How did the Ayodhya land dispute case get to where it is?
The
Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Ayodhya
title suit regarding the Babri masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi land dispute
would be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench on January 10
(Thursday).
The
bench will be led by Chief
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, with the other four judges being Justices
S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
The
Supreme Court began hearing the case in December 2017, when the
Allahabad high court decision to split the land three ways was
appealed.
In
the last week of September 2018, the Supreme Court refused to refer
to a five-judge Constitution bench a 24-year-old case – the Ismail
Faruqui judgment – that said offering prayers in a mosque is not an
“essential feature” of Islam. Justice Ashok Bhushan authored the
majority judgment, for himself and then Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
Justice S.A. Nazeer was the dissenting judge.
The
Muslim litigants had requested that the judgment be reopened because
the litigants felt it might have an adverse bearing on their claim to
the land in question.
While
refusing to list the matter before a constitution bench, the Supreme
Court said the civil suit will be decided on the basis of evidence
and that the previous verdict does not have any relevance.
What
the Ismail Faruqui judgment of 1994 was about
The
petitioner, Ismail Faruqui, challenged the validity of the
Acquisition of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993, under which 67.703
acres were acquired in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid complex in
Ayodhya.
The
Supreme Court held that “any step taken to arrest escalation of
communal tension” can “by no stretch of argumentation, be termed
non-secular”.
No comments:
Post a Comment