1994 (10) TMI 305 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Strikes Down Section 4(3) Ayodhya Act, Revives Pending Suits

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Versus Union of India and Others

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Versus Union of India and Others - 1995 AIR 605, 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 1, 1994 (6) SCC 360, 1994 (6) JT 632, 1994 (2) Suppl. SCALE 100 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional Validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act No. 33 of 1993)2. Maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India3. Impact on Secularism, Right to Equality, and Right to Freedom of Religion4. Legislative Competence5. Acquisition of Religious Places6. Management and Administration of Acquired PropertySummary:1. Constitutional Validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act No. 33 of 1993):The Act's primary focus was challenged on grounds of secularism, equality, and freedom of religion. The acquisition of the area, including the disputed site where the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid stood, was examined. The court found that the Act aimed to maintain public order and communal harmony. However, Section 4(3), which abated all pending suits and legal proceedings without providing an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, was declared unconstitutional and invalid. The remaining provisions of the Act were upheld as valid.2. Maintainability of Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India:The Special Reference sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid. The court found the Reference to be superfluous and unnecessary in light of the revival of the pending suits and legal proceedings. Consequently, the court declined to answer the Reference and returned it.3. Impact on Secularism, Right to Equality, and Right to Freedom of Religion:The court emphasized that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Act was scrutinized to ensure it did not favor one religious community over another. The court found that the Act aimed to maintain communal harmony and did not violate the principles of secularism, equality, or freedom of religion. The provision in Section 7(2) to maintain the status quo as of January 7, 1993, was found to be reasonable and just.4. Legislative Competence:The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Act was upheld, finding it traceable to Entry 42, List III of the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that the Act fell under Entry 1, List II, relating to public order.5. Acquisition of Religious Places:The court addressed the argument that a mosque, as a place of worship, could not be acquired. It held that under the Mahomedan Law applicable in India, a mosque does not enjoy any greater immunity from acquisition than places of worship of other religions. The acquisition of the disputed area was found to be for a larger national purpose of maintaining communal harmony.6. Management and Administration of Acquired Property:The court found that the Central Government, as a statutory receiver, was required to manage and administer the disputed area, maintaining the status quo until the final adjudication of the dispute. The power of the Central Government to transfer the acquired property under Section 6 was upheld, subject to the final adjudication of the pending suits.Conclusion:1. Section 4(3) of the Act was declared unconstitutional and invalid.2. The remaining provisions of the Act were upheld as valid.3. The pending suits and legal proceedings were revived for adjudication.4. The Central Government was to act as a statutory receiver, maintaining the status quo until the final adjudication.5. The Special Reference was returned unanswered.