The three-judge bench of Supreme Court, in a 2:1 verdict, pronounced on Thursday that the Ayodhya case will not be referred to a larger bench, and that the matter will be 'treated only as a land issue'. CJI Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred on the same judgment, while the third judge, Justice Abdul Nazeer gave out the dissenting judgment on this matter.
From making it clear that 'court will only follow logical reasoning' to stating that 'observations need to be seen in context of a land acquisition case', Justice Bhushan spoke on number of important points while pronouncing the judgment. Let's take a look at the five most important takeaways from his and CJI's judgment:
In the very beginning, Justice Bhushan made it clear that each case needs to be looked individually, based on the facts pertaining to that very issue. He said, "Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts. Court can follow only logical reasoning."
While pronouncing the historic judgment, Justice Bhushan also mentioned about the Ismail Farooqui 1994 judgment, in which the SC had ruled that '(Mosque) is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam, and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere'.
"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. The statements made in Ismail Farooqi case were in relation to the acquisition of that particular mosque," Justice Bhushan added.
Soon after reading out his judgment on the Ayodhya verdict, Justice Bhushan announced that the appeals in the Babri Masjid case will begin in the week commencing October 29. The case pertains to the title dispute over the land.
"SC to begin hearing Babri appeals in the week commencing 29 October. The appeals have been pending for a long time and requires speedy disposal," he added.
Right at the very end of his judgment, Justice Bhushan pronounced that the issue shall only be treated as a land issue. "Observations need to be understood as observations in context of land acquisition and nothing more," Justice Bhushan stated.