SC denies sending Ayodhya case to a larger bench in a 2:1 judgement: As it happened

The SC will begin hearing the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title dispute from October 29.

By Zee Media Bureau | Last Updated: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 15:16

The Supreme Court in a majority judgement on Thursday said that the apex court observations in the 1994 case, which said that a mosque was not integral to Islam, will not be sent to a larger bench for reconsideration. The SC was giving a verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups who had sought reconsideration of the observations.

While Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan gave a majority opinion that the observations in paragraph 52 of Ismail Faruqi judgment that mosque was not an integral part of Islam have to be understood in the context of land acquisition proceedings, Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented. 

Ismail Faruqui had held that a religious place cannot claim immunity from compulsory acquisition. SC bench on Thursday said that the observations on offering namaz in mosque was made in that context.

The SC will begin hearing the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title dispute from October 29.

Muslim groups had argued 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.

Stay with us for the live updates from the Supreme Court: 

27 September 2018, 14:34 PM

Pronouncement concludes

A three-judge Supreme Court bench will decide the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title dispute. The SC will begin hearing the Ayodhya case from October 29 this year to give a decision on the title suit.

27 September 2018, 14:31 PM

Justice Abdul Nazeer: He said that questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui have permeated the Allahabad High Court verdict. Ismail Faruqui case needs to be brought in line with Shirur matt case. 

27 September 2018, 14:29 PM

SC gives a 2:1 judgement 

Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented with the other two judges. He held that what is essential to religion as laid down in Ismail Faruqui was arrived at without comprehensive examination, needs to be re-examined in detail.

27 September 2018, 14:22 PM

Justice Bhushan: Observation in Ismail Faruqui judgement that mosques is not essential part of religion in the context of acquisition of mosque must be treated as an observation but not a governing factor. The present case shall be decided on its own facts, the Ismail Farooqui Judgment would have no impact on it.

27 September 2018, 14:21 PM

Justice Bhushan: We have to find the context in which 5 judges delivered 1994 verdict in Ismail Farooqi case that mosque is not integral to Islam. Earlier finding that mosque is integral to Islam was made in context of land acquisition. 

 

27 September 2018, 14:14 PM

SC declines to refer matter to a larger bench

Ayodhya land dispute case will not be referred to a larger bench: Justice Bhushan on behalf of him and CJI Dipak Misra

27 September 2018, 14:14 PM

All places of worship in all religions are equally important: Justice Bhushan
 

27 September 2018, 14:12 PM

Justice Ashok Bhushan said that the observation in para 52 of Ismail Faruqui has to be understood in the context of immunity from the acquisition. He said that the SC in Ismail Faruqui case held that all temples, mosques chuches etc. are liable to be acquired under eminent domain of the State.

27 September 2018, 14:07 PM

Justice Ashok Bhushan says that the observations in 1994 case is in the context of the acquisition of the mosque and was made with respect to the facts of that case.

27 September 2018, 14:05 PM

Supreme Court three-judge bench has assembled, it has started pronouncing its judgement. Justice Ashok Bhushan is reading the verdict on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself.

27 September 2018, 13:53 PM

The SC is likely to pronounce its judgement at 2 pm on whether the observation made by the apex court in 1994 needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench. The decision is likely to have an impact on the "long-pending" Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by clicking this link

Close