Starting Monday, a new 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court is expected to start hearing a batch of appeals challenging the judgment of 2010 Allahabad High Court, trifurcating the disputed site at Ayodhya into three parts for Hindus, Nirmohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant, reports The Telegraph.
The matter will be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph. The previous bench, with then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, had directed that a 3-judge bench would hear petitions filed by both Hindu and Muslim stakeholders, starting 29 October.
The previous 3-judge bench had refused to refer the matter to a 5-judge bench “on the ground that certain “questionable observations” made by another five-judge bench in 1994 had influenced the Allahabad High Court verdict of 2010”. With a 2:1 majority on 27 September, the bench had rejected the plea challenging the High Court judgment of 2010.
The Importance of ‘Shrines’
The dissenting judge, Justice Nazeer, had said that deciding whether a mosque was an essential part of Islam would require “detailed consideration” and is to be considered by the “doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion”.
According to The Economic Times, Muslim petitioners had pressed for the matter to be heard by a 5-judge constitutional bench because the Allahabad court had relied on a 1994 verdict of the apex court that said “that mosque was not essential to Islam for offering 'namaz’”.
Factions in the Sangh Parivar have also been suggesting that the delay that would arise out of the matter being directed to a 5-judge bench, would cause inordinate delay in the verdict of the land dispute case. The matter hold immense political significance in the backdrop of the upcoming 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)