Ayodhya Verdict by Supreme Court News Updates: SC Declines Plea to Refer Matter to Larger Bench in 2:1 Judgment

The pronouncement in the Ayodhya Land dispute case concluded. A Three judge Bench of Supreme Court will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority. The majority judgement on Thursday said that the 1994 observations by the Apex Court were only related to that specific issue of acquisition, and not to the larger question of whether a mosque is essential to Islam.

Justice SA Nazeer pens dissenting opinion as far as the relevance of observations in Faruqui's case is concerned and prefers to a larger bench to review the case. Nazeer said questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui have permeated the Allahabad High Court verdict. He further added saying that Ismail Faruqui needs to be brought in line with Shirur matter case.

Supreme Court to begin hearing on Ayodhya matter from October 29, 2018 to decide the suit on merit. Justice Abdul Nazeer dissents. Holds what is essential to religion as laid down in Ismail Faruqui was arrived at without comprehensive examination, needs to be re-examined in detail.

Justice Bhushan on behalf of him and CJI Dipak Misra in Supreme Court said that Ayodhya land dispute case will not be referred to a larger bench. Justice Ashok Bhushan said that all religions and religious places need to be equally respected. Ashoka's edicts preach tolerance to the faith of others.

Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan said the judgment in Ismail Faruqui will not impact decisions in suits; the observations in that judgment only wrt immunity from acquistion and won't affect suits.

Majority verdict refuses to refer Babri to a larger bench. The observation in para 52 of Ismail Faruqui has to be understood in the context of immunity from the acquisition, Ashok Bhushan J said. The Supreme Court said all temples, mosques, churches equally relevant.

Justice Ashok Bhushan has written for himself and for CJI Dipak Misra. The case will be heard by a three judge bench, comprising CJI Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer. Observations in Ismail Faruqui on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of the acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case, says Justice Ashok Bhushan.

The Supreme Court Bench assembles, pronouncement commences. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounces the verdict on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict, which was reserved on July 20. Two separate judgements will be pronounced in the Ayodhya case- One, a combined one of Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan while Justice SA Nazeer has penned his separate opinion.

The Supreme Court will shortly pronounce the judgement at 2 pm on whether matter should be referred to larger Bench.

The Supreme Court had said that it would not hear arguments based on politics or religion and would treat the case purely as a land title dispute case.The special bench of the apex court is examining 14 appeals of 2010 Allahabad HC's judgment. In 2010, a three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling had ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra will decide whether the Ismail Farooqui judgement in which it was said that mosque is not integral part of Islam will go to a larger Constitution bench or not. Reports inform that it could also be one of the last verdicts that Chief Justice Misra delivers, before he retires.

The three judges that will hear the case are Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. The Court proceedings in the Ayodhya verdict will begin at 2 pm today. Meanwhile, a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim appellants, had argued that the observation in the Ismail Farooqui judgment has affected the status of mosques in Islam.

The Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgement in the hearing of the title suit in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment. The court was told that the birthplace of Lord Ram cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will "not affect the right to practice religion by offering 'namaz' in other mosques".

According to a report by IANS, to go to pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith both for the Muslims and the Hindus as well, but for the Muslims, "Mecca and Medina alone are places of particular significance" as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce a key judgement on whether to refer the question that “a mosque as a place of prayer is an essential part of Islam” to a Constitution bench. According to reports, the verdict is likely to be pronounced at 2 PM today. A 3-Judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer will pronounce a historic verdict on the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case today. The verdict will be on whether namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere or a mosque is an essential part of the practice of Islam and is needed for congregation and to pray.