The Supreme Court has ruled that the matter of whether Mosques are essential for prayer in Islam will not be referred to a Constitution bench and daily hearings in the Ayodhya dispute case will now commence from October 29. The three judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer delivered a split verdict.
The majority judgment authored by Justice Bhushan on behalf of himself and the CJI held that the matter need not be referred to a larger Constitution bench. They also held that observations in the Ismail Faruqi judgment that mosque was not an integral part of Islam, have to be understood in the context of land acquisition proceedings and that the Faruqi case was not concerned with the title dispute in the present suits.
However, Justice Nazeer authored a dissenting judgment where he insisted that the Faruqi judgment needed to be revisited for context. He also ruled that the matter of mosques being integral to Islam needed to be referred to a Constitution bench.
Brief background of the case:
In 1994, the court had ruled in the Ismail Farooqui judgement that namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere and a mosque is not essential. This cleared the way for the government to take over the land where the 16th century Babri Masjid stood. In December 1992 Hindu hardliners had razed the Babri Masjid claiming that it was built over the birthplace of Hindu deity Ram.