English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ismail Faruqui verdict won’t affect Ayodhya tile suit outcome, rules Supreme Court

Published

on

Ismail Faruqui verdict won’t affect Ayodhya tile suit outcome, rules Supreme Court

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, today (Thursday,September 27), ruling that the Ismail Faruqui verdict in 1994 – that mosques are not integral to Islam – will not affect a decision on the Ayodhya title suit and refused to refer it to a larger bench for further clarification.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

Justice Bhushan wrote one judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Misra. Justice Nazeer wrote a dissenting judgment.

The Ismail Faruqui verdict, delivered by a Constitution Bench, had been challenged by a bunch of Muslim outfits during proceedings in the Babri Masjid Ram Janmbhoomi title suit. They had argued that the Faruqui case verdict – that mosques are not integral to Islam and thus not a prerequisite for offering namaz – was too “sweeping” and could influence the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute.

In the 2-1 verdict, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Bhushan held that there was no need to refer the Ismail Faruqui verdict to a larger bench.

The statement in Faruqui case was in the limited context of immunity claimed by the petitioners for the mosque from acquisition, Justice Bhushan said, adding that “it need not be read broadly to mean mosque can never be essential to practise of Islam”.

“The present case shall be decided on its own facts, the Ismail Farooqui judgment would have no impact on it,” Justice Bhushan added.

Justice Nazeer gave a dissenting opinion, stating that whether a mosque is integral to Islam or not is a matter that requires to be considered by a Constitution Bench. He said “questionable observations” in Faruqui ruling were “arrived at without undertaking comprehensive examination” and ‘have permeated” the judgement in the main Ayodhya title suit. He further stated that it needs to be brought in line with the Shirur mutt case. The next hearing has been slated for October 29.

The Ismail Faruqui verdict, 1994

Months after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992 by Hindu radicals supported by the RSS-BJP combine, the Congress-led central government enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. A year later, in October 1994, a five-judge bench of the top court had, in the M Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India case, upheld the validity of the Act, vesting jurisdiction of the disputed land in Ayodhya to the Centre.

The fine print of the top court’s verdict, however, gave rise to a new legal conundrum that could, it was argued, be a critical legal precedent that has the potential of determining which way the judgment in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmbhoomi title suit could go.

As reported by India Legal, Paragraph 82 of the Ismail Faruqui verdict states: “there can be no reason to hold that a mosque has a unique or special status”. The interpretation of this line has been taken, especially by the Hindu right that wants control of the disputed land to build a Ram Mandir, to be that the presence of a mosque was not a prerequisite for Muslims to offer namaz.

Additionally, it meant that the government was free to acquire the disputed land on which the Babri Masjid once stood and that a mosque – irrespective of its heritage value or the significance and faith attached to it by the Muslims – held no importance in Islam.

Several Muslims groups who are now party to the long running Babri Masjid-Ram Janmbhoomi title suit had petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ismail Faruqui verdict on grounds that its reference to the irrelevance of a mosque for offering namaz was a “sweeping observation” and needed reconsideration as “it will have a bearing” on the final outcome of the land dispute.

The Uttar Pradesh government, along with Hindu outfits that are party to the title suit, have opposed the petitions that seek referring Ismail Faruqui to a larger bench. Their resistance is based on the argument that the Muslim outfits were raising the matter belatedly – nearly 25 years after the Ismail Faruqui verdict was delivered – with the sole purpose of delaying the judgment in the land dispute.

Among the arguments, made by counsels for the UP government and the Hindu outfits placing reliance on Ismail Faruqui, is that while the birthplace of Lord Ram cannot be shifted to another site, a mosque with no particular religious significance to the Muslims can be shifted as doing so will “not affect the right to practice religion by offering ‘namaz’ in other mosques”.

Countering these arguments, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for some Muslim petitioners in the title suit, had told the Supreme Court that the Ismail Faruqui verdict had failed to take note of the two critical issues – one, that the idols of Ram Lalla were placed in the disputed premises through an illegal act of trespass and two, the 1986 order by the Rajiv Gandhi-led central government to open the locks of the Babri Masjid premises and allowing the shilanyas was based was on the plea of a person who was not a party in the case and should not have been entertained. Dhavan had also submitted that the Ismail Faruqui verdict was “bad in law” as it denied members of one religious community their fundamental right to the freedom of practicing their religion while upholding the same right for the members of another faith.

India News

PM Modi accuses Congress of anti-Sikh bias over Rahul Gandhi’s ‘traitor’ remark

Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused Rahul Gandhi of targeting BJP MP Ravneet Singh Bittu with a ‘gaddar’ remark because of his Sikh identity while speaking in the Rajya Sabha.

Published

on

PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday launched a sharp attack on Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, alleging that his “traitor” remark against BJP MP Ravneet Singh Bittu reflected the Congress party’s animosity towards the Sikh community.

The Prime Minister made the remarks in the Rajya Sabha while replying to the motion of thanks on the President’s address. Referring to an incident in the Parliament complex a day earlier, Modi said Gandhi’s comment had crossed all limits of political decency.

