Supreme Court of India
DR. M. ISMAIL FARUQUI ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 479
- Decided
- 24 October 1994
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- M N VENKATACHALIAH
Holding
Section 4(3) of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 is unconstitutional, the remainder of the Act is valid, and the Presidential reference under Article 143(1) is declined as superfluous.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and the Presidential reference under Article 143(1) concerning whether a Hindu temple existed before the Babri Masjid was built. The Court held that the Act was within Parliament’s legislative competence (Entry 42, List III) and that a mosque does not enjoy special immunity from acquisition; thus the Act, except for Section 4(3), is valid. Section 4(3), which abated all pending suits without providing an alternative dispute‑resolution mechanism, was declared unconstitutional but severable. Consequently, the pending suits were revived, and the reference was deemed superfluous and returned unanswered. The Court emphasized the secular nature of the Constitution and that the acquisition did not violate Articles 25 and 26.
Issues considered
- The legislative competence of Parliament to enact the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
- Whether a mosque is immune from acquisition under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- Whether Section 4(3) of the Act, which abates pending suits, violates the right to a judicial remedy and the principle of secularism.
- Whether the Presidential reference under Article 143(1) is a valid and effective mechanism for dispute resolution in this context.
Legislation cited
- Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993s. 3, s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 4(3), s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 8
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 143(1), s. Article 15, s. Article 16, s. Article 25, s. Article 26, s. Article 27, s. Article 29(2), s. Article 30, s. Article 300A, s. Article 356
- Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act
- General Clauses Act, 1897s. Section 26, s. Section 3
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
Subjects
Acquisition of landStatutory receiverVesting of propertySecularismReligious freedomArticle 143Ayodhya disputeBabri MasjidHindu templeMuslim worshipAdverse possessionCommunal harmonyConstitutional validityBasic structure doctrine
Judgment
DR. M. ISMAIL FARUQUI 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 ofadverse 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 ofa 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 ofthe practice of the religion ofIslam 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
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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
c 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,
D (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 inTexcess
of disputed area is absolute-Acquisition of disputed area for purpose of
subsequent transfer to person found, upon adjudication, to be entitled to
E 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,
F while under S.2 (a) it means the entire area specified in the Schedule-
Interpret':ltion ofStatutes-Contextual Interpretation.
Interpretation of Statutes-Doctrine. of severability-Acquisition of
Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993--S.4 (3)-Held, (per majority) S.4 (3),
severable and its unconstitutionality not an impediment to the remaining
G statute being upheld as valid
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993--S.8-Payment of
compensation under, held, (per majority) only for property acquired
absolutely-Disputed area being taken over by the Central Government
only as a statutory receiver, held, no question ofpayment of compensation
H as it is meant to be handed over to successful party in the suits.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. 3
Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive construction-Held, construction A
which the language of the statute can bear and promotes the national
purpose must be preferred to a strict and literal construction tending to
promote factionalism and discord
Following the demolition of the Rama Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid
structure at Ayodhya on 6 December, 1992, President's rule was B
proclaimed in the State of U.P. Thereafter, on 7 January, 1993, the
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 was
promulgated, such ordinance was later on replaced by an Act to the
same effect. Simultaneously, a Reference under Article 143 (1) of the
Constitution was made to the Supreme Court by the President of India.
c
The question referred to the Court was:
"Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed
prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid
(including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such D
structure) in the area on which the strueture stood?"
The reference was challenged as being vague and by itself not
dedsive of the real controversy. It was contended that the question was
academic, and gave no definite indication of the manner in which the
Central Government intends to act after the reference is answered and E
that it does not serve any constitutional purpose to subserve for which
the advisory jurisdiction of the court could be invoked; and that the
real purpose was to take away a place of worship of the Muslims and
give it to the Hindus. It was therefore urged that this Court should
decline to answer the reference.
F
The Solicitor-General, on behalf of the Union of India, made a
statement, inter alia, that the government would treat the finding of this
Court as final and binding, and in the light of this Court's opinion and
consistent with it, the government would make efforts to resolve the
controversy by a process of negotiations. If negotiated settlement would G
fail, government was committed to enforce a solution, consistent with
this Court's opinion. If this Court were to find that a Hindu
temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished
structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the
Hindu community. If it were to find it in the negative, the government
action would be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community. H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A The focus of the challenge to the statute was on the grounds of
secularism, right to equality and right to freedom of religion. It was
contended that mosque, being a place of religious worship, is immuned
from the state's power of acquisition and that the statute is violative of
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It was further contended that
the Act led to a deprivation of the judicial remedy of adjudication
B without providing for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism; and
that it extinguished the defences 'taken in the suits including that of
adverse possession for over 400 years. It was also contended that
Section 7 of the Act perpetuates the mischief of the demolition of the
mosque by directing the maintenance of status quo as on 7th.January,
1993 which enables the Hindus to exercise the right of worship· of some
C kind in the disputed site keeping the Muslims totally excluded from
that area, and this discrimination may be perpetuated to any length by
the Central Government. The validity of the acquisition was also
challenged by those whose properties had been acquired though the
properties were located outside the disputed area.
D The Central Government urged that in view of the communal
flare-up, the acquisition under the Act and the Special Reference to
decide the question addressed there in would facilitate a negoijated ,..
settlement of the problem and if it would fail, to bring out negotiated
settlement, it would take on appropriate action as would deem
expedient. It contended that the acquisition was not meant to deprive
E the community found entitled to it, but for avoidance of escalation of
the dispute in the wake of the incident at Ayodhya on 6th December,
1992 the Act was passed and that. the Act was an essential step in that
direction.
Returning the Reference and disposing of the matters, this Court
F
HELD : (per majority) (By J.S. Verma, J. for himself MN.
Venkatacha/iah, C.J., G.N. Ray, J.)
1. The legislative competence of Parliament to enact the
Al!quisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 is traceable to entry
G 42, List III. The State of U.P. having been under President's Rule a~ the
relevant time, the legislative competence of. Parliament cannof be
doubted. The pith and substance of the legisiation is 'acquisition of
property' and that falls squarely within the ambit of entry 42, List III.
Coll)peting entry set up is entry 1, List II relating to 'public order~.
"Acq•lisition of property' and not 'public order'. is the pith and
H substance of the statute. (39- G.H)
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. s
The amendment of entry 42, List III, and the omission of entry 33, A
List I and entry 36, List II by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment)
Act leaves no doubt that an acquisition Act like this Act falls clearly
within the ambit of entry 42, List III. (40-H, 41-A),
State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of
Darbhanga, [1952] SCR 889 and Deputy Commissioner and Collector, B
Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sharma, [1968] 1 SCR 561, referred to.
2. It is clear from the issues framed in the pending suits that the
core question for determination in the suits is not covered by the
Reference made. It also does not include therein the defences raised by
the Muslim community, including that of adverse possession of the C
disputed area for over 400 years. It is also clear that the answer to the
question referred, whatever it may be, will not lead to the answer to the
core question for determination in the pending suits and it will not, by
itself, resolve the long-standing dispute relating to the disputed area.
Also, the Central GoYernment, according to its statement, proposes to
resort to a process of negotiations, and if it fails, to adopt such course D
as it may find appropriate in the circumstances. In these circumstances,
Reference made under Article 143 (1) cannot be treated as an P-ffective
alternate dispute resolution mechanism in substitution of the pending
suits which stand abated by Section 4 (3) of the Act. This is sufficient to
invalidate Section 4 (3) of the Act. However, Section 4 (3) is severable,
and therefore its invalidity is not an impediment to the remaining E
statute being upheld as valid. (41-C-E)
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, [1975] Supp. SCC 1,
referred to.
3.1. The constitutional scheme guarantees equality in the matter of F
religion to all individuals and groups irrespective of their faith
emphasising that there is no religion of the State itself. The Preamble of
the Constitution read in particular with Articles 25 and 28 emphasises
this aspect and indicates that it is in this manner the concept of
secularism embodied in the constitutional scheme as a creed adopted by
the Indian people has to be understood while understanding the G
constitutional validity of any legislation on the touchstone of the
Constitution. (49-B)
M.C. Setalvad, Patel Memorial Lectures 1985 on Secularism; Dr.
