SC will study if mosque namaz is vital to Islam
New twist may cause delay in deciding Ayodhya case
In a new twist to the Ayodhya title dispute, the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine the correctness of its 1994 verdict holding that “offering namaz in a mosque is not an essential and integral part of Islam and Muslims can offer prayers anywhere”.
A three- judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer agreed to examine this after senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, submitted that the 1994 verdict was wrong and needed to be reconsidered. The bench told the counsel that it would refer the matter to a larger bench that would examine the issues raised by Mr Dhawan.
The bench asked Mr Dhawan to submit legal propositions by March 23 on why the matter required reconsideration by a larger bench of five judges. Senior counsel K. Parasaran, C. S. Vaidyanathan and others agreed the issue raised by 1994 verdict could be examined as a preliminary issue. If it is examined by a five- judge bench as a preliminary question, then there is a possibility of delay in deciding the Ayodhya title suits.
The bench dismissed the intervention applications filed by third parties who are not connected with the title suit. When an applicant said that 10,523 residents of Ayodhya and Faizabad had signed a statement of compromise for the dispute, the bench said such a compromise could be effected outside the court, as the present dispute was purely a legal issue.
Mr Dhawan pointed out that the 1994 verdict ordering “status quo” on installation of the Ram idol at the disputed site recognised Hindus’ right to worship at that place but completely ignored the rights of Muslims to offer namaz at the Babri Masjid, saying that offering namaz in a mosque
“is not an essential and integral part of Islam”. He said the court had also taken a view that a mosque need not be rebuilt at this site.
He said the Allahabad high court, while deciding the title suit in 2010, had apportioned onethird of the land to Hindus, onethird to Muslims and one- third to Ram Lulla, relying on the status quo order of 1994. The high court had observed that the sentiments of Hindus on offering worship should be recognised. Mr Dhawan said the 1994 verdict was binding on the three judges. Thus, if the same logic were followed, a mosque would never be constructed on the disputed site as this finding had already prejudiced their right. At one stage, the bench reiterated it will deal with the Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid title dispute case “purely as a land dispute”, and other issues were not relevant. But Mr Dhawan said the issue could not be brushed aside. He argued that in 1934 the British had recognised the right of Muslims to offer prayers at the Babri Masjid and rebuilt the mosque. But this right was not recognised in 1949 after Independence. Mr Dhawan contended that on December 6, 1992 the masjid was demolished and the idol of Lord Ram was surreptitiously placed at the disputed site. Muslims can never accept trespass by Hindus and criminality of demolition of the Babri Masjid, he said, adding: “Our right to offer prayers was not taken into consideration in the 1994 verdict.” On the other hand, Mr Dhawan said the right of Hindus to offer worship was recognised on an illegality. Why was the right to Muslims not considered, he asked, and urged the court to reconsider the 1994 verdict. Those who filed the appeals included the Sunni Central Waqf Board, UP; the Nirmohi Akhara; the All- India Hindu Mahasabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. There are voluminous records, scripts and documents in seven languages — Sanskrit, Pali, Hindi, Persian, Arabic, Punjabi and Urdu — which are to be translated into English.
On behalf of Hindus it was argued that having accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram, there was no reason why one- third of the land was to be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.