Ayodhya case: Supreme Court to decide course of hearing on October 29
TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Updated: Oct 27, 2018, 17:28 ISTHighlights
- The plea will be heard on Monday by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and two other judges
- The SC had on September 27 declined to refer to a larger bench its 1994 verdict for a review over its "questionable observation" that "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam"

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear the pleas related to Ayodhya title suit in connection with Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case from October 29.
On October 29, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and two other judges may also decide whether the case would be heard on a day-to-day hearing basis or fix the hearing schedule, according to news agency ANI.
Earlier, the SC had on September 27 declined to refer to a larger bench its 1994 verdict for a review over its "questionable observation" that "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam".
Holding that the earlier observation was made in the limited context of "land acquisition" during the hearing of the Ayodhya case, the top court in a 2-1 verdict made it clear it will not have any bearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute whose outcome will be eagerly awaited ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
A Muslim group had assailed the observation made by a five-judge Constitution bench in 1994 in the Ismail Faruqui case and had sought its reconsideration on the grounds it had affected the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute and may affect the pending appeals in the apex court.
The majority verdict by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan declined the plea of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, that the matter be referred to a larger bench.
However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, the third judge, who dissented with the majority view, in a stinging judgement said the question whether mosque was essential part of the religion cannot be decided without a "detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith" and favoured reconsideration of the issue to a larger bench.
(With agency inputs)
On October 29, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and two other judges may also decide whether the case would be heard on a day-to-day hearing basis or fix the hearing schedule, according to news agency ANI.
Earlier, the SC had on September 27 declined to refer to a larger bench its 1994 verdict for a review over its "questionable observation" that "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam".
Holding that the earlier observation was made in the limited context of "land acquisition" during the hearing of the Ayodhya case, the top court in a 2-1 verdict made it clear it will not have any bearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute whose outcome will be eagerly awaited ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
A Muslim group had assailed the observation made by a five-judge Constitution bench in 1994 in the Ismail Faruqui case and had sought its reconsideration on the grounds it had affected the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute and may affect the pending appeals in the apex court.
The majority verdict by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan declined the plea of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, that the matter be referred to a larger bench.
However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer, the third judge, who dissented with the majority view, in a stinging judgement said the question whether mosque was essential part of the religion cannot be decided without a "detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith" and favoured reconsideration of the issue to a larger bench.
(With agency inputs)
Download The Times of India News App for Latest India News.
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE