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

Abhishek Banerjee says will not bow to BJP after nearly 11 hours of ED questioning

After spending nearly 11 hours before the Enforcement Directorate, TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee said he would not bow to the BJP and accused the ruling party of using investigative agencies for political purposes.

Published

on

Abhishek Banerjee

Trinamool Congress leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee on Tuesday said he would not bow to the BJP after spending nearly 11 hours being questioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an ongoing investigation.

Speaking after the questioning, Banerjee alleged that central agencies were being used to target opposition leaders and asserted that he would continue his political fight despite what he described as sustained pressure.

The TMC leader has repeatedly maintained that investigations involving him are politically motivated, a charge he has made on several previous occasions while appearing before central agencies.

His appearance before the ED comes amid a period of heightened political activity and multiple investigations involving leaders in West Bengal. Recent days have also seen Banerjee face summons and questioning in separate matters by state investigative agencies.

After leaving the ED office, Banerjee reiterated that he would not be intimidated and said he remained committed to his political responsibilities. He also accused the BJP of attempting to weaken opposition parties through investigative action, an allegation that the BJP has rejected in the past.

The Enforcement Directorate has not publicly commented on Banerjee’s remarks. The investigation related to the questioning remains ongoing.

Continue Reading

India News

DMK attacks Rahul Gandhi, accuses him of weakening opposition unity

DMK has intensified its criticism of Rahul Gandhi, alleging that the Congress leader’s actions have weakened opposition unity and strained relations within the INDIA bloc.

Published

on

Rahul-Gandhi

The war of words between the DMK and Congress has intensified, with the DMK launching a strong attack on Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and accusing him of contributing to divisions within the opposition alliance. The criticism comes amid strained ties between the two parties following their political split in Tamil Nadu.

According to the DMK, Rahul Gandhi’s political approach has weakened unity among opposition parties. The party’s IT wing mocked the Congress leader on social media, while an editorial published in the DMK’s official mouthpiece Murasoli questioned his recent remarks on opposition solidarity.

DMK questions Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on opposition unity

In its editorial, Murasoli argued that Rahul Gandhi was speaking about opposition unity despite, according to the DMK, contributing to disagreements among alliance partners in several states. The publication cited criticism directed at Congress by various opposition parties and suggested that the party’s actions had often created tensions within the INDIA bloc.

The editorial also referred to past political disputes involving Congress and Left parties, particularly in Kerala, claiming such episodes had raised concerns among opposition allies about Congress’s approach toward its partners.

Tamil Nadu political fallout adds to tensions

The attack comes after a major political realignment in Tamil Nadu. Following the 2026 Assembly elections, Congress ended its alliance with the DMK and joined the government led by Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The move left the DMK in the opposition and significantly altered the political equation between the two former allies.

The DMK has alleged that Congress benefited from the alliance during the election and later abandoned its partner. The party’s editorial questioned whether assurances from Congress leadership would be trusted by alliance partners after the developments in Tamil Nadu.

Congress rejects allegations

Congress has not issued a detailed official response to the editorial, but party sources have rejected the allegations. According to the party, its decisions in Tamil Nadu were made in line with the mandate delivered by voters and were not intended to undermine either the DMK or the broader opposition alliance.

The latest exchange highlights growing strains between two key opposition parties even as leaders continue to stress cooperation on national issues. Just days earlier, Rahul Gandhi had said that the DMK remained aligned with the opposition on defending the “idea of India” despite political differences.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Kumkum Bhagya actor Sanchita Ugale dies by suicide near Mumbai at 22

Television actor Sanchita Ugale, known for Kumkum Bhagya and Wagle Ki Duniya, died by suicide at her residence near Mumbai. Police have launched an investigation.

Published

on

Sanchita Ugale

Television actor Sanchita Ugale, known for her appearances in Kumkum Bhagya, Wagle Ki Duniya and Dilwali Dulha Le Jayegi, died by suicide at her residence in Nalasopara East near Mumbai on June 14. She was 22.

According to police officials, the incident took place at her home in Achole village, Nalasopara East. Authorities said Ugale had locked herself inside her bedroom and was later found hanging from a ceiling fan. Family members and local residents rushed her to a hospital, where doctors declared her dead.

Police have registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and launched an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. Officials said inquiries are underway and the exact reason behind the incident has not yet been established.

Career across television, OTT and films

Ugale had built a growing presence in the entertainment industry through television, streaming projects and films. Apart from Kumkum Bhagya and Wagle Ki Duniya, she played a lead role in Dilwali Dulha Le Jayegi. She also appeared in OTT projects such as Crime Aaj Kal and Silence 2.

The actor was also associated with the film Chhaava, which contributed to her growing recognition among audiences.

Last social media post draws attention

Following news of her death, social media users shared and commented on Ugale’s final Instagram post, which had been uploaded hours before the incident. The post showed the actor in traditional attire lip-syncing to a classic Bollywood song. Fans expressed shock and grief after learning of her death.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com