VHP working president Alok Kumar said, 'I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals.'

Auto refresh feeds

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce an important verdict on the Ayodhya dispute regarding whether the challenge to the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya title suit be heard by a regular bench or a five-judge constitution bench. The Muslim litigants have insisted that the matter be heard by a five-judge constitution bench.

The court is likely to read out the judgment at 2pm today. The verdict will strictly relate to the plea concerning request for a larger constitution bench to decide whether the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict should be reviewed by a larger bench or not.

Apart from taking a call on whether the titular dispute be referred to a larger constitution bench, the Supreme Court will also decide that whether mosques are essential to Muslims for offering prayers. In 1994, a Supreme Court bench, had ruled that a mosque is not integral to offering namaaz in Islam, a ruling on which the Allahabad High Court based its judgment dividing the disputed land in three parts.

This is because, in 2010 the Allahabad High Court divided the disputed land in three parts — giving one to deity of Ramlala Virajman, another to Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara and a third to the Muslims — relied on a 1994 top court judgment. If the Supreme Court finds fault with its previous judgment and decides to review it, it may have a larger impact on the final ruling.

The Supreme Court is likely to take a call on whether to re-examine the issue of whether mosques are an integral part of Islam or whether Muslims can offer prayers anywhere. This aspect of the case is although independent of the larger title dispute at the heart of the matter, it could play an important role in the final decision on the land dispute.

The state government had said that the Muslim parties did not question the legality of the 1994 judgement till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.

The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, has questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Majid title suit case for making "belated efforts" seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.

The Supreme Court had dubbed the demolition of the Babri Masjid a "crime" that had shaken the "secular fabric of the Constitution" while allowing the CBI's plea on restoration of criminal conspiracy charge against the accused, which included several VVIPs and politicians.

On 19 April, 2017, the apex court had said BJP stalwarts LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti would be prosecuted for the serious offence of criminal conspiracy in the politically-sensitive 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case and had ordered a day-to-day trial to be concluded in two years, which is by 19 April, 2019.

To go to pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith both for the Muslims and the Hindus as well, but for the Muslims, "Mecca and Medina alone are places of particular significance" as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.

The court was told that the birthplace of Lord Ram cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will "not affect the right to practice religion by offering 'namaz' in other mosques".

The Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgement in the hearing of the title suit in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment.

If the Supreme Court on Thursday decides to revisit the issue of whether a mosque is essential to offering namaz for Muslims, the larger hearing on the Ayodhya land title dispute will be halted till this matter is decided by the court. This would means that a verdict on whether a temple can be built in Ayodhya, an issue that makes a comeback every election season, is unlikely before the Lok Sabha elections in 2019.

Hindu parties say that the litigants are only challenging a 24-year-old judgment to stall proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case. According to IANS, the Hindu groups party to the case have asserted that the Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 ruling, merely quoted the 1994 Supreme Court judgment and that it had no bearing on the final ruling, which gave most of the disputed land to Hindu parties.

Muslim groups had argued before the special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observations made by Supreme Court in Ismail Faruqui judgment. They said a five-judge bench of the top court must relook at the verdict as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said that the Shia Waqf Board "has no locus" to speak in the case.

The Shia Waqf Board, which claims that the Babri Masjid belonged to Shias and not Sunnis, had submitted in the Supreme Court that the matter need not be referred to a constitution bench and said that it is ready to relinquish its claims in the national interest. The board's lawyer said that "for the unity, integrity, peace and harmony in this great country, Shia Waqf board is in favour of donating the Muslim share of Ayodhya disputed land for building the Ram Temple."

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan representing M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case, said: "Islam says mosques are integral to faith. Hadith says this, but the Supreme Court says it was not integral to Islam." "If the congregation part of Islam is taken away, a large part of Islam goes worthless. Mosques are meant for congregation and prayer," Dhavan added .

An All India Muslim Personal Law Board spokeperson told CNN-News18 , "We wouldn't like to comment on what the Supreme Court will say but we will say this that a mosque is an integral and important aspect of our faith."

The Supreme Court had said that it would not hear arguments based on politics or religion and would treat the case purely as a land title dispute case, indicating that the centuries-old history attached to the case was of no significance to it. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said that poor citizens were waiting for justice, and 700 petitions in the case "can be disposed by devoting a few hours".

