The Supreme Court examined the issue of the State’s acquisition of a place of worship in this particular instance. In essence, temples, churches, mosques, and the like are immovable properties covered by Articles 25 and 26. Any type of real estate could be purchased. While worship and prayer are religious practices, they are not essential or integral parts of every place where they can be offered unless that place has special significance for that religion and is therefore an essential or integral part of that religion.
ismael faruqui vs union of india Case Facts
- The Supreme Court and the High Court both heard challenges to the Vires of Ayodhya Act. The Apex Court resolved to transfer the petitions that were initially filed with the High Court in M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360. The Court heard all of the arguments together and cited article 143 1 of the indian constitution.
- With one exception, it had reduced the scope of the issue that was now being reviewed in all of these claims, the High Court continued to assess the suits on their merits in light of the earlier SC ruling.
- Now, the only area under dispute is the area where the building and the grounds of its inner and outer courtyards had stood. The additional land is not covered by these suits because it was lawfully acquired in line with section 3 of the ayodhya act.
ismael faruqui vs union of india Issues
- What is the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993?
- Does the government’s acquisition of property for masjids violate the Muslim community’s article 25 of the indian constitution and article 26 of the indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The act infringed upon the rights to equality, freedom of religion, and secularism.
- Since it has nothing to do with the dispute, acquiring the undisputed region surrounding the little disputed area is not necessary.
- Mosques are exempt from state acquisition powers since they are centers of Muslim religious worship.
- The Act was illegal because it infringed upon their rights under the article 25 of the indian (Freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, preach, and propagate one’s religion) and article 26 of the indian constitution (Freedom to govern religious matters).
- The Act discriminated against the Muslim community and was labelled mostly in favour of Hindus.
- Without establishing a different method for resolving disputes, Section 4(3) of the Act abates all pending lawsuits and legal proceedings, depriving the Muslim community of its defenses and depriving them of the legal recourse to which they are legally entitled under the constitution.
Respondent:
- The goals of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 are to uphold public order, foster intercommunal harmony, and foster an Indian people’s sense of common brotherhood.
- The goal of acquiring the contested area was to prevent the issue from getting worse, which definitely strengthens secularism rather than weakens it, rather than to deny the community that was determined to be entitled to it or to keep any portion of the surplus area.
ismael faruqui vs union of india Judgment
- The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the freedom to practice, profess, and engender religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution does not extend to one side of love at pretty much every spot of love. As a result, any obstacle to reverence at a particular location could potentially infringe upon the strict opportunity guaranteed by article 25 of the indian constitution and article 26 of the indian constitution.
- Protection for religious exercise, which is a fundamental aspect of that religion’s practice, is offered under article 25 of the indian constitution and article 26 of the indian constitution. The proposal of love or petition is a strict practice, but unless the location is particularly significant for that religion to frame a fundamental or basic portion thereof, its contribution, where such petitions to God can be offered, wouldn’t be a vital or necessary piece of such strict practice.
- Any religion’s special places of love, which have their own significance and are therefore an essential or important part of the faith, must be treated with diversity and extra respect.
In conclusion, a major legal ruling about the constitutionality of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was made in the case of M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360. The Supreme Court, with five justices on the bench, upheld the Act’s constitutionality but declared Section 4(3) unlawful.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
