Business Standard

SC hearing on Ayodhya from October 29

The dispute has significan­t political ramificati­ons, particular­ly in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls

- ARCHIS MOHAN

The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday said it would not set up a larger Bench to review its 1994 observatio­n which held a “mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam”. The apex court’s decision has paved the way for a threemembe­r Bench to begin hearing the principal Ayodhya title suit from October 29. The Ayodhya dispute has significan­t political ramificati­ons, particular­ly in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. ADULTERY IS NOT A CRIME: APEX COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday said it will not set up a larger Bench to review its 1994 verdict which held a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam". The apex court’s decision has paved the way for a three-member Bench to begin hearing the principal Ayodhya title suit from October 29. The Ayodhya dispute has significan­t political ramificati­ons, particular­ly in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

The Rashtriya Swayamseva­k Sangh (RSS) welcomed the SC's decision. "We welcome this decision and are confident that a just verdict will be reached over the case at the earliest," the RSS said. Earlier this month, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat had called for the constructi­on of a "grand Ram temple" at the disputed site at the earliest, and suggested the Narendra Modi government should bring an ordinance to facilitate this. After the apex court's decision, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said the majority of the country wanted a solution to the case at the earliest. "We appeal that this matter is resolved as soon as possible," Adityanath said in Varanasi.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) termed it "some positive movement" in the case. With the SC stating it will hear only the title suit, that is the land dispute over the site, the AIMPLB said the verdict indicated the hearing will not be done on the basis of faith.

Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali said the AIMPLB had wanted the SC's 1994 observatio­n that the mosque is not integral to Islam be put before a Constituti­on Bench" so that the matter is resolved permanentl­y." "Two positive things have come from this verdict. First, the Ayodhya matter will not be heard on the basis of faith and will be

heard as a title suit," he said. "We hope the final hearing of Ayodhya will be completed soon. The Ayodhya hearing should not be linked with the (2019 Lok Sabha) elections," Mahali said. The Congress said its consistent position has been that all should honour the court judgment. Congress spokespers­on Priyanka Chaturvedi said it was unfortunat­e the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has exploited the dispute to fool people since 1992.

The SC, in a 2:1 verdict, said on Thursday that the issue whether amosque is an essential

part of the practice of Islam was not relevant for deciding the Ram Janmabhoom­iBabri Masjid title dispute.

A Muslim group had appealed to the SC to constitute a five-judge Bench to relook into the observatio­n of a five-judge Constituti­on Bench in 1994 in the Ismail Faruqui case that amosque is not an essential part of Islam on the grounds that it has affected the decision of the high court in the land dispute.

More on www.business-standard.com

 ?? PHOTO: PTI ?? Nirmohi Akhara mahant Dharam Das ( right) and Iqbal Ansari, the main litigants in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoom­i case
PHOTO: PTI Nirmohi Akhara mahant Dharam Das ( right) and Iqbal Ansari, the main litigants in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoom­i case

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India