Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case: More than 30 years of post-independence India were dedicated to chanting secularism. Under its garb, majority rights were constantly suppressed due to excess villainization by secularists. Until one day in the Supreme Court, that is. Unintentionally, the Apex Court took away every shred of intellectual credibility from this lobby.
Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India – Babri Masjid in Court
After the demolition of Babri Masjid, the central government had to ensure peace and tranquilly in President-ruled Uttar Pradesh. Within weeks, it first passed an ordinance and then changed it in the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The act enabled the central government to acquire 67.7 acres of land in and around the disputed site of Ayodhya. Apparently, now if someone had to offer namaz or do pooja inside the premises, it was subject to the government’s permission.
A certain Dr. Ismail Faruqui challenged the act in the Supreme Court. According to him, the statute brought forward by the government violated secularism, the right to equality, and the right to freedom of religion. They argued that the Masjid, being a place of worship, is immune to acquisition by the government.
Their contention was that it violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. To further buttress their argument, Faruqui and his co-petitioners claimed that Namaz inside the mosque is an essential and integral part of the right to practise religion. Another pain point in their argument was that the legislation was heavily tilted in favour of Hindus and was riddled with non-secularism and discrimination.
The Apex Court did not accept their contentions and held the act to be constitutional. In its remarks, the Apex Court shed light on the history of secularism in India.
Also read: The story of Justice H R Khanna : Who couldn’t be the CJI because he went against Indira Gandhi
Elaboration on the Indian concept of Secularism
The 3-Judge Bench of Justices M. V. Verma, G. Ray, and S. Bharucha elaborated the concept of universal brotherhood in Hinduism. They explained to Indians that the western concept of secularism differs from theirs. The court referred to former President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma’s elaboration of “Sarva Dharma Samabhaav,” “Yajurved,” “Prithvi Sukt of Atharva Ved,” and “Rig Ved.” These texts were held to be the genetic roots of the Indian idea of secularism.
The Apex Court, then, agreed with Dr Sharma’s assessment of the establishment of other religions in India. Referring to how Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism made their foray into India, their military conquest was not held as a reason for it. Quote, “These religions were given a place by virtue of the attitude of accommodation and co-existence displayed by local authorities – including the main religious authorities.”
The Court also cited the famous 9-judge bench in the S.R. Bommai Case and elaborated on how they referred to the concept of “secularism” in the Indian context.
Also read: When Ram Manohar Lohia took on Nehru over the First Amendment and won
Masjid is not part of Essential Religious Practice
The next question was whether the government was right in acquiring the place of Masjid. The court held that the religious freedom available to citizens under Articles 25 and 26 does not take away the government’s right to acquire certain property. However, the Apex Court put restrictions on it as well. It said that any such acquisition can’t destroy the right to own and acquire immovable and movable properties.
The Court then proceeded to apply some brakes on freedom of religion by stating that Articles 25 and 26 do not confer the permanent right to acquire or own property. It held that such protection is available to only essential and integral practices of religion.
To offer Namaz or perform Pooja at any place, it has to be held in reverentially higher pedestal to the followers of any religion. In other words, if the Babri Masjid had some special connection with an Islamic saint or even the Prophet Muhammad himself, offering Namaz inside it would easily be called an essential and integral practise of Islam.
The party then contended that Masjid has a special place in Islam. However, the Apex Court cited Mohammedan law and held that title to the Masjid can be lost by adverse possession. Additionally, it was also held that the Masjid is not an essential part of Islam since Namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open.
Ultimately, the Court held that under Articles 25 and 26, the Mandir and Masjid Church are to be treated on the same pedestal.
The observation about essential religious practice raised a question about the nature of Ram Janmabhoomi. The place is well revered in Hinduism and has specific significance. Does it mean that in the future, Puja inside the place will be declared an essential religious practice of Hinduism? We do not know the answer, but the principle of secularism tells us that it should be.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZthqqR-ink