Shanker Dayal Sharma, "Secularism in the Indian Ethos", Dr. Zakir
Hussain Memorial Lecture (1989); S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] H
6 SUPREME COURT/REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 3 SCC 1 and MN. Venkatacha/iah, J., "Law in a Pluralist Society",
referred to.
3.2. The demolition of the disputed structure on 6th December,
1992 resulted in a communal holocaust. Any step taken to arrest
escalation of the communal tension and to achieve communal harmony
B can, by no stretch of argumentation, be termed non-secular much less
anti-secular or against the concept of secularism. The facts also indicate
that the acquisition of properties affects the rights of both communities
and not merely those of the Muslim community. The maintenance of
status quo as on 7th January, 1993, under Section 7 (2) confers a lesser
right of worship for the Hindu devotees than that in existence earlier
c for a long time till the demolition of the disputed structure. It does not,
· therefore, have the effect of conferring or granting to the Hindu
community any further benefit thereby. The provision does not curtail
the right of worship of the Muslim community .in the disputed area,
there having been de facto no exercise of the practise or worship since
1949. (53-GH, 55-E, 56-C)
D
4. Subject to the protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the
Constitution, places of religious worship like mosques, churches,
temples, etc. can be acquired under the State's sovereign power of
acquisition. Such acquisition does not per se violate either Article 25 or
26 of the Constitution. (64-E)
E
Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras, (1971) 2 SCR 791 and
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj etc. v.
State ofGujarat, (1975] 2 SCR 317, relied on.
The protection under Articles 25 and 26 is to religious practice
F which forms an essential and integral part of the religion. A p:-actice
may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of that
religion. While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, its
offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not
be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the
place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an
G essential or integral part thereof. Places of worship of any religion
having particular significance for that religion, to make it an essential
or integral part of the religion, stand on a different footing and have to
be treated dlfferently and more reverentially. (65-~-H)
Raja Suryapa/singh v. U.P. Government, AIR (1951) All 674 (FB),
H referred to.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.O.I. 7
5. A temple, church or mosque etc. are essentially immovable A
properties and subject to the protection under Articles 25 and 26.
Every immovable property is liable to be acquired. Viewed in the
proper perspective, a mosque does not enjoy any additional protection
which is not available to religious places of worship of other religions.
(66-G)
B
6. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of
Islam and Namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even
in open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the
Constitution of India. The status and immunity from acquisition of a
mosque is the same and equal to that of the places of worship of the C
other religions, namely church, temple, etc. Obviously, the acquisition
of any religious place is to be made only in unusual and extraordinary
situations for a larger national purpose keeping in view that such
acquisition should not result in extinction of the right to practice the
religion, if the significance of the place is as such. The right to worship D
is not at any and every place, so long as it can be practised effectively,
unless the right to worship at a particular place is itself an integral part
of that right. (67-A-D)
M. Hidayatullah, Mu/la's Principles of Mahomedan Law (19th edn.)
Section 217 and AIR (1940) PC 116, referred to. E
7.1. The view that once a constructed mosque, it remains always a
place of worship as a mosque is not the Mahomedan law of India as
approved by Indian courts. (62-G)
Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwara F
Prabhandak Committee, AIR (1938) Lah 369, relied on.
Muthialu Chetti v. Bapun Saib, ILR 2 Mad 140 and Sundram Chetti v.
Queen ILR 6 Mad 203, referred to.
7.2. The power of acquisition is the sovereign or prerogative power G
of the State to acquire property. Such power exists independent of
Article 300A of the Constitution or the earlier Article 31 which merely
i.ndicate the limitations on the power of acquisition by the 'State. (63-G)
Chiranjitlal Chowdhuri v. Union <Jj India, (1950) SCR 869 and State
ofWes(Bengalv. Subodh Gopal Bose, (1954) SCR 587, followed. H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 8.1. The meaning of the term 'vest' takes colour from the context in
which it is used. It can vary in different parts of the same statute or
even the same section, depending in the context of its use. (50-G)
Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P., [1977) 1SCR1072, relied on.
