice S Abdul Nazeer
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim appellants, had argued that the observation in the Ismail Farooqui judgment has affected the status of mosques in Islam.
The Babri Masjid, a 16th century mosque was destroyed in 1992 by karsewaks or right-wing volunteers who said that it had to be brought down so that a temple could be built to Lord Ram, who they say was born right here.
Muslim litigants say that this decades-old verdict played a big role in the disputed land in Ayodhya being divided in 2010 into three parts by the Allahabad High Court: it split the land between Hindu and Muslim parties, though the main part was given to Hindus.
In 1994, the Supreme Court said that namaz could be offered anywhere and that a mosque was not necessary for this. It also ruled that the government could, therefore, if needed, acquire the land that a mosque is built on.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra will decide whether the Ismail Farooqui judgement in which it was said that mosque is not integral part of Islam will go to a larger Constitution bench or not. It could also be one of the last verdicts that Chief Justice Misra deliver, before he retires.