Citation: M.Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360
Date of Judgment: 24/10/1994
Equivalent Citations: AIR1995SC605A, AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 605, 1994 (6) SCC 360, 1994 AIR SCW 4883, 1994 AIR SCW 4897, (1994) 6 JT 632 (SC)
Case No: N/A
Case Type: N/A
Petitioner/Appellant: M.Ismail Faruqui (Dr)
Respondent: Union Of India
Bench:
- Hon’ble Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah
- Hon’ble Justice A.M. Ahmadi
- Hon’ble Justice J.S. Verma
- Hon’ble Justice G.N. Ray
- Hon’ble Justice S.P. Bharucha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Constitution of India – Article 25, Article 26
- Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 – Section 4(3)
Cases Referred: N/A
Facts:
- Ayodhya is a township in Uttar Pradesh’s District Faizabad, located in the country’s north. Because of the epic Ramayana mentions it as the birthplace of Shri Ram, it has long been a site of spiritual pilgrimage. In 1528 A.D., a man named Mir Baqi built the building that is now known as the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya as a mosque. Certain sections assert that it was constructed at the location where a temple once stood, which is thought to be the birthplace of Shri Ram. This led to an ongoing dispute.
- The movement to construct a Ram-temple became a matter of controversy which led to various discussions which led to communal tension and violence from time to time.
- Due to this to all of this on 6th Dec, 1992 a crowd of people climbed the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid and demolished it.
- After this a wide spread communal violence started resulting in deaths, injuries and destruction of properties in various parts of country and because of this harmony among different communities got affected.
- The President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India and took all the functions of Uttar Pradesh Government.
- After the imposition of President Rule, the Government has decided to acquire all areas in dispute and suitable adjacent area.
- In pursuance of these decisions an Ordinance named ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance’ was issued on 7th January, 1993 which was later replaced by the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid complex
- So now if anybody wants to offer prayer and Namaz in the area, they first have to take permission from the Government.
- By virtue of the said act the right, title and interest in respect of certain areas at Ayodhya stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government.
- The Constitutional Validity of the Act was challenged before Supreme Court by the Petitioner (Dr. Ismail Faruqui).
Issues Involved:
- Whether the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 is Constitutionally valid or not?
- Whether the Acquisition of Masjid land by the Government violates the Article 25 and Article 26 of Muslim Community?
Contentions of Petitioner/ Appellant:
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that:
- The act violated the secularism, right to equality and right to freedom of religion.
- The Acquisition of undisputed Area around the small disputed area is unnecessary being unrelated to the dispute.
- Mosque being a place of religious worship of Muslims is immune from State’s Acquisition Powers.
- The Act was unconstitutional as it violated their rights under Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs) of Indian Constitution.
- The Act was titled heavily in the favour of Hindus and discriminate with Muslim Community.
- Section 4(3) of the Act provides for abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedings depriving the Muslim community of its defences without providing for an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, and thereby it deprives the Muslim community of the judicial remedy to which it is entitled in the constitutional scheme under the rule of law.
Contentions of Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondent contended that:
- The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, have the objective of maintaining public order and promoting communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India.
- That acquisition of the disputed area was not meant to deprive the community found entitled to it or to retain any part of the excess area, but to avoid the escalation of dispute, which undoubtedly promotes the faith of secularism instead of impairing it.
Judgment:
It was held the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was held Constitutional and valid only Section 4(3) of the Act was held unconstitutional and invalid. It was held that, even with the protection provided by Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, places of religious worship, such as mosques, churches, temples, and the like, can be acquired by the State using its sovereign power of acquisition, and that doing so does not violate rights under Article 25 and 26.
Ratio Decidendi:
- Section 4(3) of the act abates all pending suits and legal proceedings without providing for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for resolution of the dispute. This Section was held invalid on the grounds that it extinct the judicial remedy for resolution amounting to dismissal of rule of law.
- Further it was analyzed by the court that Right guaranteed under Article 25 only includes right to practice, profess and propagate religion and not the right to acquire or own or possess property. So, while offering prayers or worship is a religious practice, it would not be considered an essential or integral part of that religious practice to offer prayers at every location unless that location holds special significance for that religion.
- So, a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open.
Obiter Dicta:
N/A
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the case of M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360, marked a significant legal pronouncement on the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The Supreme Court, comprising a bench of five justices, held the Act to be constitutional but struck down Section 4(3) as unconstitutional.
The judgment emphasized the paramount importance of maintaining national peace, public order, and communal harmony. The court acknowledged the historical and sensitive nature of the Ayodhya dispute, recognizing the need to prevent further escalation of tensions and promote the secular fabric of the nation.
Drafted By: Sargam Bansal
Published on: February 16, 2024 at 11:06 IST