Ayodhya

The third judge on the bench, Justice SA Nazeer, dissented. He said the demand raised by Muslim parties in the title-dispute case — to revisit the 1994 judgment — required an examination by a larger bench of seven judges.

“The statement … “a mosque is not essential part of the practice of religion…..” is a statement which has been made by the Constitution Bench in a specific context and reference. The context for making the above observation was claim of immunity of a mosque from acquisition,” read the majority verdict. The remark is not relevant for the title suit and is not to be treated as governing factor for the same, the bench clarified.

Calling it a questionable observation, Justice Nazeer was of the view that it “certainly permeated the impugned judgement (of the title dispute case by the Allahabad HC)”. “…whether a particular religious practice is an essential or integral part of the religion is a question which is to be considered by considering the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion,” Justice Nazeer said in his dissenting verdict. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with twothird portions to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs and one-third by the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.

In 1994, a five-judge Constitution bench in the Ismail Farooqui case had considered the question of acquisition of a religious place by the State and upheld the constitutional validity of the law to acquire land in Ayodhya.

Muslim parties in the Ayodhya land title case took objection to the observation that “a mosque is not essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open.” They urged a review of that judgment, saying the remark affected the status of mosques in Islam and weighed heavily over Allahabad High Court judges who decided the title suit in 2010. They said the question should be answered before the court hears the main land-dispute case.

The Uttar Pradesh government opposed the petitions, arguing that the Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the case and that they had not raised the matter since 1994 and even in 2010. On Thursday, the state’s chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, welcomed the verdict. “The majority of this nation wants a solution to this at the earliest,” he said hours after the Supreme Court ruling.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) said it hoped that the title suit would now be heard soon. “We welcome this decision and are confident that a just verdict will be reached over the case at the earliest,” said RSS spokesperson Arun Kumar. The Congress said in a statement that it accepts the SC judgment and will urge the government to implement when the verdict on the title suit case, as and when it comes.

The 16th century mosque was destroyed in 1992 by karsewaks who brought it down insisting it was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that a temple should stand at the disputed site. Cross-appeals against the verdict reached the top court in 2010.

CJI Misra and Justice Bhushan concluded that the Ismail Farroqui case had no bearing on the title suit case because the observation did not govern the suits that were to be decided on the basis of evidence on record.

Ismail Farooqui had held that acquisition is a sovereign or prerogative power of the State to acquire property and all religious places, namely, church, temple and a mosque and that such an act was not a violation of the rights under Articles 25 and 26 that give freedom to freely practise and propagate religion subject to public order, health and morality.

Another plea raised by the Muslim parties to refer the matter to a Constitution bench because of its “importance” was also turned down. craft, is being conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the official said.

He reiterated that price and other factors, including maintenance, training, armament and equipment, in the contract for 36 Rafale fighter aircraft represent better terms as compared to the negotiations conducted but never concluded by the previous government.

The report gave the Congress fresh ammunition to mount its attack on the BJP; the party said joint secretary, Rajiv Verma, had pointed out that the price negotiated by the previous UPA dispensation for 18 aircraft was cheaper than being paid for each of the 36 aircraft purchased by the Modi government.

“The joint secretary also pointed out that Euro Fighter had offered to supply an aircraft of the same kind at 20% price discount. So, he told the government to ask France to charge 20% less. Verma had to go on leave. Then came a superior officer, Smitha Nagaraj, who overruled him,” senior Congress leader Jaipal Reddy told reporters.

He claimed that the process of ratifying the agreement between Parrikar and his French counterpart was delayed by more than one year. It was ratified in September 2016 whereas the deal was signed between Modi and the then French president Francois Hollande on April 10, 2015, Reddy said.

“It is an order of ₹60,000 crore. You are paying ₹41,000 crore more and took more than one year to ratify. It is an exceptional case of post-facto ratification,” the Congress leader said.

Reddy also claimed that French president Emmanuel Macron did not contradict Hollande’s claim on the Rafale deal, and sought an explanation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the issue.

“The Rafale scam has begun to stink and the Prime Minister and his government have begun to sink,” he said.

“It is getting thicker and thicker and curiouser and curiouser with every passing day. And when a former French president says something, this country needs to sit up and take notice.”