Our Correspondent / New Delhi
The Supreme Court today rejected a plea for referring the Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi dispute to a larger Constitutional Bench and decided that a newly set up three-judge bench will hear the case from October 29.
“No case has been made out to refer the case to the Constitution Bench,” Justice Ashok Bhushan said reading out the judgement on behalf of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and on his own behalf.
However, Justice Abdul Nazeer wanted the case to be referred to a bigger Constitution Bench.
Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the CJI, said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the 1994 judgement.
Justice S Abdul Nazeer disagreed with the two judges and said whether mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration.
He referred to the recent Supreme Court order on female genital mutilation and said the present matter be heard by larger bench.
The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI.
The issue whether mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when he three-judge bench headed by CJI Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts.
A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
HIGHLIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT
– A Muslim group had assailed the observations made by a five-judge Constitution bench in 1994 in the Ismail Faruqui case.
– In a majority verdict of 2:1, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan say earlier observation was made in the limited context of “land acquisition”.
– Observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor for deciding these appeals.
– No case has been made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration.
– SC says has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 judgement.
– Justice S A Nazeer, the third judge, dissented with the majority view.
-He said the question whether mosque was essential part of the religion cannot be decided without a “detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith” and favoured reconsideration of the issue to a larger bench.
-Justice Nazeer said the questionable observation of 1994 verdict had permeated into the Allahabad High Court’s decision in land dispute case.
– He held that the larger bench should decide whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality.
– Civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench from October 29.