SC adjourns Ayodhya land dispute case

NEW DELHI: The SC on Thursday adjourned the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The next hearing will be held after summer vacation. The apex court was hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad high court that mandated a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya.

NEW DELHI: Offering namaz is an essential practise of Islam but to offer it at a mosque may not be, senior advocate K Parasaran told the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Parasaran made his submissions before a special bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra while it was hearing the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

The senior counsel, appearing for the Hindu parties, strongly opposed the demand made on behalf of Muslims that before deciding the title suit appeals, the SC should first adjudicate whether offering namaz in mosque is an essential and integral part of Islam. Prayer has been made to refer a 1994 judgement, which held that a mosque is not an essential part of the practise of the religion of Islam, to a constitution bench.

Parasaran said the judgment rendered in case of Ismail Farooqui in 1994 did not require any reconsideration. He opposed revisiting the verdict on the ground that the observations in this case had no relevance in deciding the title suits. Revisiting the 1994 judgment again would amount to review, which is not permissible.

Parasaran argued the judgement was in the context of acquisition and has nothing to do with the secular character, while the matter before the court is purely a civil dispute.

The order did not make any distinction between places of worship of different religions, he said. The judgement held that all public religious institutions such as church, mosque and temple can be validly acquired in exercise of the inherent power of the Sovereign on the principle of eminent domain, Parsaran submitted. Reconsideration of the judgement will be an exercise in futility. He added that “Ayodhya was of significance to Hindus because of the belief that Lord Ram was born there.” Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, also appearing for those claiming the land to be birthplace of Lord Rama, took exception to the argument of Muslim parties. The demand is completely unwarranted and inappropriate, he said. As the arguments remained inconclusive, the court fixed July 6 as the next date of hearing.