Ayodhya dispute appeals: appropriate Bench to pass further orders on January 10

In brief moments of a rapid-fire hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi and Justice S.K. Kaul did not delve into the issue.

The Supreme Court of India. File

A two-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Friday posted the Ayodhya dispute appeals before the "appropriate Bench" for "further orders" on January 10. In brief moments of a rapid-fire hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi and Justice  S.K. Kaul did not delve into the issue. The appeals were previously heard by benches in the combination of the judges. "This is the Ramjanmabhoomi case? Yes? Listen to the order now... 'Further orders will be passed by the appropriate Bench on the 10th of January'. Please come on the 10th of January," Chief Justice Gogoi told the advocates present in the case. The whole of this week is devoted to hearing miscellaneous matters after the court re-opened post the winter vacation. All the Benches in the court are sitting in combinations of two judges this week. The court would continue to sit in two-judge combinations on miscellaneous days - Mondays and Fridays - every week henceforth.

This is one of the reforms introduced by Chief Justice Gogoi to deal with pendency of cases. Hence, Ramjanmabhoomi is posted for January 10, a Thursday, when there would be a three-judge combination bench available.

Also Read

Timeline: Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute

On October 29 last year, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Gogoi ordered the appeals to be listed on January 4, 2019 before an appropriate Bench to fix a date for hearing.

The October order had come when the parties sought an early hearing. At the time, Chief Justice Gogoi orally told them that the decision when to start hearing the appeals would be in the realm of discretion of the "appropriate Bench" before which the matter would come up in January. "We have our own priorities... whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate Bench," Chief Justice Gogoi had said. On September 27, the apex court, in a majority opinion, declined the plea made by Islamic bodies and individuals to refer the question as to whether prayer in a mosque is an essential part of Islam to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. The majority verdict, in its last paragraph, further directed the Supreme Court to start hearing the pending from October 29.

This direction had triggered questions whether the court intended to deliver a judgment in the appeals before the May 2019 general election. In 2017, when the court started hearing the appeals after a hiatus of over seven years, senior advocate Kapil Sibal suggested it to adjourn the hearings to after the May 2019 general election.

Allahabad High Court verdict

The Ayodhya appeals are against the September 30, 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court to divide the disputed 2.77 acre area among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The High Court had concluded that Lord Ram, son of King Dashrath, was born within the 1,482.5 square yards of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises over 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga. One of the judges added that the "world knows" where Ram's birthplace is, while another said his finding was an “informed guess” based on “oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims” that the precise birthplace of Ram is under the central dome. The court had relied on Hindu faith, belief and folklore to reach this conclusion. The Ayodhya appeals were previously heard by another three-judge Bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra (CJI Gogoi's immediate predecessor), Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer. On September 27, the Misra Bench, in a majority opinion of 2:1, decided against referring a question of law - whether offering prayers in a mosque is an essential practice of Islam - which arose in the Ayodhya appeals' hearings to a Constitution Bench. The majority opinion of September 27, authored by Justice Bhushan and supported by Justice Misra, ordered the Ayodhya appeals "which are awaiting consideration by this Court for quite a long period, to be now listed in week commencing 29th October, 2018 for hearing". Usually, this would entail the appeals returning  to the Bench comprising Justices Bhushan, Nazeer and a new third judge, replacing Justice Misra, who retired on October 2. It was also found rather unusual for Justice Bhushan, a puisne judge on the Bench, to fix the date of hearing of the appeals as October 29. They say it should have been ideally left to Chief Justice Gogoi, as the master of roster, to decide the next course of hearing. September 27 also witnessed a stinging dissent penned by Justice Nazeer, who observed in a separate opinion that the question of what is essential or not in a religion cannot be hastily decided. He held that the question raised on the essentiality of offering prayers in mosques should indeed be examined by a seven-judge Bench before the Ayodhya suit appeals are heard further. Justice Nazeer concluded that questions raised during the Ayodhya appeals' hearing about the comment made in the Ismail Faruqui judgment of 1994 require a "comprehensive examination" by a seven-judge Bench. Speaking for himself and the Chief Justice, Justice Bhushan objected that references cannot be made to a larger Bench merely because of "questionable observations" made in an earlier judgment.