The SC recently stated that it would decide on whether to refer to a larger bench for the issue of reconsideration of the entire 1994 verdict dealing with the acquisition of the disputed land in Ayodhya.
The special bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer said, “First, we should put this controversy (on 1994 verdict) to rest. We may refer the entire or parts of the judgment to larger bench.”
Senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan termed the observations of the verdict as crucial and said that it needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench and that without rectification of these anomalies on aspects like the position of mosques in Islam, in the judgment, the civil appeals cannot be decided effectively.
Dhavan said, “The apex court had said that while offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, its offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular significance for that religion, so as to form an essential or integral part thereof.”
He added, “Subject to the protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, places of religious worship like mosques, churches, temples etc. can be acquired under the State's sovereign power of acquisition.Such acquisition per se does not violate either Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution. The decisions relating to taking over of the management have no bearing on the sovereign power of the State to acquire property.”
Dhavan cited a judgment and said, “It is quite a different matter that the area is now acquired. Can you say that if a mosque is destroyed it ceases to be a mosque.” He submitted that the 1994 judgment had said that the fundamental right to worship does not extend to place of worship.
The lawyers, representing the other side like Ram Lalla and Nirmohi Akhara, opposed the submission and said the 1994 verdict had no bearing in the present case.
The advancing of arguments by Dhavan on reconsideration of the decision in Faruqui case remained inconclusive.
