The Supreme Court of India has already announced its verdict on adultery law and called it as ‘unconstitutional. Now, Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict on 1994 judgment in the Ismail Faroqui matter. However, Justice Ashok Bhushan has started reading out the judgment on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and himself.
Here's the latest updates:
Supreme Court to begin hearing on Ayodhya matter from October 29, 2018 to decide the suit on merit.
Supreme Court to begin hearing on Ayodhya matter from October 29, 2018 to decide the suit on merit. pic.twitter.com/du5499fGvs— ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018
Justtice Bhushan, reading out a judgment on behalf CJI Dipak Misra and himself, said that the Ayodhya case need not be referred to a larger bench.
Ayodhya matter (Ismail Faruqui case): Larger bench needs to decide what constitutes essential religious practice, says Justice S Nazeer
Ayodhya matter (Ismail Faruqui case): Larger bench needs to decide what constitutes essential religious practice, says Justice S Nazeer— ANI (@ANI) September 27, 2018
Another big decision has been taken by the Supreme Court after declined to refer the Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger Constitutional bench. Also, the apex court will hear the matter on the Ayodhya matter from 29th October 2018 to decide suit on merit.
While announcing the verdict on the issue of reference of Ram Mandir- Babri case to a larger Bench, Supreme Court held that all religions and religious places need to be equally respected.
"Ashoka's Edicts preach tolerance to a faith of others," said Justice Ashok Bhushan as he read out the verdict.
The court pronounced this decision on the limited aspect of whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its 1994 judgment in Ismail Faruqui case should be revisited by a Constitution Bench.
The apex court had also heard the argument on whether the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case should be referred to a large bench or not.
Justice Bhushan said that there were two opinions on the matter, one by Justice Bhushan and CJI Dipak Misra and another by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
However, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Dipak Misra said no exception can be taken to 1994 observations whereas Justice Nazeer dissented from majority verdict and said that large bench should decide that what constitutes essential religious practice.
-With ANI inputs