Ayodhya case: Once a mosque, always a mosque, SC told
Court Says It Is Necessary To Examine What Mosque Means To Islam
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com 24.03.2018
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said on Friday that the present three-judge bench should proceed with the Ayodhya dispute case. However, the bench said it was necessary to examine the plea raised by the Muslim community contending that mosque as a place of worship was a fundamental feature of their religion. “First, we must put the controversy (over whether mosque is essential to Islam) to an end,” said the bench, which had earlier referred to the decades-old legal battle as a mere “land dispute”.
The SC had said in its ‘Ismail Faruqui case’ of 1994, “A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India. Irrespective of the status of a mosque in an Islamic country for the purpose of immunity from acquisition by the state in exercise of the sovereign power, its status and immunity from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the Constitution is the same and equal to that of the places of worship of the other religions, namely, church, temple etc. It is neither more nor less than that of the places of worship of other religions.”
Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, in his two-hour-long argument, contended that the Faruqui case was wrongly decided by the apex court on the issue of mosque not being an essential part of Islam and the verdict was in contradiction to an earlier SC judgment delivered by a larger bench. “A mosque is for ever. It does not lose its significance and it remains a place of worship even if it is demolished. You cannot say that mosque has no unique position. Gurdwara, temple, church and other places of worship are also unique. There is no reason to treat mosque as less significant,” Dhavan said.
Challenging the 1994 verdict which had said that people responsible for demolition of Babri mosque on December 6, 1992 were miscreants, Dhavan said, “They were not miscreants but powerful people were involved in it. It is a great disservice to the nation to say that it was an incidental case. There was a deliberate attempt to destroy the mosque. It was a barbarian act.” He said the Muslim community was living in a fear that similar incidents might be repeated in other places also.
Court Says It Is Necessary To Examine What Mosque Means To Islam
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com 24.03.2018
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said on Friday that the present three-judge bench should proceed with the Ayodhya dispute case. However, the bench said it was necessary to examine the plea raised by the Muslim community contending that mosque as a place of worship was a fundamental feature of their religion. “First, we must put the controversy (over whether mosque is essential to Islam) to an end,” said the bench, which had earlier referred to the decades-old legal battle as a mere “land dispute”.
The SC had said in its ‘Ismail Faruqui case’ of 1994, “A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India. Irrespective of the status of a mosque in an Islamic country for the purpose of immunity from acquisition by the state in exercise of the sovereign power, its status and immunity from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the Constitution is the same and equal to that of the places of worship of the other religions, namely, church, temple etc. It is neither more nor less than that of the places of worship of other religions.”
Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, in his two-hour-long argument, contended that the Faruqui case was wrongly decided by the apex court on the issue of mosque not being an essential part of Islam and the verdict was in contradiction to an earlier SC judgment delivered by a larger bench. “A mosque is for ever. It does not lose its significance and it remains a place of worship even if it is demolished. You cannot say that mosque has no unique position. Gurdwara, temple, church and other places of worship are also unique. There is no reason to treat mosque as less significant,” Dhavan said.
Challenging the 1994 verdict which had said that people responsible for demolition of Babri mosque on December 6, 1992 were miscreants, Dhavan said, “They were not miscreants but powerful people were involved in it. It is a great disservice to the nation to say that it was an incidental case. There was a deliberate attempt to destroy the mosque. It was a barbarian act.” He said the Muslim community was living in a fear that similar incidents might be repeated in other places also.
No comments:
Post a Comment