live

Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict updates: VHP says path clear for hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals

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.'

FP Staff September 27, 2018 16:33:19 IST
Auto refresh feeds
Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict updates: VHP says path clear for hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals

Highlights

16:18 (ist)

RSS welcomes SC verdict

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

15:19 (ist)

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

As The Indian Express report states, in 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”.  

12:49 (ist)

Won't speculate on SC ruling but mosque integral part of faith, says AIMPLB

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."

12:14 (ist)

Shia Waqf Board says it wants to settle dispute peacefully

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." 

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

LIVE NEWS and UPDATES

Sept 27, 2018 - 16:18 (IST)

RSS welcomes SC verdict

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

Sept 27, 2018 - 16:06 (IST)

Verdict not a setback for us, says Zafaryab Jilani

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. 

Sept 27, 2018 - 15:39 (IST)

VHP working president says way clear for hearing Ram Janmabhoomi appeals

"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.

Sept 27, 2018 - 15:34 (IST)

'Problem we started with hasn't been resolved'

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. 

Sept 27, 2018 - 15:19 (IST)

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

As The Indian Express report states, in 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”.  

Sept 27, 2018 - 15:13 (IST)

Subramanian Swamy to move SC for expedited hearing in Ayodhya case

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. 

Sept 27, 2018 - 15:03 (IST)

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

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. 

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. 

Sept 27, 2018 - 14:40 (IST)

What did the minority opinion in today's judgment say?

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

  • That what is essential to religion as laid down in Ismail Faruqui was arrived at without comprehensive examination of religious texts and hence the issue needs to be re-examined in detail. 
  • That the questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui ruling have permeated the Allahabad High Court verdict of 2010
  • That the Ismail Faruqui judgment needs to be brought in line with Shirur matt case.

Sept 27, 2018 - 14:32 (IST)

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 

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

  • The 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment was only in relation to land acquisition and is not applicable to the Ayodhya case.
  • No need to refer the matter to a larger bench. A three judge bench will continue to hear the matter.
  • The Supreme Court will now hear the various petition relating to the Ayodhya land title dispute will be heard from 29 October onwards

Sept 27, 2018 - 14:28 (IST)

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

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.  

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.

Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict updates VHP says path clear for hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeals

Representational image. AFP

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

Updated Date:

also read

Sanjay Yadav sworn in as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court; UP governor administers oath
India

Sanjay Yadav sworn in as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court; UP governor administers oath

Justice Yadav would, however, demit the office on 25 June when he turns 62. Chief Justices and judges of high courts retire at the age of 62.

French Open 2021 highlights, women's singles final: Barbora Krejcikova wins maiden Grand Slam title
Sports

French Open 2021 highlights, women's singles final: Barbora Krejcikova wins maiden Grand Slam title

In the French Open 2021 women's final, Barbora Krejcikova beat Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 6-1, 2-6, 6-4 for her maiden Grand Slam title.

CBSE Class 12 board exams: Narendra Modi to chair crucial meeting today, but any decision unlikely, say reports
India

CBSE Class 12 board exams: Narendra Modi to chair crucial meeting today, but any decision unlikely, say reports

Union education minister Ramesh Pokhriyal who has been admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19, he may not be joining the meeting