After the demolition of Babri-Masjid in 1992, the Central Government, in 1993, by a special Act, acquired the larger area of land admeasuring approx. 67 acres; after which, three contesting parties were before a special bench of the High Court. The challenge to this acquisition of 1993 finally culminated into a judgment of five judges of the Supreme Court of India, reported as Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, wherein three judges wrote the majority opinion propounding the concept of ‘comparative significance and special significance of religious beliefs of contesting parties. Propounding these doctrines gave an impression that the Supreme Court found the right of Hindus to worship over the disputed land stronger than the right of Muslims to offer Namaz.

This issue was again raised before the Supreme Court by Muslims for referring the matter to a larger bench. The plea was rejected. This paper examines the correctness of the proposition of a five-judge bench judgement in Ismail Faruqui case as well as the rejection of the plea to refer the issue to a larger by three Judges in M Siddique V Mahant Suresh Das of 2018.