*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.
Upendra Bharti | HENB | New Delhi | Sept 27, 2018:: The Supreme Court of India has refused to refer or revisit its 1994 ruling that the government can acquire land that a mosque is built on. In the Ismail Farooqui judgement, the court had ruled then that namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere and a mosque is not essential. The ruling will not be referred to a larger bench, the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said. It could also be one of the last verdicts that Chief Justice Misra deliver, before he retires.
In 1994, the Supreme Court said that namaz could be offered anywhere and that a mosque was not necessary. This cleared the way for the government taking over the land where the 16th century Babri mosque was razed in December 1992 by Hindu hardliners who believed it was built on Lord Ram’s birthplace.
Muslim litigants say that this decades-old verdict played a big role in the disputed land in Ayodhya being divided in 2010 into three parts by the Allahabad High Court as it split the land between Hindu and Muslim parties, though the main part was given to Hindus. The disputed structure in a shape of a mosque (Babri Masjid), in 16th century, was destroyed in 1992 by karsewaks or right-wing volunteers who said that it had to be brought down so that a temple could be built to Lord Ram, who they say was born right here. The disputed Babri Mosque was built after destruction of an old Hindu temple in in 1528–29 (935 AH) by a commander named Mir Baqi of first Mughal ruler Babar.
Though the Muslim litigants demanded a 5 or 7 judges bench to deal the matter of Ismail Farooqui judgement at first, the SC said the observation in Ismail Faruqi case was made on acquisition of land and not on Islam.
The SC by 2:1 majority decided that a 3-judge bench will commence hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case in the week starting from October 29.
CJI Dipak Misra and justice Ashok Bhushan said the controversial observation in the case is not a guiding principle to decide the Ayodhya land dispute.
All religions and religious places need to be equally respected. Ashoka’s edicts preach tolerance to faith of others, said justice Bhushan.
Justice S Nazir, the other judge in the 3-judge bench, disagreed with the judgement of justice Bhushan, who wrote for himself and CJI Dipak Misra.
Justice Nazir said what constitutes essential practice of religion needs to be considered in detail by a larger bench.
As such, the conspiracy to halt the pending Ram Janmabhoomi Case in Supreme court by some Muslim parties, goes in vain as the appex court will hear the matter on and from 29th October 2018 by the designated 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Sri Dipak Misra.
“I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram janmabhoomi appeals”, says Alok Kumar, the Working President of VHP.
Mahant Dinendra Das, head of the Nirmohi Akhara and one of the litigants in the case, called for an early verdict in the Ayodhya case. “We are very happy. We want that the ram janmabhoomi judgement should come as soon as possible, it will make happier,” he said.
The Virat Hindtva Proponent, Rajya Sabha Member (Upper house of Indian Parliament) and veteran BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy said that the latest SC judgement on 1994 Ismail Farooqui verdict had cleared the road to the final verdict for Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid land dispute.
In an interview with Times Now, Dr Swamy said+, “The verdict is not victory but a road clear for me to go ahead and prove what is already known that my fundamental right to pray where my faith says that Lord Ram was born is superior to the Sunni Waqf Board’s claim that they have property right on the ground.” The BJP leader opined that a claim to property right was “inferior” to his fundamental right.
Swamy said that he would be moving the Supreme Court tomorrow (Friday) over his plea for right to worship at Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, and would ask the court for an early listing of his case. His petition had been pending in the court as the SC decided to hear the plea over the 1994 ruling first.