Ram Mandir-Babri case not referred to a larger bench, Justice Nazeer dissents on the same

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

The Supreme Court held that the Ram Mandir-Babri case need not to a five-judge Constitution Bench. Effectively, the Court held that its 1994 judgment in Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India during the hearing of the Ayodhya Land dispute need not be revisited. The court also added that the main Ayodhya case will be taken up for hearing in the week starting October 29.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer on Thursday, September 27, wherein a batch of Muslims made a plea for referring of the Ram Mandir-Babri case to a larger bench of comprising of five judges, reconsidering the observations made in 1994 verdict that the mosque was not integral to Islam. The judges of the Allahabad High Court in 2:1 majority ruling had ordered that the land should of 2.77 acres be partitioned equally among the three parties i.e. – The Sunni Waqf Board, The Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Not only this the judges made a clear statement in the same ratio making it clear that the same matter will not be referred t a larger bench of five –judges.

Reading out the judgment for himself and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan stated that the judgment in Ismail Faruqui will not impact decisions in suits. “The observations in that judgment were only with respect to immunity from acquisition and won’t affect suits, also during the course of the hearing, Justice Bhushan had observed that nobody was questioning that “Mosque is essential to Islam, but the question is whether offering Namaz in a Mosque was essential.”

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.

The court was told that the birthplace of Lord Ram acquisition 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”.

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. However, Justice Abdul Nazeer does not completely agree the conclusions and dissents stating that in the case of Ismail Faruqui v. Union Of India, the case the was not comprehensively examined and so it needs to be revisited and re-examined in detail.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -