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

Mamata Banerjee warns BJP, EC over Bengal polls, says they will be accountable

Mamata Banerjee holds BJP and Election Commission responsible for any incidents during Bengal polls, raising concerns over officer transfers.

Published

on

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has held the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Election Commission of India responsible for any untoward incidents in the state during the upcoming assembly elections, following the transfer of key officials.

Addressing concerns over administrative reshuffles, Banerjee said that changes involving senior bureaucrats, including the chief secretary and home secretary, could affect governance and law and order in the state during a crucial period.

The Trinamool Congress chief also announced candidates for 291 constituencies for the elections scheduled to be held in two phases on April 23 and 29.

Criticising the Election Commission, Banerjee alleged that the transfers were being carried out in a manner that benefits the BJP. She questioned the timing of the decisions and said such actions weaken the state administration at a sensitive time.

She further raised concerns about disaster management and essential services, stating that experienced officials familiar with the state’s situation have been replaced. According to her, this could impact administrative efficiency if any emergency arises before the new government is formed.

Protecting Bengal’s identity

Banerjee emphasised that the election is not merely about forming a government but about safeguarding Bengal’s identity and existence. She accused the BJP of misusing central agencies and attempting to influence the electoral process.

She urged that elections should be conducted peacefully, without external interference, and in line with democratic principles. The chief minister also expressed confidence that her party would return to power with a stronger mandate.

Appealing to voters, she called for support for the Trinamool Congress, asserting that the people of Bengal will ultimately decide the outcome and protect their democratic rights.

Continue Reading

India News

Centre assures action on LPG supply disruption, court closes distributors’ plea

The Bombay High Court closed a plea by LPG distributors after the Centre assured diplomatic efforts to stabilise supply amid global disruptions.

Published

on

LPG cylinder

The Union government on Tuesday informed the Bombay High Court that it is taking diplomatic steps to address disruptions in Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) supply linked to the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, following which the court disposed of a petition filed by LPG distributors.

Appearing before the Nagpur bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Centre was actively engaged in international-level negotiations to stabilise LPG supply. However, he noted that specific measures could not be disclosed due to their sensitive nature.

The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Anil S Kilor and Raj D Wakode. The bench accepted the government’s assurances and closed the plea.

Distributors flagged supply disruption in Vidarbha

The petition was filed by six LPG distributors, including Omkar Sales, who raised concerns over disruptions in supply chains across Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region. They claimed the situation had led to a significant shortage of LPG for domestic consumers.

The distributors, dependent on Confidence Petroleum India Ltd (CPIL), alleged that despite directives prioritising domestic consumption, LPG was being diverted for export to capitalise on high international prices.

Government cites policy compliance, CPIL denies diversion

The petitioners referred to recent orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act and the Natural Gas (Supply Regulation) Order, 2026, which mandate prioritising household LPG supply during crises.

However, CPIL rejected the allegations, stating it was fulfilling pre-existing export commitments and had not violated any policy norms.

Court had earlier termed issue ‘serious’

During earlier hearings, the court had described the matter as “serious” and of “grave importance”, issuing notices to the Centre and the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

On Tuesday, the Centre reiterated that macro-level supply challenges arising from global geopolitical tensions were being handled through diplomatic channels. It also said that any localised supply issues could be resolved by state authorities.

Taking note of these submissions, the bench disposed of the petition.

Continue Reading

India News

Om Birla likely to move motion to revoke suspension of 8 opposition MPs today

The Lok Sabha is likely to revoke the suspension of eight opposition MPs today, with a motion expected to be moved by the government following consensus on maintaining discipline.

Published

on

Om Birla

The suspension of eight opposition Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha is expected to be revoked on Tuesday, with Speaker Om Birla likely to initiate the process, according to sources.

The MPs, including seven from the Congress and one from the CPI(M), were suspended on February 3 for unruly conduct during the first phase of the Budget session after a resolution was adopted by the House.

Motion to be moved in Lok Sabha

Congress leader K Suresh said that Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju is expected to move a motion around noon seeking revocation of the suspensions.

Although the suspension was initially imposed for the entire session, scheduled to conclude on April 2, opposition parties have consistently demanded reconsideration since the second phase of the session began on March 9.

Agreement on maintaining decorum

At a recent meeting convened by the Speaker, both ruling and opposition sides reportedly agreed on maintaining discipline in the House.

Key understandings include:

  • No member will enter the well of the House to protest
  • Papers will not be torn or thrown toward the Chair
  • MPs will not climb onto officials’ tables

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has also reminded members to keep areas within the Parliament premises obstruction-free to ensure smooth movement.

Speaker raises concern over conduct

Earlier, Om Birla had expressed concern over the use of banners, placards, and inappropriate language by some MPs. In a letter to party leaders, he stressed the need to uphold the dignity and traditions of parliamentary democracy.

He had also indicated that actions like suspension are taken in cases of serious misconduct, such as climbing onto tables during proceedings.

Suspended MPs

The suspended MPs include Gurjeet Singh Aujla, Hibi Eden, C Kiran Kumar Reddy, Amarinder Singh Raja Warring, Manickam Tagore, Prashant Padole, Dean Kuriakose (Congress), and S Venkatesan (CPI-M).

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com