B 8.2. It does not necessarily mean absolute vesting in every situation
and is capable of bearing the meaning of limited vesting, being limited
in title and duration. The status of the Central Government as a result
of vesting by virtue of Secti~n 3 of the Act is of a statutory receiver in
relation to the disputed area, coupled with a duty to manage and
administer the disputed area maintaining the status quo therein till the
c final outcome of adjudication of the long-standing dispute relating to
the disi;uted structure at Ayodhya. Vesting in the Central Government
of the area in excess of the disputed area is, however, absolute. The
meaning of 'vest' has these different shades in Sections 3 and 6 in
relation to the two parts of the entire area acquired by the Act. (59-A-B
D 9. Section 6 (1) read with Section 7 (2) is an in-built indication in
the statute of the intent that acquisition of the disputed area and its
vesting in the Central Government is not absolute but for the purpose
for its subsequent transfer to the person found-entitled to it as a result
of adjudication of the dispute for the resolution of which this step is
part of the exercise. Reference under Article 143 (1) simultaneously
E with issuance of the Ordinance, later replaced by the Act, also is an
indication of the legislative intent that the acquisition of the disputed
area wa·s not meant to be absolute but limited. (57-F)
10. The context in which the word 'area' is used in Section 7 (2)
indicates that its meaning is not the same as in Section 2 (a) to mean the
F entire area specified in the Schedule since the words which follow
qualify its meaning confining it only to the site on which this structure,
commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid stood, which
site or area in undoubtedly smaller and within 'the area specified in the
Schedule'. (38-G)
G 11.1. Section 7 is a transitory provision, intended to maintain status
quo in the disputed area, till transfer of the property is made by the
Central Government on resolution of the dispute. In deciding whether
this provision which mandates the maintenance of status quo, and the
statute as a whole which effects acquisition, is slanted in favour of the .-,
Hindu commi.mity, it is necessary to recall the comparative user of the
.H ··disputed area, and th~ a:ight to worship practised th~rein bj ·the two
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. 9
communities on 7th January, 1993 and for a significant period A
preceding it. Worship of the idols installed in the Ram chabutra which
stood in the disputed site within the courtyard of the disputed structure
had been performed without any objection of the Muslims even prior to
the shifting of those idols from the Ram chabutra into the disputed
structure in December 1949. By interim orders passed by the trial court
in 1950, the idols remained at the place where they were installed and B
worship of the idols there by Hindu devotees continued. This interim
order was confirmed by the High Court in 1955. The District Judge
ordered the opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum
sanctorum of the shrine in the disputed structure on 1 February, 1986
and permitted worship of the idols there by Hindu devotees. This was
the position till 6th December, 1992. Since the demolition, worship of C
the idols by a pujari alone is continuing. On the other hand, the
Muslims have not been offering worship at any place in the disputed
site, though it may turn out at the trial of the suits that they have a
right to do so. (52, C, 53-A-F)
11.2. Moreover, even as Ayodhya is said to be of particular D
significance to the Hindus as the birth place of Rama, the mosque was
of significance to the Muslim community as an ancient mosque built by
Mir Baqi in 1526 AD. As a mosque it was just a .religious plac~ of
worship by the Muslims. This indicates the comparative significance of
the disputed site to the two communities, and also that the impact of the E
acquisition is equally on the right and interest of the Hindu community.
The narration of facts indicates that the acquisition of properties under
the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those
of the Muslim community. (55-D)
12. Although the persons responsible for the demolition of the F
disputed structure were some miscreants who cannot be equated with
the entire Hindu community, and the act of vandalism cannot be
treated as an act of the entire Hindu community, confining the exercise
of the right to worship of the Hindu community enacted in Section 7 (2)
appears to be reasonable and just in view of the fact that the miscreants
who demolished the mosque are suspected to be persons professing to G
practise the Hindu religion. (55-G)
13. The justification for acquisition of a larger area, comprising in
large part of properties belonging to Hindus, is that it is necessary to
ensure that the final outcome of the adjudication is not rendered
meaningless by the existence of properties belonging to Hindus in the H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A vicinity of the disputed structure in case the Muslims are found entitled
to the disputed site. The necessity of acquiring adjacent temples or
religious buildings in view of their proximity to the disputed structure,
which forms a unique class by itself, is permissible. (54 B&E)
M Padmanabha Iyengar v. Govt. of AP, AIR (1990) AP 357 and
B Akhara Shri Braham Buta v. State of Punjab, AIR (1990) P and H 198,
approved.
