M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRS. v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others (Ayodhya title appeals, reference question)
Background
In the long-running Ayodhya title appeals (arising from the Allahabad High Court's 2010 judgment dividing the disputed site among three parties), counsel for one set of appellants argued that the observations in paragraph 82 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India (1994), to the effect that a mosque is not an essential or integral part of the practice of Islam, so prayer could be offered elsewhere, were incorrect and needed reconsideration by a larger (five or more judge) bench before the title appeals themselves could be properly decided. The three-judge bench hearing the title appeals had to decide only this threshold reference question, not the title dispute itself.
Decision Breakdown
By a 2:1 majority, the Court (Dipak Misra, CJI, and Ashok Bhushan, J.) held that the Ismail Faruqui observations on the essentiality of mosques to Islamic practice were made in the context of the Centre's power to acquire religious land under a different law, were not directly relevant to deciding title to the disputed Ayodhya property, and therefore did not need to be referred to a larger bench; the title appeals were directed to be listed for final hearing from 29 October 2018. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer dissented, reasoning that questions of this constitutional and religious significance, including how "essential practice" under Articles 25/26 should be tested, deserved examination by a larger bench, and set out specific questions he felt should be referred.
Lesson Learnt
A dissenting opinion does not stop a case from being finally decided: a majority ruling on a specific threshold legal question (here, whether a point needs to go to a larger bench) is binding and allows the underlying litigation to proceed, even when a minority judge would have preferred a different, broader course.