Ayodhya Dispute Case to be Heard on 29 Oct, RSS Welcomes SC Ruling
SC will decide on whether or not to refer the issue to a 5-judge bench to determine relevance of mosque in Islam.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS
The civil suit on the Ayodhya land dispute will now be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 29 October, the apex court said on Thursday, 27 September.
The SC on Thursday declined to refer to a five-judge Constitution Bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.
In the three-judge bench, Justice S Abdul Nazeer dissented from the judgment of CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Bhushan.
The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad HC's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided equally among three parties – the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
- In a majority 2:1 verdict, the SC bench headed by CJI Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance on it
- Justice Nazeer had said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and only thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard
- A reconstituted three-judge bench will be hearing the civil suit on the Ayodhya land dispute as CJI Misra will retire on 2 October
How Things Stand
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by its 30 September 2010 verdict had ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts – one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case, and third for the Muslims.
Earlier this year, at the outset of the hearing in the apex court, the court witnessed commotion as some lawyers objected to Dhavan's use of term Hindu Taliban and his comparing the razing of Babri Mosque on 6 December 1992 to that of destruction of Buddha statues in Afghanistan's Bamiyan by the Taliban.
Refusing to budge from his description of Hindu Taliban, Dhavan had said he stood by every word and destruction of Babri Mosque on 6 December 1992 was an act of terrorism.
As senior counsel CS Vaidyanathan appearing for one of the Hindu litigants described his arguments as "mockery", Dhavan said: "It is an argument based on the destruction of the mosque."
Dhavan said that the former Chief Justice, the late JS Verma, had said that Hindus must wear the cross of the destruction of the Babri Mosque.
At this, reminding Dhavan that it was incumbent upon senior lawyers to maintain "decorum" in the court, the Chief Justice described as "inappropriate" the words used by the senior lawyer.
Taking exception to the "inappropriate adjectives" used by Dhavan, he said that "adjectives" that are used in the course of the arguments should be the ones that have the acceptance of the court.
SC to Pronounce Two Separate Verdicts
The Supreme Court will pronounce two verdicts in the matter according to a notice issued by the court. Along with Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice SA Nazeer will also pen his separate opinion.
Bench assembles to Pronounce Verdict
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court assembles to pronounce its verdict.
SC Refuses to Refer Case to a Larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 27 September, declined a plea by Muslim litigants seeking that the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict be heard by a larger bench.
Justice Ashok Bhushan while reading the judgment on behalf of both him and the CJI said that the context in which the five judges delivered 1994 verdict in Ismail Farooqi case that mosque is not integral to Islam needs to be found out.
He further said that earlier finding that mosque is integral to Islam was made in context of land acquisition.
Land Dispute Case Listed for 29 October
The Ayodhya land dispute case will be listed before the Supreme Court on 29 October for deciding the suits on merit.
Justice Nazeer Dissents from Verdict
Justice S Abdul Nazeer dissented from the judgment of CJI Misra and Justice Bhushan.
Justice Nazeer said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and only thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard.
He further observed that contentious observations in Ismail Faruqui case have influenced the Allahabad High Court's judgment in the present title dispute.
SC Should've Spoken in One Voice: Petitioner's Counsel
Rajiv Dhawan, the petitioner's counsel in Ayodhya title suit case, said that the verdict of the Supreme Court should have been unanimous.
“The majority judgement will please majority, the minority judgement will please minority. The very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved. [It’s] not about arithmetic, but of convincing everybody that SC should've spoken in one voice,” said Dhawan.
Satisfied With the Verdict: VHP
Alok Kumar, VHP working president, said that he is happy with the verdict.
“I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals,” said Kumar.
'We're Confident That a Just Verdict Will be Reached at the Earliest': RSS
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to hold the hearing on the Ram Janmabhoomi case from 29 October by a three-member bench.
We welcome this decision and are confident that a just verdict will be reached over the case at the earliest.RSS
'Enemies of Secularism Will Use the Judgment to Realise Their Ideological Objectives': Owaisi
Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday, AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi said:
“It would have been better if this issue was referred to a Constitution Bench. Also, I have an apprehension that the enemies of secularism in this country will use this judgment to realise their ideological objectives.”
'Dispute Should Be Resolved at the Earliest': Yogi Adityanath
Asking for resolution of the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute at the earliest, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said:
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.Yogi Adiytanath, as quoted by ANI
'This Isn't a Matter of Religious Dispute': Uma Bharti
Welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision, Union Minister Uma Bharti said she believes that the work on Ram Mandir will begin soon.
“This isn’t a matter of religious dispute, as Ayodhya is an important religious place for Hindus because it is the Ram Janambhoomi. But for Muslims, it isn’t a religious place, for them it is Mecca. This matter was created and it finally got transformed into a land dispute.”Uma Bharti