Ayodhya-linked verdict in Supreme Court LIVE Updates:
M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".
Also Read | In Ayodhya case, a question recalled: Is mosque central to prayer in Islam?
Mehta had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict. The Uttar Pradesh government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise".
Read | What is the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment?
Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.
The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.
A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
- with PTI inputs
While disagreeing with the two judges, Justice Nazeer says that whether the mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration. He also refers to the recent Supreme Court order on female genital mutilation and said the present matter be heard by a larger bench.
Three judge Bench of Supreme Court will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority.
monthly limit of free stories.
with an Express account.
Justice Nazeer disagrees with the majority decision. Says it should have been referred to a larger bench. Earlier Justice Ashok Bhushan on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra said observations in Ismail Faruqui judgment on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of the acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case.
The Supreme Court will begin hearing Ayodhya matter from October 29, 2018 to decide the suit on merit
Justice Nazeer says “questionable observations” in Faruqui ruling “arrived at without undertaking comprehensive examination” and “have permeated” the judgement in the main Ayodhya title suit.
Observations in Ismail Faruqui judgment on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of the acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case, says Justice Ashok Bhushan. The statement in Faruqui case was in the limited context of immunity claimed by the petitioners for the mosque from acquisition, it need not be read broadly to mean mosque can never be essential to practise of Islam, he adds.
Justice Ashok Bhushan is pronouncing the verdict on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself.
Justices Bharucha and Ahmadi found that the “Act and the Reference… favour one religious community and disfavour another”; therefore “the purpose of the Reference is… opposed to secularism and is unconstitutional”. Also, the judges said, “the Reference does not serve a constitutional purpose.”
The minority judgment struck down the 1993 Act “as being unconstitutional”, and returned the Presidential Reference without answering. “When… adherents of the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect that place of worship and to preserve public order… It is impermissible under the provisions of the Constitution for the State to acquire that place of worship to preserve public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution,” the minority judgment said.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had in July appealed seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the disputed Ram temple at Ayodhya. But the bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked him to mention it 'later on'.
Swamy said the term “later on” was very subjective and added that he would mention his plea for hearing after 15 days again.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI M N Venkatchalliah, had in 1994 held, “under the Mohammedan Law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession…. If that is the position in law, there can be no reason to hold that a mosque has a unique or special status, higher than that of the places of worship of other religions in secular India to make it immune from acquisition by exercise of the sovereign or prerogative power of the State. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open.”
The 24-year-old judgement by Supreme Court in Ismail Faruqi vs Union of India has become the crucial clog in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute as it considered the question of acquisition of religious place by the State.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had in 2010 ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres area at the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. The three-judge bench of the high court, by a 2:1 majority, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will decide whether the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment should be referred to a larger bench and if it involves constitutional questions. Earlier in July, the Supreme Court had reserved its order. It was argued by Muslim groups before a special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the “sweeping” observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as “it had and will have a bearing” on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.