The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the case involving the Ismail Faruqui judgment in which it was said that mosque is not an integral part of Islam, need not be referred to a larger bench.
The SC bench ruled that the observation made in the Ismail Faruqui judgment regarding mosque was in the context of acquisition only.
"All observations in Ismail Faruqui on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case," said Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Justice SA Nazeer in his dissenting opinion as far as relevance of observations in Faruqui's case said what constitutes an essential practice of religion needs to be considered in detail by a larger bench.
In 1994, a five-judge Constitution Bench, hearing the M Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case, had held that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and hence “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”.
Three judge Bench of Supreme Court will decide the title dispute. No reference to larger Bench, Supreme Court holds by 2:1 majority. #AyodhyaVerdict#SupremeCourt#Ramjanambhoomi
All religions and religious places need to be equally respected. Ashoka's edicts preach tolerance to faith of others, says Justice Ashok Bhushan
#RamMandir-#Babri: 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, Ashok Bhushan J. #AyodhyaVerdict#SupremeCourt #
SC rules that case need not be referred to larger bench
All observations in Ismail Faruqui on mosques as not essential to religion is in the context of accqusition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case: Justice Bhushan
Babri verdict: Supreme court bench assembles for pronouncement of judgement, Justice Ashok Bhushan has written judgment for himself and for CJI while Justice Abdul Nazeer has written it separately @NewIndianXpress
