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

Privilege motion against Union Minister Kiren Rijiju for calling Opposition MPs unworthy of House

The Union Minister said that if the Opposition cannot respect the chair, then they have no right to be a member of this House.

Published

on

Privilege Motion against Union Minister Kiren Rijiju for calling Opposition MPs unworthy of House

Sagarika Ghose, Trinamool Congress MP on Thursday moved a privilege motion against Union Minister Kiren Rijiju for calling opposition MPs unworthy of being in Rajya Sabha.

Reportedly, the notice was endorsed by 60 opposition MPs. This follows a day after Kiren Rijiju, speaking to opposition MPs in Rajya Sabha, said that they all are not worthy of being in this house.

Addressing the media, Trinamool MP Sagarika Ghose said that the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, instead of doing his best to run Parliament smoothly, has chosen to repeatedly insult the opposition.

She added that Kiren Rijiju has insulted opposition members and used personal terms both inside and outside Parliament. She continued that this is totally unbecoming of the high office he holds and amounts to total misuse of his position.

In a privilege motion against Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, Trinamool MP accused him of misusing his office and using unparliamentary language against the opposition. Many senior leaders from all opposition parties have signed the motion, she added.

Earlier on Wednesday, Kiren Rijiju criticised opposition members, saying they were not worthy of being in the House. He further defended Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who has faced opposition attacks.

The Union Minister said that if the Opposition cannot respect the chair, then they have no right to be a member of this House.

Nearly sixty MPs from the opposition INDIA bloc on Tuesday submitted a notice in the Rajya Sabha for a no-confidence motion against Jagdeep Dhankhar. The Opposition accused him of being extremely partisan in his role as chairman of the Upper House.

In the no-confidence motion, Congress Chief Mallikarjun Kharge said that the Opposition have no personal enmity or political fight with him, but want to tell the countrymen that they have taken this step to safeguard democracy, the Constitution, and after giving it a lot of thought.

Continue Reading

India News

Ahead of elections, Delhi government clears Rs 1000 per month for women, Arvind Kejriwal promise Rs 2100 if AAP wins

Arvind Kejriwal stated that previously he had promised to give Rs 1000 to every woman, but some women came to him and said that Rs 1,000 would not be sufficient due to inflation.

Published

on

Ahead of elections, Delhi government clears Rs 1000 per month for women, Arvind Kejriwal promise Rs 2100 if AAP wins

Ahead of the assembly elections, Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday announced that the Delhi cabinet has cleared a financial assistance proposal for women over the age of 18. He further announced that the assistance of Rs 1,000, originally announced in March, would be hiked to Rs 2,100 if the AAP wins. 

Arvind Kejriwal noted that the money would not be credited into bank accounts since elections were likely to be announced soon, but said that registrations for the scheme, named Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojana, would begin tomorrow.

The former Delhi Chief Minister said that the registration will begin tomorrow, and the registrations will begin for Rs 2,100 and not Rs 1000. He made this announcement at Mahila Samman Yojana event where he was accompanied by Delhi Chief Minister Atishi.

Arvind Kejriwal stated that previously he had promised to give Rs 1000 to every woman, but some women came to him and said that Rs 1,000 would not be sufficient due to inflation. Therefore, Rs 2,100 will be deposited into the accounts of all women, he continued. Furthermore, the AAP national convenor said that the aforesaid proposal was passed in the cabinet meeting chaired by Atishi this morning, following which the scheme has been implemented.

In March 2024, the then Kejriwal-led Delhi government announced Rs 1,000 per month to all women above 18 years in the national capital under the Mukhyamantri Samman Yojna.

Notably, this initiative bore resemblances to Madhya Pradesh’s Ladli Behna Yojana, under which women from lower- and middle-class homes would receive a monthly transfer of Rs 1,000 into their accounts.

In his address today, Arvind Kejriwal said the scheme would prove to be a boon for the Delhi government as it will be blessed by mothers and sisters, benefitting from the monthly funding.

He also added that women build the future of the country, and they consider it their privilege to support them in their work. Along with Delhi’s two crore population, the government overcomes the biggest obstacles, he said, adding no obstacle can prevent them from doing good work for the people of the city.

Lashing out at the BJP, Arvind Kejriwal said that he first announced the scheme in March and hoped that it would be implemented at least by May. However, the BJP conspired and sent him to jail based on a fraud case. He added that since his return from jail, he has worked to implement this scheme with Atishi. 

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in March in connection to the Delhi liquor policy case. The former Chief Minister was released from Tihar Jail on September 13 after the Supreme Court granted him bail. Four days later, he resigned as the Delhi Chief Minister.

The elections to the 70-member Delhi Assembly are expected in January 2025. The AAP has so far released two lists of candidates to contest the election.

Continue Reading

India News

Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis meets PM Modi amid deadlock over cabinet portfolios

Devendra Fadnavis, Eknath Shinde, and Ajit Pawar agreed on a division of 22 ministerial berths for the BJP, 11 for Shiv Sena, and 10 for the NCP.

Published

on

PM-Modi-Devendra-Fadnavis-cabinet-portfolios

Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Thursday amid conundrum over cabinet portfolios. Almost three weeks after winning a majority in Maharashtra elections, the Mahayuti alliance is yet to decide on cabinet portfolios among the three alliance partners namely BJP, Shiv Sena and NCP.  

The meeting with the Prime Minister comes amid the three parties requesting the intervention of central BJP leaders to address remaining contentious issues. Earlier on Wednesday night, Fadnavis and his deputy Ajit Pawar held a meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP chief JP Nadda. Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde chose not to join the trip.

Reports said, Devendra Fadnavis, Eknath Shinde, and Ajit Pawar agreed on a division of 22 ministerial berths for the BJP, 11 for Shiv Sena, and 10 for the NCP. Notably, the maximum number of cabinet positions in Maharashtra, including the chief minister, is 43.

Nonetheless, the distribution of berths may still change. As per BJP leaders, if Shiv Sena and NCP request more positions, they will likely be assigned less significant portfolios. The major portfolios, including home and revenue, are expected to remain with the BJP. Reportedly, while Eknath Shinde had pushed for the home department, he has been given urban development, and the finance portfolio will go to the NCP.

The Shiv Sena initially argued that the election victory was achieved under Shinde’s leadership, insisting that he should remain Chief Minister. Nonetheless, the BJP stood firm, pushing for Fadnavis to hold the top position. Eknath Shinde had limited leverage, as the BJP only needed the NCP’s support to secure a majority. Notably, Shinde has always maintained publicly that he would not block government formation and took the oath as Deputy Chief Minister on December 5. 

However, Eknath Shinde’s current absence from the capital has raised questions in political circles, and it remains unclear whether he will join the discussions in Delhi.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com