GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English
LIVE NOW
auto-refresh

Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: SC Refuses to Revisit Judgment That ‘Namaz at Mosque is Not Integral to Islam’

News18.com | September 27, 2018, 4:44 PM IST
facebook Twitter google skype
Ayodhya Dispute LIVE Updates: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of Ayodhya land dispute. In a majority verdict of 2:1, the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance on it.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the CJI, said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the 1994 judgement. Justice S Abdul Nazeer disagreed with the two judges and said whether mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration. He referred to the recent Supreme Court order on female genital mutilation and said the present matter be heard by larger bench.
Read More
Sep 27, 2018 4:44 pm (IST)

The RSS has welcomed the decision and has said they are confident that a just verdict will be reached over the case at the earliest.

Sep 27, 2018 4:41 pm (IST)

Asaduddin Owaisi  Expresses Apprehension Over Judgment | AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi expressed his apprehension over the judgment and said enemies of secularism will use it to realize their ideological objectives. The AIMIM chief, responding to the SC verdict, said that the Ayodhya matter should have been referred to constitutional bench. Owaisi also said the Masjid was an essential feature of Islam and added that the judiciary cannot decide what is essential to Islam.  

Sep 27, 2018 4:11 pm (IST)

Senior advocate and AIMPLB member Zafaryab Jilani has said that the Supreme Court ruling on Ayodhya case is not a "setback" for them. "The judgment of 1994 has perhaps been cleared," Jilani said. He also refused to reply to Subramaniam Swamy's statement on the ruling. 

Sep 27, 2018 4:00 pm (IST)

Subramanian Swamy to Move SC | BJP Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy has said that he will move the Supreme Court on Friday to request for expedited hearings in the case. Swamy also said that his fundamental right to pray overrides the Sunni Waqf Board's ordinary right to property. 

Sep 27, 2018 3:37 pm (IST)

Impediment Has Been Defeated : VHP | The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) working president Alok Kumar said that the ruling has paved way for the hearing of Ram janmabhoomi appeals. “I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram janmabhoomi appeals,” Kumar was quoted as saying by ANI.

Sep 27, 2018 3:22 pm (IST)


Rajeev Dhawan, senior lawyer, representing M Siddiq, ​one of the original litigants in the case, has denounced the Supreme Court ruling as flawed. "We are in the pursuit of quick justice rather than measured justice," advocate Dhavan said. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:58 pm (IST)

The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI. The issue whether mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when he  three-judge bench headed by CJI Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts. A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla

Sep 27, 2018 2:52 pm (IST)

In a majority verdict of 2:1, the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance on it. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the CJI, said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the 1994 judgement. Justice S Abdul Nazeer disagreed with the two judges and said whether mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration. He referred to the recent Supreme Court order on female genital mutilation and said the present matter be heard by larger bench.

Sep 27, 2018 2:45 pm (IST)

Whether mosque is integral to Islam to be decided considering belief of religion, requires detailed consideration, Justice Nazeer has said. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:44 pm (IST)

The Supreme Court has declined to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations made in its 1994 judgement that mosque was not integral to Islam that arose during the hearing of Ayodhya land dispute. The issue had cropped up when a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts.

Sep 27, 2018 2:42 pm (IST)

Questionable observation of 1994 verdict has permeated into Allahabad High Court's decision in land dispute case, Justice Nazeer said during the hearing of Ayodhya case. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:37 pm (IST)

Jilani has said that the Supreme Court ruling on Ayodhya case is not a "setback" for then. "The judgment of 1994 has perhaps been cleared," Jilani said. He also refused to reply to Subramaniam Swamy's statement on the ruling. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:33 pm (IST)

Senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani while speaking to CNN News18 has said that they are ready for the hearing. "Hearing will start now. We are ready," Jilani said. Jilani is a senior advocate for the Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court. Jilani is also the convenor of Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC). 

Sep 27, 2018 2:26 pm (IST)

The three judge bench seems to be differing over the decision over Ayodhya land as Justice Nazeer pens dissenting opinion. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:24 pm (IST)

Justice SA Nazeer pens dissenting opinion as far as relevance of observations in Faruqui's case is concerned. Justice Nazeer prefers reference to a larger bench to review Faruqui' case

Sep 27, 2018 2:23 pm (IST)

Civil suit has to be decided on basis of evidence and previous verdict has no relevance, Justice Bhushan has said.

Sep 27, 2018 2:18 pm (IST)

 Babri case to be listed for hearing on October 29 before a three judge bench.

