New Delhi: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Saturday raked up the issue of Ram temple and said that like Sabarimala Verdict, the Supreme Court should take a decision on this matter too. Adityanath was attending India Ideas Conclave 2018 in the national capital when he made this statement.

Talking to reporters, he said, “Nobody should be discriminated. If Supreme Court can give its verdict on Sabarimala Temple, then we appeal that a decision on Ram Mandir should also be taken. The issue of Ram Janmabhoomi is not about politics, it is about religious sentiments.”

Recently, the Supreme Court had permitted women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple. Following the verdict, Kerala has been witnessing massive protests from devotees at various places.

Adityanath’s statement comes at a time when the Supreme Court on Monday is likely to start hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict trifurcating the disputed site at Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant. The matter would be heard by a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.

The top court bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer by a majority of 2:1 while rejecting the plea challenging the High Court judgment had directed that the matter would be heard by a three-judge bench from October 29.

The three-judge bench while rejecting the plea had on September 27 said, “We are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration.”

“We again make it clear that questionable observations made in the Ismail Faruqui’s case … were made in the context of a land acquisition. Those observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor relevant for deciding these appeals,” the majority judgment had said.

In his minority judgment, Justice Nazeer had said that the “questionable” observations in the Ismail Faruqui ruling were arrived at without undertaking a comprehensive examination. He had said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard.

Justice Nazeer also said that whether the mosque was an essential part of Islam for offering namaz was to be decided considering the religious beliefs, and that requires detailed consideration.

“It is clear that the question as to whether a particular religious practice is an integral part of the religion is to be considered by the doctrine, tenets, and beliefs of the religion,” he observed.

He said the question of the 1994 Ismail Farooqi judgment needed to be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.

(With agency inputs)