https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302311 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. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 May 2022 21:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302311 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302311