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

Rahul Gandhi urges Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah to enact Rohith Vemula Act to end caste-based discrimination

“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.

Published

on

In a significant move aimed at addressing caste-based discrimination within the education system, Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and senior Congress leader, has written to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah advocating for the implementation of the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’. This proposed legislation aims to ensure that no student in Karnataka faces discrimination due to their caste.

In his letter dated April 16, Gandhi reflected on the struggles and indignities faced by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a key figure in India’s fight against caste discrimination. He recounted a powerful incident described by Ambedkar from his childhood, highlighting the harsh realities of being labelled an “untouchable” and the systemic barriers that prevented him from accessing basic necessities and an equal education.

“There was plenty of food with us… but we were to sleep without food; that was because we could get no water, and we could get no water because we were untouchables,” Gandhi quoted Ambedkar.

Gandhi emphasised that despite the progress made, millions of students from Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC communities continue to experience unjust discrimination within the educational framework. “It is a shame that even today, our educational system perpetuates such brutal discrimination,” he declared.

The Congress leader further expressed his grievances regarding the tragic losses of young lives due to caste-based discrimination, citing the suicides of students like Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and Darshan Solanki as evidence of the urgent need for legislative action. “Such horrific incidents cannot be tolerated at any cost. It is time to end this cycle of injustice,” he stated.

Gandhi shared his thoughts on the social media platform X, revealing insights from recent discussions he had with students and teachers from underprivileged backgrounds in Parliament, who recounted their ongoing experiences of discrimination in higher education. He reaffirmed Ambedkar’s belief that education is a vital tool for empowerment and breaking the caste system, a principle he feels remains unfulfilled.

Expressing the need for immediate action, Gandhi urged the Karnataka government to prioritise the enactment of the Rohith Vemula Act, ensuring that no child in India endures the discrimination and hardships experienced by Ambedkar, Vemula, and countless others.

Rohith Vemula, a Dalit student, tragically took his life in 2016 due to the pressures of caste-based discrimination, igniting a national conversation about the urgent need for reform within educational institutions to protect vulnerable student populations. The push for the ‘Rohith Vemula Act’ has gained momentum among Dalit and student groups seeking systemic changes to safeguard against discrimination in education.

Continue Reading

India News

Opposition slams Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar after he criticises Supreme Court’s order on President

TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee accused Dhankhar of repeatedly disrespecting the judiciary.

Published

on

Opposition leaders on Thursday fiercely criticised Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for his recent statements on the judiciary, accusing him of undermining its authority and veering close to contempt.

Leaders from the Congress, Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and notable legal figures condemned Dhankhar’s remarks as disrespectful to constitutional principles.

Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala emphasised the supremacy of the Constitution, stating, “In our democracy, no office—whether President, Prime Minister, or Governor—stands above constitutional accountability.”

He praised the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which set a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by governors, calling it a bold and necessary check on high offices.

TMC’s Kalyan Banerjee accused Dhankhar of repeatedly disrespecting the judiciary. “His comments on Supreme Court judges are unacceptable and nearly contemptuous. As a constitutional figure, he must respect other institutions,” Banerjee asserted.

DMK leader Tiruchi Siva labelled Dhankhar’s remarks as “unacceptable,” stressing that no one, regardless of their position, can delay legislative bills indefinitely. “The rule of law must prevail over institutional overreach,” Siva said.

Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal defended Article 142, which grants the Supreme Court authority to issue orders for “complete justice.” He questioned, “This power is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure justice. Who is obstructing the President’s authority?”

Dhankhar’s controversial remarks were made during an address to Rajya Sabha interns on April 17, where he called Article 142 a “constant threat to democratic forces” and challenged the judiciary’s right to impose deadlines on the President. He also questioned why judges require judicial approval for FIRs, noting that only the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity from prosecution.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defended Dhankhar, accusing the opposition of hypocrisy. BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla retorted, “The opposition, which ignores parliamentary laws, mocks the Vice President, and shields rioters for votes, has no moral ground to lecture on constitutional propriety.”

Continue Reading

India News

FASTag won’t be discontinued from May 1: Govt clears rumours on new tolling technology

While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.

Published

on

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has dismissed rampant rumours regarding the discontinuation of the FASTag system effective May 1, 2025. In an official statement released on Friday, the ministry reiterated that it has no intention of phasing out FASTag or replacing it with a satellite-based tolling system in the immediate future.

Authorities cautioned the public against believing misleading reports and viral messages that suggest FASTag will be eliminated, emphasising that the system remains active and mandatory for toll payments across the nation.

While new technological approaches are under consideration, MoRTH clarified that the ongoing pilot tests featuring Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at selected toll plazas are meant to enhance, not replace, FASTag functionalities.

Understanding the hybrid tolling model

The proposed hybrid model seeks to combine the existing Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)-based FASTag with ANPR technology. This innovative approach aims to facilitate barrier-less toll collection; sophisticated high-resolution cameras will capture vehicle number plates and link them with FASTag accounts for a more efficient toll payment process.

The ministry is currently assessing the hybrid system’s potential to:

  • Decrease congestion at toll plazas
  • Accelerate vehicle flow
  • Provide motorists with a smoother, uninterrupted tolling experience

However, MoRTH has confirmed that the hybrid model is still in the pilot phase and no final decision regarding its nationwide implementation has been established.

Although FASTag will not be replaced, the ministry stressed the importance of compliance under the hybrid system. Vehicle owners who neglect toll payment procedures may receive electronic notices, face suspension of their FASTag accounts, or incur penalties as per the VAHAN vehicle registration database.

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways strongly urged motorists to disregard false information regarding the discontinuation of FASTag. Official updates on any changes to the tolling system will be communicated through trusted channels. The public is encouraged to stay informed by visiting the official websites at www.nhai.gov.in and morth.nic.in.

Fact Check: Claim: A satellite-based tolling system will replace FASTag starting May 1, 2025. Fact: This claim has been labelled false, as MoRTH has confirmed that FASTag will remain in use beyond the specified date.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com