The three-judge bench has produced two separate judgments in the case relating to the review of a 1994 judgment of the Supreme Court. According to reports, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan have co-authored a judgment which is to be read by the latter, whereas Justice Nazeer has produced a separate judgment.

This means means that the SC adjudged that offering Namaz at mosque was not integral to Islam, unless that mosque had any particular significance in Islam.

While offering prayer is a religious practice, its offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a “particular significance” for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof, the court held.

In Dr M Ismail Faruqui versus Union of India, the Supreme Court considered the question of acquisition of religious place by the State. It looked at a temple, church or a mosque, etc which were essentially immovable properties and subject to protection under Article 25 and 26.

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.

The 1994 judgment which is under scrutiny tody was a majority verdict by a five-judge bench, and not a concurring one.

According to Times Now, Justice Ashok Bhushan has started reading out the judgment on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself. He said that the context of the Supreme COurt's 1994 judgment in the Ismail Faruqui matter was in relation with the acquisition of land and not religious matter

Justtice Bhushan, reading out a judgment on behalf CJI Dipak Misra and himself, said that the Ayodhya case need not be referred to a larger bench.

Speaking to Times Now, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said that today's ruling cleared a roadblock in the path of the construction of Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. He said that this ruling will ensure that the matter is now expedited. "I would like the temple to be constructed before Diwali," he added.

The Supreme Court has held that the questionable observations in the Ismail Faruqui matter are not in any way relevant for decision making in the Ayodhya land title dispute. Therefore the bench did not see a need to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Justice Bhushan held that the said judgment with respect to immunity from acquistion and won't affect the land title dispute.

Speaking to Times Now, Subramanian Swamy said that now the judgment on the Ayodhya land title case was not far. He opined that his fundamental right to pray supersedes the Sunni Waqf Board's ordinary right to property and hence the court will ultimately rule in favour of Hindus.

My fundamental right to pray supercedes their ordinary right to property, says Subramanian Swamy

Reports from the courtroom suggest that three important pointers from today's judgment should be noted.

SC to hear land dispute from 29 Oct; no need to refer matter to larger bench; 1994 ruling not applicable to Ayodhya case: Crux of SC ruling

Of the three judges hearing the matter, Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented from the majority judgment. He held:

However, Justice Abdul Bazeer gave a dissenting judgment, wherein he held that the questionable observation already seems to have permeated the Allahabad High Court ruling in 2010, which is being examined in the apex court.

The Supreme Court, in its majority judgment, said that it ruling in 1994 that mosques are not fundamentally essential for Muslims to pray, was made in a very narrow context. It held that the ruling cannot be held as a generic law and is certainly not applicable to the land title dispute.

Comment that mosque not essential to Islam not to be taken as general law; Justice Nazeer dissents

BJP's Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has said that he will move the Supreme Court on Friday to request for expedited hearings in the case. He said he will move his plea on the grounds that his fundamental right to practice and propagate his religion supersedes the Sunni Waqf Board's ordinary right to property.

As The Indian Express report states , i n the Shirur Mutt case (1954), it was held that the term “religion” will cover all rituals and practices “integral” to a religion. The SC took upon itself the responsibility of determining what is integral. The court said that the question of religion would be decided by taking into consideration what the religious denomination considered essential or crucial. This is called the “essentiality test”.

Justice Nazeer wanted Ismail Faruqui verdict to be read in line with Shirur Mutt case: What did the 1954 case say?

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing litigant M Siddiq, said, "Majority judgment will please the majority, minority judgment will please the minority. The very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved." In the top court, he had argued for the reopening of the 1994 verdict and had pleaded for the entire case to be referred to a larger bench.

"I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals," VHP working president Alok Kumar said.

Senior advocate and AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani told News18 that the Supreme Court ruling is not a "setback" for them. "The judgment of 1994 has perhaps been cleared," Jilani said.

In a statement , the RSS said that the organisation welcomes the Supreme Court's order and hopes for early decision in the matter.

Speaking to Times Now, Subramanian Swamy said that now the judgment on the Ayodhya land title case was not far. He opined that his fundamental right to pray supersedes the Sunni Waqf Board's ordinary right to property and hence the court will ultimately rule in favour of Hindus.

My fundamental right to pray supercedes their ordinary right to property, says Subramanian Swamy

Reports from the courtroom suggest that three important pointers from today's judgment should be noted.

SC to hear land dispute from 29 Oct; no need to refer matter to larger bench; 1994 ruling not applicable to Ayodhya case: Crux of SC ruling

Of the three judges hearing the matter, Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented from the majority judgment. He held:

However, Justice Abdul Bazeer gave a dissenting judgment, wherein he held that the questionable observation already seems to have permeated the Allahabad High Court ruling in 2010, which is being examined in the apex court.

The Supreme Court, in its majority judgment, said that it ruling in 1994 that mosques are not fundamentally essential for Muslims to pray, was made in a very narrow context. It held that the ruling cannot be held as a generic law and is certainly not applicable to the land title dispute.

Comment that mosque not essential to Islam not to be taken as general law; Justice Nazeer dissents

BJP's Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has said that he will move the Supreme Court on Friday to request for expedited hearings in the case. He said he will move his plea on the grounds that his fundamental right to practice and propagate his religion supersedes the Sunni Waqf Board's ordinary right to property.

As The Indian Express report states , i n the Shirur Mutt case (1954), it was held that the term “religion” will cover all rituals and practices “integral” to a religion. The SC took upon itself the responsibility of determining what is integral. The court said that the question of religion would be decided by taking into consideration what the religious denomination considered essential or crucial. This is called the “essentiality test”.

Justice Nazeer wanted Ismail Faruqui verdict to be read in line with Shirur Mutt case: What did the 1954 case say?

Majority judgement will please majority,minority judgement will please minority.Very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved.Not about arithmetic,but of convincing everybody that SC should've spoken in 1voice: Rajiv Dhawan, Petitioner's counsel in Ayodhya title suit case pic.twitter.com/e94PVmab1K

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing litigant M Siddiq, said, "Majority judgment will please the majority, minority judgment will please the minority. The very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved." In the top court, he had argued for the reopening of the 1994 verdict and had pleaded for the entire case to be referred to a larger bench.

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 (Ismail Faruqui case) pic.twitter.com/bvAgVYRzNA

"I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals," VHP working president Alok Kumar said.

Senior advocate and AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani told News18 that the Supreme Court ruling is not a "setback" for them. "The judgment of 1994 has perhaps been cleared," Jilani said.

In a statement , the RSS said that the organisation welcomes the Supreme Court's order and hopes for early decision in the matter.

Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict Latest Updates: VHP working president Alok Kumar said, "I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals."

Of the three judges hearing the matter, Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented from the majority judgment. He held that the questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui ruling have permeated the Allahabad High Court verdict of 2010.

The Supreme Court has held that the questionable observations in the Ismail Faruqui matter are not in any way relevant for decision making in the Ayodhya land title dispute. Therefore the bench did not see a need to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Justice Bhushan held that the said judgment with respect to immunity from acquistion and won't affect the land title dispute.

Justice Ashok Bhushan has started reading out the judgment on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself. He said that the context of the Supreme COurt's 1994 judgment in the Ismail Faroqui matter was in relation with the acquisition of land and not religious matter

The petitioners' lawyers have assembled in court and the three judges are also expected to arrive in court shortly. The judgment, which was scheduled to be delivered at two, will be read out shortly.

The three-judge bench has produced two separate judgments in the case relating to the review of a 1994 judgment of the Supreme Court. According to reports, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan have co-authored a judgment which is to be read by the latter, whereas Justice Nazeer has produced a separate judgment.

The Supreme Court had said that it would not hear arguments based on politics or religion and would treat the case purely as a land title dispute case, indicating that the centuries-old history attached to the case was of no significance to it.

The key litigants in the 25 year-old Ram Janmbhoomi–Babri mosque dispute will not be part of the final proceedings in the Supreme Court. Both the Hindu and the Muslim litigants passed away before the case could reach its culmination.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan representing M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case, said: "Islam says mosques are integral to faith. Hadith says this, but the Supreme Court says it was not integral to Islam." "If the congregation part of Islam is taken away, a large part of Islam goes worthless. Mosques are meant for congregation and prayer," Dhavan added.

Hindu parties say that the litigants are only challenging a 24-year-old judgment to stall proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case. According to IANS, the Hindu groups party to the case have asserted that the Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 ruling, merely quoted the 1994 Supreme Court judgment and that it had no bearing on the final ruling, which gave most of the disputed land to Hindu parties.

The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, has questioned the Muslim litigants in the case for making "belated efforts" seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict, which had reserved it on 20 July.

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.

It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and SA 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.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".

He 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 state 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".

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.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

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 inputs from agencies