Contextual reading of prior constitutional rulings rejected larger-Bench reference on mosque and essential religious practice issues.

The majority held that the observations in Ismail Faruqui were confined to the constitutional validity of acquisition of the Ayodhya property and did not lay down a general rule that a mosque can never form an essential part of Islam. Read as a whole, the earlier ruling required its observations to be understood in context, and no unresolved substantial constitutional question justified a reference to a larger Bench. The Court also held that reliance on the earlier judgment was not barred merely because it had been cited in the High Court or in submissions, and that res judicata did not apply because the issues were not directly and substantially the same. A dissent would have referred the matter for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui required reconsideration by a larger Bench on the grounds that the observations on mosque and essential religious practice were made without examining the tenets of Islam, and whether the prior judgment or the High Court proceedings barred such a request.

Analysis: The majority held that the challenged observations in Ismail Faruqui were made in the specific context of the constitutional validity of acquisition of the Ayodhya property and the claim of immunity of a mosque from acquisition. Read as a whole, the earlier judgment did not lay down a general rule that a mosque can never be an essential part of Islam; rather, it stated that worship at every location is not itself protected unless the place has special significance so that extinction of that place would impair the right to practise the religion. The majority further held that the issue before the Court was not one in which a substantial question of constitutional interpretation remained open for reconsideration, and that the earlier judgment was not barred from being relied upon merely because it had been cited in the High Court or in submissions in the suits. On res judicata, the majority held that the issues in the suits were not directly and substantially the same as those decided in Ismail Faruqui, and the suits had not been transferred for decision along with that case.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for referring Ismail Faruqui to a larger Bench; the request for reconsideration was rejected.

Dissenting Opinion: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. held that the observations in Ismail Faruqui on essential religious practice and the significance of places of worship had permeated the High Court judgment and raised questions of constitutional importance. His Lordship would have referred the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to reopen the earlier Constitution Bench ruling and left the appeals to proceed on the basis that reconsideration by a larger Bench was not warranted at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Observations in an earlier judgment must be read in their factual and legal context, and a reference to a larger Bench is unwarranted where no unresolved substantial constitutional question survives and the issues said to arise were not directly and substantially decided in the earlier proceeding.

---