Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994)
Case: Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India
Citation: (1994) 6 SCC 360
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 3 March 1994
Background and Context
This case dealt with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, and the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
The central questions involved were:
Whether the Act passed by the Parliament to acquire the disputed land for building a temple was constitutional.
Whether the secular fabric of the Constitution was violated.
The interplay of religion and state under constitutional law.
Facts of the Case
On 6 December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by a mob.
In response, the Government of India enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, to take over the disputed land.
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui, a Muslim party, challenged the Act, alleging it violated the right to equality, freedom of religion, and secularism under the Constitution.
The question was whether the state could acquire religious property and use it for secular purposes, like constructing a temple.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Acquisition Act was constitutionally valid.
Whether the state can acquire religious property under the power of eminent domain.
Whether such acquisition violated the right to religion (Article 25) and the right to equality (Article 14).
The scope of the principle of secularism in the Indian Constitution.
Legal Provisions Involved
Article 25 — Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 14 — Equality before law.
Article 21 — Protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 48 — Directive Principles regarding protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.
The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
1. Validity of the Acquisition Act
The Court upheld the validity of the Acquisition Act, holding that the state has the power of eminent domain to acquire property, including religious property, for public purposes.
The Court held that acquisition for a secular public purpose does not violate the right to religion.
“The acquisition of religious property by the State is not in itself a violation of the fundamental right to religion.”
2. State’s Power Over Religious Property
The Court clarified that while the right to manage religious affairs is protected, the state can acquire religious property if it is for a public purpose.
The property acquired need not be used for the same religious purpose and can be used for secular purposes.
3. No Violation of Article 25
The Court held that freedom of religion under Article 25 does not include the right to hold property.
Hence, the acquisition of land did not infringe on Article 25.
4. Principle of Secularism
The Court emphasized that the Indian Constitution is secular, which means neutrality towards all religions.
The state’s acquisition was seen as a secular action, aiming to maintain public order and peace.
5. Right to Equality (Article 14)
The Court ruled that there was no discrimination involved in the acquisition.
The acquisition was for public welfare and not based on any religion.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Acquisition Act.
The State’s power to acquire religious property for secular purposes was affirmed.
The ruling balanced the right to religion with the state’s duty to maintain public order and enforce laws of general application.
Significance of the Case
Clarified the limits of religious freedoms in relation to property rights.
Affirmed the doctrine of secularism as foundational to the Indian Constitution.
Recognized the State’s power of eminent domain even over religious properties.
Set an important precedent on State intervention in religious matters for public welfare.
Related Case Laws
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 — related to rights over religious and educational institutions.
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 526 — on freedom of religion vs. state control.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 — constitutional secularism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments