Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
UP questions Muslims’ ‘belated concern’ on 1994 SC judgment on namaz

UP questions Muslims’ ‘belated concern’ on 1994 SC judgment on namaz

Babri MasjidNew Delhi : The Uttar Pradesh government on Friday questioned the Muslim litigants in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case for making “belated efforts” seeking a relook at the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that had said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was told that the Muslim parties did not question the 1994 verdict’s legality till the appeal against 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment on the ownership of the disputed land was taken up for hearing by the top court.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, described as “belated efforts” to avoid the adjudications of the long-pending cross appeals against the high Court judgment on the title suit.

Ayodhya appeals were pending in the top court since 2010 and all through the legality of 1994 judgment was never questioned but why this belated effort now, he asked.

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had by its 2010 verdict had divided the disputed 2.77 acres site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.

Muslim parties are seeking the revisiting a conclusion in the 1994 constitution bench judgment which said that the mosque was not an essential and integral part of the Muslim religious practice of offering namaz and they could offer prayers in open under the sky.

Appearing for lead petitioner M. Siddiqui represented by his legal heir, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan told the court told the court that the paragraph in the 1994 judgment which says that mosque was not essential to the Muslim religious practices and integral to it was said without examining the tenets of Islam.

He said that there was nothing in the judgment as to show how the court arrived at such a conclusion.

“If you have to say something say it after detailed examination,” Dhavan told the bench pointing to some judgments wherein the top court pronounced on some religious places after detailed examinations of the issues involved.

At this Justice Bhushan observed that nobody was questioning that mosque is essential to Islam but the question is whether offering namaz in a mosque was essential.

Dhavan will address the three judge bench on the issue on July 13 when he will advance arguments to meet the submissions made by the Hindu parties including that the issues being raised by him on mosque not being essential; part of Islamic practices have become res judicata (matter that has been adjudicated and decided) and the issues advanced by senior counsel K. Parasaran and Harish Salve in the course of their arguments.

Dhavan is seeking a relook at the 1994 judgment, contending that 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment relies on this conclusion of the top court.

He on Friday argued that a congregation at the mosque at the time of offering Namaz was essential for Muslims and “if congregation part of Islam is taken away, a large part of practice collapses”.

However, lawyers representing the Hindu parties said that reference to 1994 judgment in no way impacted the 2010 High Court judgment.

Appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, senior advocate K. Parasaran in the last hearing of the matter on May 17, had told the court that the birthplace cannot be shifted to another site, while a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as that will “not affect the right to practice religion by offering ‘namaz’ in other mosques”.

He had argued that to go on a pilgrimage is a practice of religious faith for the Muslims as well as the Hindus, but for the Muslims, “Makkah and Madinah alone are places of particular significance” as pilgrimage centres, but for them such was not the case with Ayodhya/Babri Masjid.

—IANS

SC urged to refer Babri dispute to Constitution bench

SC urged to refer Babri dispute to Constitution bench

SC urged to refer Babri dispute to Constitution benchNew Delhi : Muslim representatives on Friday urged the Supreme Court to refer the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue to a larger five-judge Constitution bench as the Hindu petitioner said the issue should be heard purely as a “property dispute”.

Appearing for main petitioner Mohammad Siddiqui, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said considering the “seriousness and importance” attached to resolution of the dispute among the two largest religious communities in the country and their “feelings and sentiments” attached thereto to the case, the matter should be heard by a larger bench.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for other original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad, opposed this, saying the case should be dealt as a property dispute and the issue of political or religious sensitivities “cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench”.

Salve told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer that political and religious sensitivities “should be left outside the Supreme Court gates”.

Salve contended that people have “moved away from 1992” (yjr December 6, 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid) and the court has to decide the case “strictly on law” as it’s a simple property dispute case.

As per the prevalent practices and traditions of the Supreme Court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the apex court, instead of a two-judge bench, Salve added.

Appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, senior advocate K. Parasaran also opposed the matter being heard by a Constitution bench.

At the outset, advocate Ramachandaran said, the apex court on various occasion has transferred the important matters to Constitution bench and this case should too be heard by larger bench as it concerns issues which have a “grave public bearing”.

“The decision of the case has a vital bearing and impact on the social fabric of the county because tow major communities are involved.”

The present batch of matters “not only require interpretation of the Indian Constitution, but also relate to a nationally/considerably important subject matter” and as such the matters be referred to a larger bench” Ramachandran said.

The arguments remained inconclusive and the court posted the matter on May 15 for further hearing.

Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Siddiqui, picked holes in the 1994 top court’s judgment which, in one of its paragraphs, said that mosques were not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers.

He said that the question to be decided by the court is “what is the meaning of mosque to the Muslims” and “do you take it as a gospel that a mosque is not essential to Muslims and Islam”.

The court has been hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed 2.77 acres site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.

The top court was moved by Siddiqui represented by his legal heirs, the Nirmohi Akhara, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, All India Hindu Mahasabha’s Swami Chakrapani, the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, the Akhil Bharatiya Sri Ramjanam Bhoomi Punardhar Samiti and others.

—IANS