Sep 27, 2018 2:16 pm (IST)

Questionable observations in Faruqui's are not relevant for deciding suits or appeals Justice Bhushan has said. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:14 pm (IST)

A place of particular significance for practising religion has a different place in law, the bench has observed. Issues in this case are entirely different from Faruqui's case doesn't decide any matter involved in these suits.  Suits are to be decided on the basis of evidence, the bench observed. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:09 pm (IST)

All temples, mosques, churches at equally relevant, the bench hearing Ayodhya case has observed, as Justice Ashok Bhushan reads out the judgment. 

Sep 27, 2018 2:08 pm (IST)

Supreme Court declines to refer Ayodhya  case to larger bench . 

Sep 27, 2018 2:05 pm (IST)

Law isn't always logical, said Justice Bhushan as the hearing of Ayodhya case begins. "Each judgment is in context of its known facts," Justice Bhushan added.

Sep 27, 2018 2:03 pm (IST)

Justice Ashok Bhushan has written for himself and for CJI Dipak Misra. The case will be heard by a three judge bench, comprising CJI Diapk Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer.

Sep 27, 2018 1:52 pm (IST)

The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, had questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Majid title suit case for making "belated efforts" seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers. The state government had said that the Muslim parties did not question the legality of the 1994 judgement till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.

Sep 27, 2018 1:48 pm (IST)

A three judge bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazir will decide on the Ayodhya land issue shortly.  Justice SA Nazeer will pen his separate opinion in the case. 

Sep 27, 2018 1:38 pm (IST)

'Won't speculate on SC ruling but mosque integral part of faith'| An All India Muslim Personal Law Board spokeperson told CNN-News18, "We wouldn't like to comment on what the Supreme Court will say but we will say this that a mosque is an integral and important aspect of our faith."

Sep 27, 2018 1:35 pm (IST)

What can happen after today’s SC verdict? To put it simply, if the top court agrees to reconsider the Ismail Faruqui judgment by a larger seven judge bench then that seven judge bench will have to decide whether mosque constitutes an essential part of Islam or not. The title suit case would only arise after this challenge is cleared by the seven judge bench. This precisely indicates that Ram Temple-Babri Masjid issue will most likely remain unresolved till 2019 Lok Sabha Election. However, the fact that CJI Misra led bench might send the 1994 verdict for reconsideration would mean that the SC agrees that there might be a possibility that Namaz in mosque may be integral to Islam. But if it declines such reconsideration, it would only mean that it affirms the 1994 verdict.

Sep 27, 2018 1:31 pm (IST)

When the matter reached Supreme Court, the Muslim litigants demanded that the case should be heard by a larger bench of seven judges as it relates a land belonging to a mosque and thus has implications on the freedom of religion, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Currently the case is before three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The Uttar Pradesh government, which is not a party in the title suit, had questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Majid title suit case for making "belated efforts" seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.

Sep 27, 2018 1:08 pm (IST)

The Muslim litigants in the Ayodhya dispute case filed for a review of the 1994 judgement after the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict ordering that the disputed site be divided into three parts - one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara -- a Hindu sect - and third to the original litigant in the case for the Muslims.

Sep 27, 2018 12:56 pm (IST)

ALSO READ | How Supreme Court Verdict Today Can Impact the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Title Suit Case

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of pleas on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

Load More
Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: SC Refuses to Revisit Judgment That ‘Namaz at Mosque is Not Integral to Islam’
News18 Creative by Mir Suhail

The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI. The issue whether mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench headed by CJI Misra was hearing the batch of appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area was divided in three parts.

A three-judge bench of the high court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla

M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer 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.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".

He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict. The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise".

Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.
  • 11 Nov, 2018 | West Indies in India
    WI vs IND
    181/3
    20.0 overs
    182/4
    20.0 overs
    India beat West Indies by 6 wickets
  • 11 Nov, 2018 | Pakistan and New Zealand in UAE
    PAK vs NZ
    279/8
    50.0 overs
    35/1
    6.5 overs
    Match Abandoned
  • 11 Nov, 2018 | South Africa in Australia
    SA vs AUS
    320/5
    50.0 overs
    280/9
    50.0 overs
    South Africa beat Australia by 40 runs
  • 09 Nov, 2018 | Pakistan and New Zealand in UAE
    NZ vs PAK
    209/9
    50.0 overs
    212/4
    40.3 overs
    Pakistan beat New Zealand by 6 wickets
  • 09 Nov, 2018 | South Africa in Australia
    AUS vs SA
    231/10
    48.3 overs
    224/9
    50.0 overs
    Australia beat South Africa by 7 runs
Loading...
Loading...