Justice Abdul Nazeer most sought judge in matters of religion in SC
   Date :10-Nov-2019
 
By Abhishek Anshu
 
NEW DELHI
 
JUSTICE S Abdul Nazeer, the lone Muslim judge in the 5-member Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which on Saturday delivered a historic verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case, has been one of the most sought after judges in matters involving religion. Justice Nazeer was also the part of the five-judge bench in the ‘triple talaq’ matter but had delivered a minority verdict along with then Chief Justice of India J S Khehar. By the 3:2 verdict, the apex court had held issue of 1,400 year old practice of ‘triple talaq’ among Muslims as illegal and unconstitutional. However, in the Ayodhya verdict, the judge, who was elevated to the apex court from the Karnataka High Court, did not agree with the arguments of the Muslim parties and became a part of the unanimous verdict that possession of the disputed 2.77 acre land rights will be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla.
 
Before becoming a part of the Constitution bench in the Ayodhya case, Justice Nazeer was part of a three-judge bench, including the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan, which by 2:1 majority had declined to set up a larger bench for a relook of its 1994 verdict which had held that a “mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam”.
 
The September 27, 2018 verdict by the three-judge bench had paved the way for the apex court to hear the Ayodhya land dispute case in which Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi constituted a five-judge bench to adjudicate the issue. In the original scheme of the five-judges to hear the Ayodhya dispute, Justice Nazeer along with Justice Bhushan was not named to hear the matter. But the recusal of two judges - Justice N V Ramana and U U Lalit brought into the fold to hear the politically and religiously sensitive temple-mosque land dispute at Ayodhya. Besides these cases, Justice Nazeer was also a part of the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench which had declared ‘right to privacy’ as a fundamental right in the August 2017 verdict Santosh Hegde hails verdict:
 
RETIRED Supreme Court judge N Santosh Hegde on Saturday hailed the Ayodhya verdict, saying any other judgement wouldn’t have been better, but cautioned that it’s nothing to be celebrated or protested. It’s one of the best verdicts that could have been there under the circumstances, the former Solicitor General of India told PTI. “Anyway, it’s nothing to be celebrated or protested,” Hegde, however, said. “I think the court has found a via media which should satisfy every body. I don’t think any other judgement would have been better”, the former Karnataka Lokayukta said. The Supreme Court cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
 

 
Destiny brought Justice Ashok Bhushan in SC bench to hear dispute
 
By Sanjeev Kumar
 
NEW DELHI
 
JUSTICE Ashok Bhushan was destined to be part of the historic Ayodhya land dispute judgement as his entry into the 5-member Constitution bench was due to the recusal of the two senior judges of the Supreme Court. Justices Bhushan and S A Nazeer made it to the bench after Justices N V Ramana and U U Lalit, both likely to become Chief Justice of India in future, recused themselves from hearing the politically sensitive matter in the wake of objections raised by some litigants. In the original scheme of thing, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had constituted the bench of judges who in the future, on the seniority basis, were likely to assume the office of the CJI. Justice S A Bobde, who was part of the bench will succeed Justice Gogoi who retires this month, while Justice D Y Chandrachud would become CJI for a period from November 9, 2022 to November 10, 2024. Justice Bhushan had joined the bench dealing with Ayodhya matter months after delivering a relatively important judgement on September 27, 2018, in which the three-member bench refused to refer to five-judge Constitution bench the 1994 Ismail Faruqui verdict. The 1994 judgement had held that Mosque was not integral to offering prayers in Islam. The issue of referring the judgement had arisen when the bench had taken up the Ayodhya matter and Muslim parties demanded that the apex court first refer the Ismail Faruqui verdict to the five-judge bench.
 
 
 
I forget it the moment I get up from seat: Justice Bobde on how he unwinds
 
By Pawan Kumar Singh
 
NEW DELHI
 
AFTER presiding over marathon and surcharged hearings in cases like Ayodhya where tempers run high among lawyers, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde says it doesn’t take much for him to de-stress. Justice Bobde, who was part of the five-judge constitution bench which pronounced its judgement on the Ayodhya land dispute on Saturday, was recommended as the next the Chief Justice of India just two days after the completion of arguments. And just 10 days before the verdict, President Ram Nath Kovind signed the warrant of his appointment as the CJI on October 29. When asked how he unwinds, in an interview to PTI earlier this month, he said, “I forget it the moment I get up from the seat. I simply forget it.” Justice Bobde, who will take oath as the next CJI on November 18, was proactively involved in showering questions to the counsel appearing for both the Hindu and Muslim parties to the dispute. The judge, who will be the 47th CJI, has heard several key cases and hails from a family of lawyers from Maharashtra. He was part of a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court which in August 2017 declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right of an individual. The 63-year-old judge, who will have a tenure of over 17 months as the CJI before he retires on April 23, 2021, was in the news recently for heading a three-member in-house committee which gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi on a sexual harassment complaint by a former apex court staffer.
 
10 salient points from the SC verdict
 
The apex court ruled that Hindus will get the disputed land subject to conditions. The 2.77-acre complex will be handed over to the trust, which has to be formed within three months. The management of of the temple construction will be monitored by the trust. The Centre must appoint a board of trustees within three months.
 
The apex court ruled that Muslims couldn’t prove exclusive possession of the inner courtyard, which was in contention, while the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of the Hindus.
 
The SC held that the Allahabad High Court was wrong to divide the land between the three main parties -- Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board -- as the complex was a composite whole.
 
The landmark verdict was read out by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising CJI-designate S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer. 
 
CJI Ranjan Gogoi, who retires on November 17, decided the date of the verdict in consultation with the four other judges. n Under Article 142, the SC directed, in the scheme to be framed, Nirmohi Akhara, an order of ascetics, will also get representation. The Akhara’s suit, one of the main parties in the case, was dismissed as the bench held that it was barred by limitation. The SC also rejected that Nirmohi Akhara is a shebait (manager) of the complex. “Land to remain vested in statutory receiver till trust is formed,” ruled the court.
 
The five-judge bench unanimously rejected the Shia Waqf Board petition, claiming that the rights on the Babri Masjid on the disputed land in Ayodhya were over that of the Sunni Waqf Board.
 
The SC said that the 2003 Archaeology Survey of India’s (ASI) report can’t be dismissed as conjecture or just a guess work. “Babri mosque wasn’t constructed on a vacant land. An underlying structure did exist,” it said.
 
The apex court also said that the underlying structure was not of Islamic religion. Artefacts, architectural evidence had distinct non-Islamic nature, said CJI Gogoi. At the same time, the top court also said, “But ASI report hasn’t said the underlying structure was a specific temple.”
 
The apex court said that Hindus consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram. “Faith of Hindus is undisputed that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya,” ruled the court. Faith, the judgement read, is a matter of individual belief.