Update at 2.24 pm:Considering the issues involved and the constitutional questions, the case needs to be referred to a larger bench: Justice Nazeer
Update at 2.22 pm: Questionable observations in the Ismail Farooqi case: Justice Nazeer
Update at 2.19 pm: 2:1 split in the bench. By a majority of 2:1 Supreme Court has refused to refer the Ismail Farooqi case to a larger bench.
Update at 2.18 pm: Justice Abdul Nazeer speaking now
Update at 2.17 pm: Supreme Court to begin Babri hearing in the week commencing October 29. Justice Bhushan says the appeals have been pending for a long time and require speedy disposal.
Update at 2.16 pm: No Case made out to refer the case for reconsideration to a larger bench: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.16 pm: Fundamental Rights have prevailed. Would like the construction to start before Diwali: Dr Subramanian Swamy
Update at 2.15 pm: Observations in the Ismail Farooqi Case need to be understood in reference of acquisition of the mosque and not as a governing rule: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.10 pm: No exception can be taken to the constitution bench judgment: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.10 pm: The constitution bench held that if a place is of significance, then demolition of that place will result in violation of fundamental rights: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.08 pm: The statements made in Ismail Farooqi were in relation to the acquisition of that particular mosque: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.07 pm: The Supreme Court had said that unless the place of offering of prayers has a particular significance, the place shall not affect the right to worship: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.06 pm: Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts. The Ismail Farooqi judgment was in a specific context. The statement that mosque is not an essential part of Islam was on the basis that the mosque in question could not be acquired: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.05 pm: One of the main submissions was that the mosque cannot be acquired: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.02 pm: Court can follow Only logical reasoning: Justice Bhushan
Update at 2.02 pm: Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts: Justice Ashok Bhushan
Update at 2.01 pm: Justice Ashok Bhushan reading out majority judgment on behalf of the CJI and himself.
Update at 2.01 pm: Bench assembles
Update at 1.33 pm: Supreme Court issues fresh notice ahead of Ayodhya verdict, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Ashok to pronounce the verdict.
Update at 12:31 pm: Ayodhya is a religious issue not political: Baba Ramdev
Update at 12:20 pm: We respect Supreme Court & we expect a ruling in favour of Hindus & Ram Mandir. As far as Mosque is concerned, Namaz can be possible without Mosque: Swami Narendranand Saraswati
The Supreme Court on Thursday will deliver its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.
It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.
The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".
He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict.
The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise".
Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.
The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.