Supreme Court adjourns Ayodhya dispute matter, 3-judge bench led by CJI Gogoi says date of hearing will be fixed in January
The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit to January, 2019 and said that an appropriate bench will fix the date of hearing. The Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph did not decide on the date of hearing or the bench.
The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya title suit to January, 2019 and said that an appropriate bench will fix the date of hearing. The Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph did not decide on the date of hearing or the bench. The three-judge bench proceeded to order that the case will be listed in January 2019 for fixing a date for hearing.
The matter was listed for the first time after a three-judge bench gave a verdict on 27 September holding that the case need not be referred to a Constitution Bench.
The top court bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer by a majority of 2:1 while rejecting the plea challenging the High Court judgment had directed that the matter would be heard by a three-judge bench from Monday.
The majority judgement on 27 September held that a new constituted bench will commence hearing from October 29 on a batch of petitions filed by both the sides — Hindu and Muslim stakeholders — challenging the 2010 high court judgement.
The Muslim petitioners had pressed for hearing the challenge to the High Court judgment by a five-judge bench as the court had relied on a 1994 top court judgment that said that mosque was not essential to Islam for offering 'namaz'.
The three-judge bench while rejecting the plea had on 27 September said, "We are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration."
"We again make it clear that questionable observations made in the Ismail Faruqui's case ... were made in the context of land acquisition. Those observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor relevant for deciding these appeals," the majority judgement had said.
In his minority judgement, Justice Nazeer had said that the "questionable" observations in the Ismail Faruqui ruling were arrived at without undertaking a comprehensive examination. He had said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard.
Justice Nazeer also said that whether mosque was an essential part of Islam for offering namaz was to be decided considering the religious beliefs, and that requires detailed consideration.
"It is clear that the question as to whether a particular religious practice is an integral part of the religion is to be considered by the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion," he observed.
He said the question of the 1994 Ismail Farooqi judgement needed to be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
One hopes the current confrontation between the executive and the judiciary proves to be a blessing in disguise and ushers in much-needed progressive reforms in the judiciary
When the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year and gave control of abortion policy to the states, it led to bans and restrictions in some states, and executive orders and laws protecting access in others
In Italy, parents of two children appealed against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their grandparents. Now, the top court has said that this is not an obligation