India News

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

Published

8 years ago

September 27, 2018

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.

Up Next

SC said Aadhaar must to avail Govt benefits, but it caused 25 hunger deaths in 2017-18

Don't Miss

Sushma Swaraj Meets Iranian FM Javad Zarif in New York

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

18 mins ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Goa
Gujarat
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Manipur
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

India News

India-US trade deal first phase finalised, drafting underway

The first phase of the India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said. The deal is expected to be operationalised once India secures a competitive advantage over peer countries.

Published

3 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The first phase of the proposed India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said on Thursday. However, the agreement is yet to be fully finalised and implemented, with India seeking a competitive advantage over other countries before putting it into operation.

Speaking at the SRCC Centenary Conclave in New Delhi, Goyal said the first tranche of the bilateral agreement had been finalised and was going through the legal drafting process. He expressed hope that the process would be completed soon.

The minister said implementation would follow once India secured a comparable or competitive advantage over its peer countries in the American market.

India seeks an advantage over competing exporters

India wants its exporters to receive favourable market access and tariff terms compared with competitors. Goyal’s remarks indicate that the relative position of Indian goods in the US market remains an important consideration before the agreement becomes operational.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar also spoke about the negotiations at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum this week. He said the discussions were approaching a possible resolution but noted that India’s position relative to competing economies remained an issue.

Jaishankar said the outcome would depend partly on the terms negotiated between India and the United States and partly on how India fares against other competing economies.

Trade negotiations moving forward, says Commerce Secretary

Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agrawal said the negotiations were progressing in the right direction and that both countries hoped to conclude and sign the agreement at the earliest possible time.

He explained that the signing would depend on the formalisation of the broader tariff structure in the United States. Parallel work was also underway in Washington, including processes linked to Section 301.

Agrawal indicated that the two sides would move towards signing the agreement at a mutually agreed time after the relevant tariff framework was formalised.

Earlier this month, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said India and the United States were working to resolve outstanding issues, although an agreement was not imminent at that point.

India-US trade talks and bilateral relations

India and the United States have been negotiating the proposed bilateral trade pact since early 2025. The discussions aim to address tariff-related differences, reduce non-tariff barriers and improve market access between the two countries.

The negotiations have taken place against the backdrop of broader strains in bilateral relations, including disputes over tariffs and differences concerning other policy issues.

While the finalisation of the first tranche marks progress in the negotiations, the agreement still needs to move through the remaining legal and procedural steps before it can be signed and implemented.

The next steps will depend on the completion of legal drafting, the finalisation of the US tariff framework and the two countries’ agreement on the terms governing the pact.

India News

Nobody can browbeat judiciary, Chief Justice warns over Rahul Gandhi’s march

The Supreme Court issued notices to opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, over their march to the court on October 12 concerning irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

7 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march to the apex court. The march was organised to raise concerns about alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The court’s remarks that nobody can browbeat the judiciary have brought the focus back to the dispute over the opposition’s protest and the appropriate way to raise grievances before the court.

Why the opposition marched to the Supreme Court

The march was part of the opposition’s campaign against what it described as irregularities in the voter-list revision process. The opposition has raised concerns over alleged electoral malpractice and demanded action concerning the Election Commission and the revision of electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi had led the march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request to meet opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Chief Justice had advised the leaders to approach the court through the judicial process rather than seek an administrative meeting to discuss issues already pending before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice’s position on approaching the court

The Chief Justice had said that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to every citizen and that people could approach it through petitions. He also indicated that matters affecting citizens would be considered in accordance with the law.

The distinction between the administrative and judicial functions of the court was central to the disagreement over the opposition leaders’ request for a meeting. The Chief Justice’s position was that pending legal issues should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court issues notices over the march

The Supreme Court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters concerning the October 12 march. The proceedings relate to the protest over irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The opposition’s allegations about the voter-list revision remain allegations and should not be treated as established findings merely because the matter has reached the court.

The developments have placed the opposition’s protest, its concerns over electoral rolls and the judiciary’s role in addressing such disputes at the centre of the ongoing debate.