Ayodhya Dispute: SC Refuses To Review 1994 Verdict Which Said Mosque Land Can Be Acquired, Clears Way For Title Dispute Hearing

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer pronounced the verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case, which was reserved on 20 July, at 2pm today. By a majority of 2:1, the Supreme Court has declined to refer the case to a larger bench. The Supreme Court (SC) had to decide whether Namaz can be offered anywhere or a mosque is a necessary part of the Islamic practice and is required for congregation and to pray.

In a 1994 judgement, the court had said that a mosque was not essential for Namaz and it could be offered anywhere. It had also noted that the government could acquire the land that a mosque is built on.

Justice Bhushan, writing the majority opinion on behalf of himself and the CJI has stated that the observations of the Apex Court in Ismail Faruqui over a mosque not being essential to Islam was made with specific reference to the facts of that case and should be read in the context of land acquisition.

Elaborating further, Justice Bhushan stated that the eminent domain principle allowed the State to acquire temples, mosques, churches and other places of worship. The majority opinion further stated that the decision of the Apex Court in Ismail Faruqui was concerned with the title dispute in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case and paved the way for its hearing from 29 October.

Justice Nazeer however dissented from the majority opinion and held that the question of whether a mosque was essential to the practice of Islam had to be determined by a Constitution Bench. He further stated that the questionable observations of the Apex Court in Ismail Faruqui had influenced the Allahabad HC in its decision on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute.

A three-judge bench will now hear the title dispute, slated for 29 October.