The controversy stems from a protest by suspended Opposition MPs, during which Ravneet Singh Bittu — a former Congress leader who joined the BJP ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections — allegedly made a remark suggesting the protesters were behaving as if they had won a war.

In response, Rahul Gandhi was heard saying, “A traitor is walking by, look at his face,” before approaching Bittu and extending his hand. Gandhi then reportedly added, “Hello, brother. My traitor friend. Don’t worry, you will come back.”

Bittu refused to shake hands with the Congress leader and instead described him as an “enemy of the country” before walking away from the scene.

While the Congress later clarified that Gandhi’s remark was aimed at Bittu for leaving the party, the BJP seized upon the comment, calling it an insult to the Sikh community. Protests were subsequently held by members of the Sikh community outside the Congress headquarters and at other locations.

Addressing the House, Prime Minister Modi said that many leaders had quit the Congress in the past and that the party itself had split multiple times, but none of those leaders had been labelled a traitor. “He called this MP a traitor because he is Sikh,” the Prime Minister alleged, as treasury bench members raised slogans condemning the remark.

Continue Reading

India News

Manipur Assembly to meet at 4 pm today, floor test likely under new chief minister

The Manipur Legislative Assembly will convene at 4 pm today, with a floor test likely as the new chief minister seeks to prove his majority in the House.

Published

on

Manipur assembly

The Manipur Legislative Assembly will convene at 4 pm on Thursday in Imphal, a day after Yumnam Khemchand Singh was sworn in as the chief minister. A floor test is likely to be held on the first day of the session to establish the majority of the newly formed government.

In the 60-member Assembly, the BJP holds 37 seats, while its ally National People’s Party has six members, giving the ruling combine a clear majority in the House.

Singh chaired the first Cabinet meeting of his government late Wednesday evening, shortly after taking oath as the 13th chief minister of Manipur. The meeting marked the formal start of administrative functioning under the new Council of Ministers.

His appointment came nearly a year after the resignation of former chief minister N Biren Singh, who stepped down following months of ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities in the state.

After taking oath, Singh thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and said he would work with “utmost diligence to advance development and prosperity in Manipur,” aligning the state’s efforts with the vision of Viksit Bharat.

He said the government’s focus would be on inclusive economic growth while preserving Manipur’s cultural heritage, adding that he would discharge his responsibilities with sincerity and dedication, mindful of the trust placed in him.

The summoning of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly by Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla, along with the first Cabinet meeting, signals the resumption of legislative and administrative processes in the state, officially bringing President’s rule to an end.

The sixth session of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly was last held from July 31 to August 12, 2024.

Continue Reading

India News

PM Modi skips Lok Sabha reply as protests force repeated adjournments

PM Modi did not deliver his Lok Sabha reply today after sustained Opposition protests led to repeated adjournments over a dispute involving Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech.

Published

on

PM Modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not deliver his scheduled reply to the Motion of Thanks on the President’s address in the Lok Sabha today after sustained Opposition protests led to multiple adjournments of the House.

The disruption followed an escalation of tensions linked to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s proposed speech and the suspension of eight Opposition MPs a day earlier. The situation worsened after remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey during the proceedings.

Dispute over references to books sparks fresh ruckus

The controversy intensified when Nishikant Dubey responded to Rahul Gandhi’s demand to speak on national security and references to the unpublished memoirs of former Army chief General MM Naravane. Dubey said that while Gandhi wanted to quote from an unpublished book, he himself had brought several books that, according to him, made claims about the Gandhi family.

As Dubey began listing these books and their contents, strong protests erupted from Opposition members. Krishna Prasad Tenneti, who was presiding over the House at the time, cited Rule 349, which restricts members from reading out books, newspapers, or letters unless directly related to parliamentary business. Despite repeated warnings, the matter remained unresolved, leading to another adjournment.

Rahul Gandhi accuses government of silencing debate

Earlier in the day, Rahul Gandhi alleged that he was being prevented from speaking on an issue of national importance. He claimed the government was uncomfortable with references to General Naravane’s memoirs, which he said discussed the handling of the 2020 China border crisis.

In a social media post, Gandhi said he intended to present the Prime Minister with a book authored by the former Army chief, adding that some cabinet ministers had even questioned the existence of the book. He also wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla after the suspension of eight Opposition MPs, alleging that parliamentary debate was being curtailed.

After it became clear that the Prime Minister would not speak in the House today, Gandhi posted that PM Modi had avoided Parliament because he was “scared” to face the truth. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra echoed the allegation, claiming the Prime Minister was unwilling to enter the House.

Proceedings disrupted throughout the day

Lok Sabha proceedings were first adjourned until 2 pm amid loud protests over the issue linked to Naravane’s memoirs. Even after the House reconvened, disruptions continued, preventing normal business from resuming.

Later, Congress MPs staged a demonstration outside the Parliament complex, demanding that Rahul Gandhi be allowed to speak on the President’s address.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com