Home Law Ram Janambhoomi: SC to decide if 1994 decision that Mosques are not essential to Namaz needs revision

Ram Janambhoomi: SC to decide if 1994 decision that Mosques are not essential to Namaz needs revision

Continuing with the hearings regarding the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the Supreme Court will today decide whether the 1994 judgement on the Ismail Farooqui case that gave a verdict that mosques are not an essential part of Islam needs to be revisited and should be heard by a larger bench. According to reports, a three-judge bench comprising of Justice Deepak Mishra, justice Ashok Bhushan and justice Abdul Nazeer will decide today on revisiting the case.

According to reports, On March 24, 2018, the three-judge bench had declared that before settling the 70-year-old dispute between Hindu and Muslim organisations over the Ayodhya land, it will first decide whether the 1994 judgement needs to be revisited.

The Supreme Court had in its 1994 verdict, stated that a mosque is not integral to Namaz. Here are the key points of the verdict. It was ruled by a 5-judge bench

  1. A mosque is not an integral part of Islam as namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open.
  2. The acquisition of a mosque by the government is not prohibited under the constitution.
  3. As India is a secular nation, the status and immunity of a mosque from an acquisition is not different from the same of places of worship of other religions and is not depended upon the status and immunity of a mosque in an Islamic country.
  4. A temple, a church or a mosque is basically an immovable property and a property is liable for acquisition.
- Advertisement - - Article resumes -

After the Allahabad High Court had ruled in 2010 that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into 3 parts, Ramlala Virajman ( Lord Ram of Ayodhya), the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board, the Muslim groups had moved to the SC challenging the 1994 verdict staking claim over the land. They had demanded that the case should be re-examined by a larger bench as it relates to land belonging to a mosque and thus pertains to religious freedom under the constitution.

Senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan, representing one of the litigants from the Muslim side, had argued for the reopening of the 1994 case and had also pleaded that the entire Ayodhya dispute case should be referred to a constitution bench. He had pleaded, ” A mosque is forever, it does not lose its significance and remains a place of worship even after it is demolished.”

The lawyers representing the Hindus had argued against the revisiting of the 1994 judgement. Responding to the arguments, the three-judge bench had stated that they will first decide whether the 1994 judgement needs to be revisited before proceeding with the Ayodhya case. The bench had asserted that the Ayodhya case is a mere ‘land dispute’. The bench had also dismissed the Sunni Waqf board’s demand that the Ayodhya dispute case be heard by a five-member bench and not three.

Today, if the three-judge bench decided in favour of revisiting the 1994 case of Ismail Farooqui versus the Union of India, the case will be reopened and a seven-member bench will hear again whether a mosque is an integral part of offering Namaz or not.

Whatever may be the verdict today, it is now evident that the Ram Mandir issue is unlikely to reach its final verdict before the 2019 general elections.

Share This Post With Your Friends & Fans:
We need your support to survive in the media industry. Please consider paying us for the content we produce:

To know more about these payments, please click here.


Election 2019 Live Updates

Track all the updates on one page as the results and trends trickle in

The Left has lost its deposit. It is time for the Right to fight Modi

Modi 2.0 heralds a new beginning for India and her people. It must not be allowed to cultivate the habits of Modi 1.0.
Shehla Rashid remembers 2014, says she had wanted Kejriwal as PM

Shehla Rashid loses it early on counting day, says “Felt like a Muslim when ‘mass murderer’ won in 2014”

As early trends show an NDA victory, Shehla Rashid calls him a mass murderer, says she had wanted Arvind Kejriwal as PM in 2014 and she had felt like a 'Muslim'.
NYT peddles Modi 2.0 as victory of India's most divisive leader

Dear New York Times, India has chosen Modi 2.0, deal with it

When India gives a thumping, unprecedented, overwhelming victory to a man who has made every single Indian feel proud of their nation and heritage, the NYT's heartburn is expected. 

The story of BJP’s rise and rise in West Bengal: The story starts not in 2019 but 2017 Ram Navami

History may remember the 23rd of May, 2019 as the day when the future of Bengal Politics changed forever. However, it was on the 5th of April, 2017, on the auspicious day of Ram Navami that the seeds of it were sown.
Rana Ayyub had a meltdown seeing BJP securing an unprecedented victory

Unprecedented Modi victory triggers meltdown for controversial journalist Rana Ayyub

Prospect of a stunning Narendra Modi victory in 2019 Lok Sabha election triggered a mental collapse for controversial journalist Rana Ayyub

A tribute to OpIndia’s fallen star

On 13th May 2019, Devandhu Rajput succumbed to cancer.

Rahul Gandhi should not fire his data analysis chief, but promote him. Here is why

The divine vision of Praveen Chakravarty, "Big Data" head of Congress, is too precious

Smriti… who? Smriti, the one who gave your brother a run for his money

In a major upset for Congress, BJP's Smriti Irani won the Congress 'family seat' Amethi defeating Congress President Rahul Gandhi by over 50,000 votes

Kanhaiya Kumar’s family uses LPG stove to prepare for his victory, contrary to his claims just a few weeks ago

Kanhaiya had claimed that his mother cooked on a Chullah and not on an LPG stove as it was not viable because of being too expensive and also exhausted within 3-4 days.
Subscribe to Day's Top Stories

Latest articles

Connect with us

164,829FansLike
142,780FollowersFollow
64,810SubscribersSubscribe
Share This Post With Your Friends & Fans: