{"id":202345,"date":"2018-09-27T22:30:46","date_gmt":"2018-09-27T17:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=202345"},"modified":"2019-01-10T12:33:39","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T07:03:39","slug":"ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:\u00a0<\/strong>The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held that the appeals concerning the\u00a0Ayodhya (<\/em>Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) matter need not be referred to a larger Bench for consideration. Ashok Bhushan, J. delivered the majority judgment for CJ Dipak Misra and himself. While S. Abdul Nazeer, J. in his separate opinion was of the view that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.<\/p>\n

The present appeals were fixed for commencement of final arguments on 05-12-2017, when Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Court in\u00a0Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, <\/em>(1994) 6 SCC 360 <\/a>needs reconsideration, hence the reference be made to a larger Bench. In Ismail Faruqui<\/em>, while the Constitution Bench (per majority)\u00a0<\/em>upheld the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 except that of Section 4(3) of the Act which was struck down; it also made observations that\u00a0a mosque s not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open.\u00a0<\/em>According to Dr Dhavan, the law laid down in\u00a0Ismail Faruqui\u00a0<\/em>in relation to praying in a mosque not being an essential practice is contrary to both, i.e. the law relating to essential practice and the process by which essential practice is to be considered. Whether essential practice can be decided on a mere\u00a0ipse\u00a0dixit of the Court or whether the Court is obliged to examine belief, tenets and practices, is a pure question of law. He submitted that\u00a0Ismail Faruqui\u00a0<\/em>judgment being devoid of any examination on the above issues, the matter need to go to a larger Bench.<\/p>\n

The Court had to find out the context of observations made in the judgment which according to the appellant were questionable and to decide whether the said observations furnish any ground for reconsideration of the Constitution Bench judgment. After referring to a plethora of judgments,\u00a0Ashok Bhushan, J.\u00a0<\/strong>observed that the question as to whether particular religious practice is essential or integral part of the religion is a question, which has to be considered by considering the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion. What Dr Dhavan contended was that the Constitution Bench in Ismail Faruqui,\u00a0<\/em>without there being any consideration of essentiality of a religion, made the questionable\u00a0observations. It was observed from that\u00a0the context for making the said observation\u00a0<\/em>was a claim of immunity of a mosque from acquisition. Whether every mosque is the essential part of the practice of religion of Islam, acquisition of which\u00a0ipso\u00a0facto\u00a0<\/em>may violate the rights under Articles 25 and 26, was the question which had cropped up for consideration before the Constitution Bench. The observation has been made to emphasise there is no immunity of the mosque from the acquisition. What the Court in Ismail Faruqui\u00a0<\/em>meant was that unless the place of offering of prayer has a particular significance so that any hindrance to worship may violate right under Articles 25 and 26, any hindrance to offering of prayer at any place shall not affect right under Articles 25 and 26. the observation need not be read broadly to hold that a mosque can never be an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam.<\/p>\n

As to the question of\u00a0res judicata –<\/em>the present proceedings being barred in light of the decision in Ismail Faruqui, <\/em>the Court held that the issues which were involved in that case were validity of the Act of 1993. The issues which have been framed in the suits giving rise to the present appeals were different issues which could not be said to be directly and substantially in issue in Ismail Faruqui.\u00a0<\/em>On this count alone, the plea of\u00a0res judicata\u00a0<\/em>as raised by the respondent was liable to be rejected.<\/p>\n

While concluding, the Court held that the questionable observations made in Ismail Faruqui,\u00a0<\/em>as noted above, were made in context of land acquisition. Those observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor relevant deciding the present appeals. Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that no case was made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment Ismail Faruqui\u00a0<\/em>for reconsideration. Hence, no case has been made out seeking reference of these appeals to a Constitution Bench of this Court.<\/p>\n

S. Abdul Nazeer, J., <\/strong>in his separate opinion stated that he was unable to accept the view of the Justice Bhushan that no case had been made out seeking reference of the present appeals to a Constitution Bench of this Court. However, he was in respectful agreement with the opinion on the question of res judicata. Therefore, while concluding, <\/em>considering the Constitutional importance and significance of the issues involved, he was of the opinion that following questions need to be referred to a larger Bench:<\/p>\n

(a) Whether in the light of\u00a0Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,\u00a0<\/em>AIR 1954 SC 282<\/a> and other cases, an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question?<\/p>\n

(b) Whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality?<\/p>\n

(c) Does Article 25, only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential?<\/p>\n

(d) Do Articles 15, 25 and 26 (read with Article 14) allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken?<\/p>\n

As per the majority, it was held that the present appeal does not require to be referred to a larger Bench nor does the Ismail Faruqui case needs reconsideration. The matter was disposed of accordingly. [M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das,\u00a02018 SCC OnLine SC 1677<\/b><\/a>, decided on 27-09-2018]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:\u00a0The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[16201,31910,14961,31674],"class_list":["post-202345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-ayodhya","tag-ismail-faruqui","tag-larger-bench","tag-referred"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court:\u00a0The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-09-27T17:00:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-10T07:03:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/\",\"name\":\"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-09-27T17:00:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-10T07:03:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC","og_description":"Supreme Court:\u00a0The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-09-27T17:00:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-10T07:03:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/","name":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2018-09-27T17:00:46+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-10T07:03:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ayodhya-matter-not-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-matter-not-barred-by-res-judicata-in-ismail-faruqui-case-either-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":204515,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/29\/ram-mandir-babri-masjid-matter-adjourned-to-be-heard-in-january-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":0},"title":"Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid| Matter adjourned to be heard in January 2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. passed an order stating that the matter will be listed in January 2019 for hearing. Background: The Bench comprising of erstwhile CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207613,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/04\/ayodhya-matter-appropriate-bench-to-fix-the-date-of-hearing-on-jan-10\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":1},"title":"Ayodhya matter: Appropriate bench to fix the date of hearing on Jan 10","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0In a hearing that lasted for less than a minute, the bench comprising Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S K Kaul, J said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202275,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/ram-mandir-babri-masjid-matter-to-be-referred-to-larger-bench-or-not\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":2},"title":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Matter to be referred to Larger Bench or not?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0The 3- Judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer JJ., had reserved its order on the point whether the Ram Mandir Babri Masjid matter be referred to larger Bench or not on 20-07-2018. The Bench is likely to pronounce its decision for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207915,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/10\/ayodhya-matter-adjourned-to-jan-29-after-justice-uu-lalit-recuses-himself-from-the-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":3},"title":"Ayodhya Matter adjourned to Jan 29 after Justice UU Lalit recuses himself from the case","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0After Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case famously known as the Ayodhya dispute, the Court adjourned the matter till January 29 for deciding the schedule of hearing.\u00a0Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the matter after it was pointed out that he\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198788,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/20\/ram-mandir-babri-masjid-sc-reserves-order-on-whether-the-ayodhya-matter-be-referred-to-constitution-bench\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":4},"title":"Ram Mandir Babri Masjid | SC reserves order on whether the \u2018Ayodhya matter\u2019 be referred to Constitution Bench","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0The 3-Judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer JJ., continued with the proceedings on the Ayodhya dispute. The hearing held last on 13-07-2018 brought the sparks in today\u2019s proceedings as well, as C.S Vaidynathan representing the Ram temple objected on Rajeev Dhavan\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217646,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/02\/ayodhya-dispute-sc-to-hold-day-to-day-hearing-from-aug-6-after-mediation-committee-fails\/","url_meta":{"origin":202345,"position":5},"title":"Ayodhya Dispute: SC to hold day-to-day hearing from Aug 6 after Mediation Committee ‘fails’","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: After the the Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla led Mediation Committee submitted the mediation report before the \u00a05-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ, the Court observed that the mediation panel has failed to achieve any final settlement\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202345\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}