DR. M. ISMAIL FARUQUI ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. M. ISMAIL F ARUQUI ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J., A.M. AHMADI, J.S. VERMA; 
B 
G.N. RAY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 143 (1)-Acquisition of Certain Area at 
Ayodhya Act, 1993-S.4 (3)-Constitutionality of-Whether reference made 
under Article 143 (1) 
is effecttve alternattve dispute resolution 
mechanism-Held, (per majority) the question for determination in the suits C 
not covered by the reference-Defences of the minority community, 
including that of adverse possession, not included in the reference-Answer 
to reference will also not answer core question in the suits-Reference by 
Article 143 (1), 
held, not effecttve alternattve dispute resolution 
mechanism-S.4 (3), held, unconstitutional-Held, further, all pending suits 
and legal proceedings stand revtved-Reference superfluous and D 
unnecessary-Court declining to answer the reference. 
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993-S. 7-Whether 
provision to maintain status quo as on January 7, 1993 is slanted in favour 
of the Hindu community-Litigation history, and the acquisition of a larger 
area than the disputed site comprising properties of Hindus indicates that E 
the rights of both the communities affected and not merely that of the 
minority community-In fact, S. 7 (2) freezes the situation as on January 7, 
1993 which was lesser right of worship for the Hindu devotees than that in 
existence for a long time earlier-However, this is reasonable and just 
since miscreants who demolished the mosque suspected to be persons 
professing to practice Hindu religion-Secularism. 
F 
Consiitution of India-Articles 25 and 26--Whether a mosque is 
immuned from acquisition-Held, (per majority) a mosque is not an 
essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by 
Muslims can be offered anywhere-Accordingly, its acquisition not 
constitutionally prohibited-Status and immunity of a mosque from G 
acquisition is the same and equal to that of the places of worship of other 
religious including church, temple-Held, further, every immovable 
property is liable to be acquired-However, acquisition of any religious 
place to be made only in unusual and extraordinary situations for larger 
· national p'urpose which should not result in extinction of the right to 
practk;e the religion. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
Constitution of India-Article 246 and Seventh Schedule-Acquisition 
of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, I993-Legislative competence-Pith and 
substance-Act, held, (per majority) traceable to List Ill entry 42 and not to 
List II entry /-"Acquisition of property" and not "public order" is pith 
and substance of the statute-Article 356. 
Constitution 
of India-"Secularism "-Whether 
acquisition 
of 
properties by the Act against the concept of secularism-Held, (per 
majority) no step taken to arrest escalation of communal tension and to 
achieve communal accord and harmony can be termed non-secular, 
antisecular or against the concept of secularism-Held, further, factual 
foundation for challenge to the statute as a whole and S. 7 (2) in particular 
on the grounds of secularism and the rights to equality and freedom of 
religion non-existent-Preamble and Articles 25 and 28-Acquisition of 
Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993--S. 7 (2). 
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993--Ss.3 and 6 read 
withs. 7-"Vest"-Meaning of-Limited vesting or absolute vesting-Held, 
(per majority) the meaning of "vest" takes colour from the context in which 
it is used and it is not necessarily the. same in every provision or context-
Held, further, while the disputed area vests with the Central Government as 
statutory receiver, vesting in the Central Government of the area inT excess 
of disputed area is absolute-Acquisition of disputed area for purpose of 
subsequent transfer to person found, upon adjudication, to be entitled to 
it~.6. held, constitutionally valid-Interpretation of Statutes-Contextual 
interpretation-Legislative intent. 
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993--Ss. 7 (2) and 2 
(a)-"Area"-Meaning of-Held, (per majority) "area" ins. 7 (2) confined 
to the site Ofl which the Ram Janam Bhumi-Babri Masjid structure stood, 
while under S.2 (a) it means the entire area specified in the Schedule-
Interpret':ltion of Statutes-Contextual Interpretation. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Doctrine. of severabilit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.