In Brief
This case concerns whether a three-judge bench should refer the Ayodhya Temple-Mosque dispute to a larger constitutional bench to reconsider the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment. The appellants argued that Ismail Faruqui's observation that 'a mosque is not essential to Islam' was made without examining Islamic doctrine and thus wrongly influenced the lower court. The court held that the Ismail Faruqui observations were made solely in the context of state acquisition powers and cannot be read broadly as binding on essential religious practices doctrine. The court declined the reference, finding no case for reconsideration; however, Justice Nazeer's dissent argued the observations permeated the lower judgment and constitutional issues merited larger bench consideration.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.