Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said on Saturday the Ram temple issue was not about politics but religious sentiments.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the India Ideas Conclave 2018 in New Delhi, Adityanath said no one should be discriminated against.

“If Supreme Court can give its verdict on Sabarimala Temple then we appeal that a decision on Ram Mandir should also be taken,” he said referring to the 28 September ruling which removed the ban on women of a certain age from entering the revered Lord Ayyappa temple in Kerala.

“The issue of Ram Janmabhoomi is not about politics, it is about religious sentiments,” the CM averred.

A new three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph will on 29 October begin 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.

On 27 September, the apex 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 29 October.

The Muslim petitioners had pressed for hearing the challenge to the High Court judgment by a five-judge bench as the court had relied on a 1994 top court judgment that said that mosque was not essential to Islam for offering ‘namaz’.

The SC observed that no exceptions can be taken to 1994 observations.

“Places of worship of all religions are equal. All mosques, temples, churches are equal,” the Supreme Court observed.

Read More: Won’t review 1994 verdict that said mosque isn’t integral to Islam, says SC

“All religions and religious places need to be equally respected. Ashoka’s edicts preach tolerance to faith of others,” Justice Ashok Bhushan said.

However, Justice S Nazeer proposed a dissenting opinion on the matter, saying that “a larger bench was required to decide what constitutes essential religious practice”.