Supreme Court refuses to defer Ayodhya case hearing 

Supreme Court refuses to defer Ayodhya case hearing

Context

The Supreme Court refused requests by appellant parties from the minority community to defer the hearing in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute till after July 15, 2019, that is, post the next general elections

The petition

The plea was to refer the 13 appeals, including one filed by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The appeals are against a September 2010 judgment by a three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court for a three-way partition of the disputed site

• Appellant parties from the minority community wanted the court to defer the hearing in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute till after July 15, 2019, that is, post the next general elections
• Petition also said that every day of the Ayodhya title dispute hearing in the Supreme Court would invite serious repercussions across the country

Petitioner’s view

• The dispute was not just any other civil suit but probably the most important case in the history of India, which would “decide the future of the polity
• Decision in the case will invite serious ramifications. Now is not the right time to hear it. It will have repercussions. It is already happening. Post it after July 15, 2019, when everything is over. We will not ask for an adjournment then

Court’s stand

• Justice Ashok Bhushan, on the Bench with Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, reminded Mr. Sibal that it was the appellants who had wanted an early hearing in December/January of 2017
• The court did not entertain, for now, the plea to refer the 13 appeals to a five-judge Constitution Bench& fixed the date for final hearing on February 8, 2018

Ismail Faruqui Case

The senior counsel referred to the 1994 three-judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case, which had held that “the right to practice, profess and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution does not necessarily include the right to acquire or own or possess property. Similarly this right does not extend to the right of worship at any and every place of worship”