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

MK Stalin predicts frequent PM Modi visits to Tamil Nadu before assembly election

MK Stalin has said Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Tamil Nadu more often ahead of the Assembly election, calling the tours politically motivated and questioning the Centre’s support to the state.

Published

on

MK Stalin

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin has predicted that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will increase his visits to the state as the Assembly election, expected in April or May, draws closer.

Speaking ahead of the polls, the DMK president said the Prime Minister has already begun touring Tamil Nadu and is likely to visit frequently in the coming months. He claimed that such visits could create discomfort within the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), as alliance partners may fear the political impact of repeated appearances.

Stalin calls visit politically motivated

The Chief Minister described the Prime Minister’s scheduled programmes in the state as “politically motivated”. PM Modi is set to attend various events in Madurai in southern Tamil Nadu, including the inauguration of the first phase of the AIIMS hospital project. He is also expected to visit the Thiruparankundram Temple amid the Karthigai Deepam-related controversy and participate in a public meeting organised by the NDA.

Stalin said he has been working for all sections of the population, including those who did not vote for his party. In contrast, he remarked that some leaders are visible in the state only during election time and increase their visits as polls approach.

Criticism over Union Budget allocations

The DMK leader also criticised the BJP-led central government, accusing it of neglecting Tamil Nadu. He pointed out that while approval was recently granted for the Gujarat Metro project, there were no major announcements or allocations for Tamil Nadu in the Union Budget.

Stalin asserted that voters would remember the lack of significant measures for the state. He framed the upcoming election as a contest between Tamil Nadu and the NDA, stating that the state should be governed from Fort St George in Chennai rather than from Delhi.

The ruling DMK is currently allied with several smaller parties and, at present, the Congress, as it seeks a third consecutive term in office. Its principal rival, the AIADMK, is aligned with the BJP as part of the NDA.

Continue Reading

India News

Shashi Tharoor questions Centre over Kerala name change to Keralam

Shashi Tharoor has criticised the Centre’s decision to approve renaming Kerala as Keralam, questioning its impact and pointing to the lack of major projects for the state.

Published

on

shashi tharoor

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has criticised the central government over its decision to approve the renaming of Kerala as ‘Keralam’, arguing that the move prioritises symbolism over development.

Reacting to the Union Cabinet’s approval, Tharoor said that the state’s name has always been ‘Keralam’ in Malayalam and questioned the practical impact of introducing the Malayalam term into English usage.

“It has already been ‘Keralam’ in Malayalam. So now, a Malayalam word is coming into English. I don’t know what difference it makes,” he said, adding that the state has not received major projects such as an AIIMS or new institutions from the Centre. He also pointed out that no significant allocations were made for Kerala in the Union Budget.

In a separate post on X, Tharoor raised what he described as a “small linguistic question” about what residents of the state would be called if the name change is implemented. Referring to existing terms such as “Keralite” and “Keralan”, he remarked that alternatives like “Keralamite” sounded like a microbe and “Keralamian” like a rare earth mineral.

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, cleared the proposal on Tuesday. The move comes ahead of the upcoming state Assembly elections, in which 140 members of the legislative assembly are to be elected. The poll schedule is yet to be announced by the Election Commission of India.

The state assembly had earlier passed a resolution seeking the change in official records. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan had moved the resolution in 2024, urging the Union government to adopt the name ‘Keralam’ in all languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.

He had stated that the demand for a united Kerala for Malayalam-speaking people dates back to the national freedom movement.

Continue Reading

India News

Tamil Nadu potboiler: Now, Sasikala to launch new party ahead of election

Sasikala has announced the launch of a new political party ahead of the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, positioning herself against AIADMK chief Edappadi K Palaniswami.

Published

on

In a significant political development ahead of the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, expelled AIADMK leader V. K. Sasikala has announced that she will float a new political party and contest the polls by fielding her own candidates.

Speaking in Madurai before heading to Pasumpon for a public event, Sasikala said she would unveil her party’s flag later in the evening. She indicated that more details regarding the party’s structure and plans would be shared at the gathering.

The event venue carries political symbolism. Pasumpon is the birthplace of Thevar leader Muthuramalinga Thevar, and Sasikala herself belongs to the influential Thevar community in southern Tamil Nadu. The programme was held as part of birth anniversary events of former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa.

Direct challenge to EPS

Sasikala’s move is being viewed as a direct political challenge to AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS). After Jayalalithaa’s death in 2016, Sasikala briefly took control of the party and had appointed Palaniswami as Chief Minister. However, following her conviction in the disproportionate assets case, she served a four-year prison term, and during that period, she was expelled from the party.

Palaniswami later aligned with O. Panneerselvam, whom Sasikala had earlier removed from the Chief Minister’s post. The two leaders subsequently adopted a dual leadership arrangement within the party and government.

Sasikala remains disqualified from contesting elections until 2027 due to her conviction. Nevertheless, she has stated that she intends to field candidates under her new party banner.

Fragmented Thevar vote base

Over the years, expulsions within the AIADMK — including Sasikala, her nephew TTV Dhinakaran and O Panneerselvam — have led to divisions within the Thevar support base. Political observers have linked this fragmentation to the party’s weakened electoral performance in the elections following Jayalalithaa’s passing.

While Dhinakaran has returned to the NDA fold, reports suggest Palaniswami is opposed to any arrangement that includes Sasikala or Panneerselvam. OPS, meanwhile, has exited the NDA.

Sasikala has repeatedly criticised Palaniswami, describing him as a betrayer, while he maintains that his leadership stems from the support of AIADMK legislators rather than her backing.

The AIADMK has not issued an official statement on Sasikala’s announcement. However, a senior party leader questioned her political standing, pointing out her disqualification from contesting elections and referring to legal issues linked to Jayalalithaa’s death.

With the Assembly polls approaching, Sasikala’s re-entry into active politics could further complicate the opposition space in Tamil Nadu and influence electoral calculations, particularly in the southern districts.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com