Mosque and Islam: It is a question about acquisition and not religious practise
New Delhi, Sep 27: A question had arisen post a judgment in the year 1994 on whether a Mosque is integral to Islam. Another point of contention that came up was whether a Mosque was essential to perform namaz.
These observations were made in the Ismail Faruqui case back in 1994. This point came up during the hearing in the Ayodhya case before the SC, with some Muslim appellants wanting a review of the 1994 contention before a larger Bench.
A three judge Bench in a 2:1 majority verdict refused to refer the matter to a larger Bench. As a result of this the 1994 observations remain in place. However what we must note is the observations in the Faruqui case does not deal with a religious practise, but relates to land acquisition.
When the question regarding the acquisitions of land belonging to Mosques came up, the court had back in 1994 said that Mosque is not an integral part of Islam. This broadly meant that Mosques and land belonging to it could be acquired.
On Thursday, the Bench interpreted this further. The Bench said that it was only in the context of peculiar facts that the observation was made.
The 1994 judgement said Mosque is not an integral part of Islam only to hold that Mosques are not immune from acquisition, the Bench observed.
Justice Ashok Bhushan while reading out the verdict said that a place of particular significance for practising religion has a different place in law. The acquisition under the 1993 act has already been upheld, he added.
The court also said that the Faruqui judgment does not decide any matter involved in these suits and that the suits must be decided on the basis of their own evidence. The court also said that the observations in the Faruqui case are not relevant for deciding suits or appeals.
The law is not always logical and each judgment is in context of its known facts. All temples, mosques, churches are equally relevant, the court also said. The bench ordered the main Ram Temple case for October 29 and the same will be heard by a three judge Bench.