The Supreme Court on Thursday rebuffed the plea to refer to a five judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its ruling in 1994 Ismail Faruqui case which said that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
Justice Ashok Bhushan, reading out the judgement for himself and CJI Dipak Mishra said “All religions, all mosques and temple churches are equal. We have already noticed all religious places are liable to be acquired as per 1994 verdict.
The third judge, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, disagreeing with the other two judges said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief and requires detailed consideration.
If the court had decided to re-examine it’s 1994 ruling, it would have delayed hearing on Ayodhya issue. The Ayodhya Title case will be heard from October 29, the court said.
In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgement, let’s have a look at five major takeaways from today's verdict.
- Ayodhya matter (Ismail Faruqui case): All religions and religious places need to be equally respected. Ashoka's edicts preach tolerance to the faith of others, said Justice Ashok Bhushan.
- Ayodhya land dispute case will not be referred to a larger bench: Justice Bhushan on behalf of him and CJI Dipak Misra.
- However, Justice Abdul Nazeer, who was also on the three-judge bench that delivered today's verdict, dissented from his brother judges saying that what is essential to religion was a question that needed a comprehensive examination.
- "The issue whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam needs to be considered by a Constitution Bench," Justice Nazeer said in his dissenting note.
- Regarding Ayodhya matter (Ismail Faruqui case) Justice S Nazeer said, "Larger bench needs to decide what constitutes essential religious practice."