The Supreme Court on Monday admitted two more petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the disputed site in Ayodhya into three parts and directed them to be given to the parties to the civil dispute.
A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R. M. Lodha directed the petitions filed by Akhil Bhartiya Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Samiti and one Farooq to be tagged with a batch of petitions, on which the Bench, on May 9, stayed the September 30, 2010 verdict of the High Court.
In its petition, the Samiti quoted the Hadith, wherein Prophet Hazarat Mohammed Saheb had commented that in one plot of land there could not be places of worship of two different religions and thereby the High Court order was erroneous.
It pointed out that the Supreme Court in the ‘Ismail Faruqui judgment' had held that a mosque was not an essential part of practice of the religion of Islam and ‘namaz' (prayer) by Muslims could be offered anywhere, even in an open place and the right to worship was not at and in every place so long as it could be practised effectively.
No fundamental right
The Samiti said the High Court failed to consider that the Muslims had no fundamental right to offer prayer at a particular place, i.e., Ramjanmabhoomi, while Hindus had the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution to worship and perform their religious rites, rituals and practices at Ramjanmabhoomi as it was an integral part of Hindu dharma and Hindu religion.
The petition pointed out that under the 1993 law passed by the Uttar Pradesh government, it was considered necessary to acquire the disputed structure and adjacent land for setting up of a complex and thereafter for construction of a Ram temple, a mosque, a library and a museum and the High Court had misdirected its decision.
The High Court verdict, in spite of declaring Ramjanmabhoomi as the place of worship and deity, had passed a decree to trifurcate the area, which was an integral and highly revered Janmabhoomi of Lord Ram as per the sacred scriptures and such partition would frustrate the whole object of the 1993 law.
The Samiti sought quashing of the impugned verdict.