14. However, at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is
needed for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition is
determined, it would be open to the owner of any such property to
C challenge the superfluous acquisition. It would not merely be
permissible but desirable that the superfluous area is released from
acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner. (54-G)
15. Section 8 is meant only for property acquired absolutely, other
than the disputed area, being adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the
D disputed area. The disputed area being taken over by the Central
Government only as a statutory receiver, there is no question of
payment of compensation for the same as it is meant to be handed over
to the successful party in the suits. (60-G)
16. A construction which the language of the statute can bear and
E promotes a larger national purpose must be preferred to a st_rict literal
construction tending to promote factionalism and discord. (61-B)
17. The statements of the Central Government soon after the
demolition that the mosque would be rebuilt cannot limit the power of
the Parliament, and are not material for adjudging the constitutional
F validity of the enactment. The validity of the statute has to be
determined on the touchstone of the Constitution and not on any
statements made prior to it. (56 G-H; 57A)
18. The entire statute except Section 4 (3) thereof being found to be
valid, and the pending suits and legal proceedings wherein the dispute
G between the two parties has to be adjudicated being revived, the
Reference made under Article 143 (1) becomes superfluous and
unnecessary. This Court therefore declines to answer the Reference
and returns the same. (67 E, F)
19. All pending suits and legal proceedings stand revived, and they
H shall be proceeded with, and decided, in accordance with law. The
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. 11
disputed area is vested with the Central Government as a statut-ory A
receiver w!th a duty to manage and administer it in the manner
provided in the Act maintaining the status quo therein by virtue of
Section 7 (2). The Central Government would exercise its power of
vesting that property further in another authority or body or trust in
accordance with Section 6 (1) of the Act. The power of the courts in the
· pending legal proceedings to give directions to the Central Government B
as a statutory receiver would be circumscribed and limited to the
extent of the area left open by the provisions of the Act. The Central
Government would be bound to take all necessary steps to implement
the decision in the suits and other legal proceedings and to hand over
the disputed area to the party found entitled to the same on the final
adjudication made in the-suits. (67-G-H, 68-A-B) C
White Paper on Ayodhya, referred to.
Per Minority (By S.P. Bharucha, J. for himself and A.M. Ahmadi,
J.)
D
1. "Area" under. Sections 2 (a) and 3 is that specified in the
Schedule. By reason of Section 4 (1), "area" includes assets and all
property, movable and immovable, and all other rights and interests in
or arising out of such property. By reason of Section 4 (2), the whole
bundle of property and rights vests in the Central Government freed E
and discharged from all encumbrances. The effect of Section 4 of the
Act is that the Sunni Wakf Board, which administered the mosque that
was housed in the disputed structure, and the Muslim community lose
their right to plead adverse possession of the disputed site from 1528
A.D. until 1949, if not up-to-date, considering that the idols remained in
the disputed structure only under the orders of the courts. (82-F, 87-B) F
2. The disputes as to title survive for the purpose of compensation,
for which purpose, under Section 8, title shall have to be established not
before a court of law but before a Claims Commissioner to be
appointed by the Central Government, who is entitled to device his own
procedure. With the suits iil the Allahabad High Court abating by G
reason of Section 4 (3), the forum for adjudication of the title to the
disputed site is shifted from the courts to the Claims Commissioner. No
right of appeal or reference to a civil court is provided for with the
result that the decision of the Claims Commissioner would be final
except for a remedy under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (87-E-F) H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 3. The provisions of Sections 4 and 8 must, therefore, be held to be
arbitrary ~nd unreasonable. (87-F)
4. More importantly, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act,
inasmuch as they deprive the Sunni Wakf Board and the Muslim
community of the right to plead and establish adverse possession and
B restrict the redress of their grievance in terms of the limited question
posed by the reference and to negotiations subsequent thereto, and the
provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which vest the whole bundle of
property and rights in the Central Government to achieve this purpose,
offend the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic structure
of the Constitution, being slanted in favour of one religious community
C as against another. (87-G-H)
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973] 4 SCC 225 and S.R.
Bommai v. Union ofIndia, [1994]3 SCC 1, relied on.
The State has no religion. The State is bound to honour and to hold
D the scales even between all religions. It may not advance the cause of
one religion to the detriment of another. (89-A)
5. The core provisions of the Act are Sections 3, 4 and 8. The other
provisions of the Act are only ancillary and incidental to Sections 3,. 4
and 8. Since the core provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 8 are
E unconstitutional, the Act itself cannot stand. (89-B)
6. The provisions of Section 7 are referred to in support of the
finding that the Act is skewed in favour of one religion against another.
The provisio~ requires that the puja which had been begun following
the demolition of the disputed structure must continue so long as the
F management of the property under the Act continues. For how long
such management is to continue and on the happening ofwhat event it
will come to an end is not indicated. Section 7 (2) therefore perpetuates
the performance of the puja on the disputed site. No account is taken of
the fact that the structure thereon had been .destroyed in a
reprehensible act, striking at the principles of secularism, democracy
G and the rule of law. Nor is the fact that there is a dispute in respect of
the site on which puja is to be performed taken into account, and that
until the night of 22/23 December, 1949, when the idols were placed in
the disputed structure, the disputed structure was being used as a
mosque; and that the Muslim community has a right to offer namaz
H therein. (89-F-G)
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. 13
White Paper on Ayodhya, referred to. A
7. Secularism is given pride of place in the Constitution. The object
is to preserve and protect all religions, to place all religious
communities on par. When, therefore, adherents of the religion of the
majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of
worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions B
that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation
of the State to protect that place of worship and to preserve public
order, using for the purpose such means and forces of law and order as
are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the
Constitution for the State to acquire that place of worship to preserve
public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such C
circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the
Constitution. (90-F, G)
8. However, it may be added that if the title to the place of worship
is in dispute in a court of law, and public order is jeopardised, two
courses are open to the Central Government: it may apply to the D
concerned court to be appointed receiver of the place of worship, to
hold it secure pending the final adjudication of its title, or it may enact
legislation that makes it the statutory receiver pending adjudication. In
either event, the Central Government would bind itself to hand over
the place of worship to the party in whose favour title is found. (90-H.
91-A-B) E
Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar ofSri Shirur
Mutt, [1954) SCR 1005, referred to.
9. Exercise of the right of the individual to profess, practise and
propagate religion is subject to public order. Secularism is absoh.1te; the F
state may not treat religions differently on the ground that public order
requires it. This is illustrated by the principle of secularism which
illumines the provisions of Articles 15 and 16, the 'hands-off'. approach
required of the State in matters of religion by Article 27, and the
absolute terms of Article 29 (2). (91-H, 92-C)
G·
10.1. This Court is entitled to decline to answer a question posed to
it under Article 143 if it considers that it is not proper or possible to do
so, but it must indicate its reasons. (94-B)
In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, (1965) 1 SCR 413 and In re
the Special Courts Bill, 1978, [1979] 3 SCR 476, relied on. H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 10.2. The Reference. must not be answered for the following
reasons: The Act and the Reference favour one religious community
and disfavour another; the purpose of the Reference is, therefore,
opposed to secularism and is unconstitutional. Besides, the Reference
does not serve a constitutional purpose. (94-D)
B Secondly, from the Reference it is clear that the Central
Government does not propose to settle the dispute in terms of the
Court's opinion, but to use _it as a springboard for negotiations.
Resolution of the dispute as a result of such negotiations cannot be said
to be a resolution of the dispute 'in terms of the said opinion'. Thirdly,
there is the aspect of evidence. Apart from the inherent inadvisability
c of rendering a judicial opinion which would have to be done for the
court by experts, the opinion would be liable to the criticism of one or
both sides that it was rendered without hearing them or their evidence.
This would ordinarily be of no significance for they had chosen to stay
away, but this opinion is intended to create a public climate for
negotiations and the criticism would find the public ear, to say nothing
D of the fact that it would impair th_is Court's credibility. (94-E, 95-A-B)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred case (C) N\.ls. 41,
43 and 45 of 1993 etc.
From the Court's Order dated 24.9.93 of the Allahabad High Court in
E T.P. Nos. 669-75 ofl993. -
Petitioner in-person in T.C. (C) Nos. 41_and44/93.
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, Satish Chandra, Rajiv Dhawan, O.P.
Sharma, M.K. Banerjee, P.P. Malhotra, Jitendra Sharma, V.M. Tarkunde,
F Anil B. Diwan, D.V. Sehgal, P.P. Rao, P.N. Duda, F.S. Nariman, Ashok H.
Desai, Joseph Vellapalli, B.P. Agarwal, S. Venkata Reddy, P.L. Mishra,
C.S. Ashri, R.P. Wadhwani, Arun Kumar Sinha, Zaki Ahmad Khan, Manoj
Saxena, Irshad Ahmad, Ms. Aparna Viswanathan, Mustaq Ahmad, M.M.
Kashyap, Ms. A. Subhashini, . P. Parmeshwaran, Pawan Bahal, Navin
Prakash, A. Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma, S.A. Syed, Shahid Rizvi, A.N.M.
G Tayyab Khan, Ms. Deepali Talwar, R.S. Messy Verma, M. Zakikhan, M.T.
Khan, Abdul Mannan, Shakil -Ahmad Syed, Z. Jilani, M.A. Siddiqui, Ms.
Gunwant Dara, Ms. Nilofer Bhagwat, Ms. P. Gaur, R.C. Verma, R.B.
Misra, A.P. Dhamija, S.K. Jain; Siba Sankar Mishra; A. Bhattacharji, P.P.
Singh, Randhir Jain, K.C. Dua, Dharam Das, S.S. Misra, Uma Nath Singh,
H Ashok Kumar:.Singh, S.K. Agnihotri, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, Pradip Kumar,
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 15
Sarva Mitter, M. Veerappa, S.C. Shanna, K.H. Nobin Singh, S.M. Jadhav, A
A.S. Bhasme, V.K. Beeran, ~.T. George, B.P. Agarwal, Aruneshwar
Gupta, G. Prakash, Capt. K.S. Bhati, S. Venkata Reddy, Krishna
Koundinya, Ms. Promila Choudhary, Nikhil Nayyar, T.V.S.N. Chari, N.K.
Shanna, R.C. Misra, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, S.N. Bhuyan, S.K. Nandy, Bada
Ahmed, J.B. Dadachanji, Ms. Tamali Sen Gupta, A.S. Parich, for JBD and
Co., S.N. Mehta, R.P. Singh, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Deoki Nandan Agrawal, B
I.S. Goyal, Ms. Indu Malhotra, A.K. Goel, A.S. Pundir, M.A. Firoz, Sanjay
Parikh, L.K. Gupta, Ms. K. Chaudhary, Goodwill Indeever, Ms. Kusum
Chaudhary, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, R.K. Mehta,
S.K. Sabharwal, C.D. Singh and Anip Sachthey for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court were delivered by
c
J.S. VERMA, J. "We have just enough religion to make us hate, but
not enough to make us love one another."
- Jonathan Swift
D
Swami Vivekananda said -
"Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual
argumentation; it is being and becoming, it is realisation."
This thought comes to mind as we contemplate the roots of this E
controversy. Genesis of this dispute is traceable to erosion of some
fundamental values of the plural commitments of our polity.
The constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at
Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33of1993) (hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 33 F
of 1993" or "the Act") and the maintainability of Special Reference No. 1
of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Special Reference") made by the
President oflndia under Article 143 ( 1) of the Constitution of India are the
questions for decision herein. The background in which these questions are
to be answered is contained in the facts stated in the White Paper on
Ayodhya, February 1993, issued by the Government oflndia. G
Certain undisputed facts emerging at the hearing may also have
relevance for this purpose. These questions are answered on this basis,
eschewing facts which are in the area of controversy and have yet to be
adjudicated.
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A BACKGROUND
The Bill was introduced in Parliament leading the above enactmen't and
the said Reference to this Court was made in the historical background set
out in the White Paper. Indeed, the two similtaneous acts are an indication
of the legislative intent for enactment of the statute, the reference being
B made as a part of the same exercise with a view to effectuate the purpose of
the enactment. This is how, they have to be viewed.
The "Overview" at the commencement of the White Paper in Chapter 1
states thus :-
1.1. Ayodhy~ situated in the north of India is a township in
c District Faizabad of Uttar Pradesh. It has long been a place
of holy pilgrimage because of its mention in the epic
Ramayana as the place of birth of Shri Ram. The structure
commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babti Masjid was
erected as a mosque by one Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528
D AD. It is claimed by some sectio'ns that it was built at the
site believed to be the birth-spot of Shri Ram where a
temple had st.ood earlier. This resulted in a long-standing
dispute.
1.2. The controversy entered a new phase with the placing
E of idols in the disputed structure in December, 1949. The
premises were attach~d under section 145. of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Civil suitS were filed shortly thereafter.
Interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from
rem_pving the idols or interfering with their worship. In
effect,. therefore, from December, 1949 till December 6,
F 1992 the structure had not been used as a mosque."
The movement to construct a Ram-temple at the site of the disputed
structure gathered momentum in recent ye~ which became ·a matter of
great controversy and a source of tension. This led to several parleys the
details of which are not very material for the present purpose. These parleys
G involving the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the All India Bahri Masjid
Action Committee (AIBMAC), however, failed to resolve the dispute. A
new dimension was added to the campaign for construction of the temple
with the formation of the Government in Uttar Pradesh in June 1991 by the
Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) which declared its commitment to the
- construction of the temple and took certain steps like the acquisition of land
H adjoining. the disputed structure while leaving out the disputed structure
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.) 17
itself from the acquisition. The focus of the temple construction movement A
from October 1991 was to start construction of the temple by way of 'kar-
sewa' on the land acquired .by the Government of Uttar Pradesh while
leaving the disputed structure intact. This attempt did not succeed and there
was litigation in the Allahabad High Court as well as in this Court. There
was a call for resumption of kar-sewa from 6th December, 1992 and the
announcement made by the organisers was for a symbolic kar-sewa without B
violation of the court orders including those made in the proceedings
pending in this Court. In spite of initial reports from Ayodhya on 6th
December, 1992 indicating an air of normalcy, around mid-day a crowd
addressed by leaders of BJP, VHP, etc. climbed the Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid (RJM-BM) structure and started damaging the domes. Within
a short time, the entire structure was demolished and razed to the ground. C
Indeed, it was an act of "national shame". What was demolished was not
merely an ancient structure; but the faith of the minorities in the sense of
justice and fairplay of majority. It shook their faith in the rule of law and
constitutional processes. A five hundred year old structure which was
defenceless and whose safety was sacred trust in the hands of the State D
Government was demolished.
After referring to the details on this tragedy, the White Paper in
Chapter I on "OVERVIEW" concludes thus:-
"1.25. The demolition of the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri
Masjid structure at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 was a E
most reprehensible act. The perpetrators of this deed struck
not only against a place of worship, but also at the
principles of secularism, democracy and the rule of law
enshrined In our Constitution. In a move as sudden as it was
shameful, a few thousand people managed to outrage the
sentiments of millions of Indians of all communities who F
have reacted to this incident with anguish and dismay.
1.26. What happened on December 6, 1992 was not a
failure of the system as a whole, nor of the wisdom inherent
in India's Constitution, nor yet of the power of tolerance, G
brotherhood and compassion that has so vividly informed
the life of independent India. It was, the Supreme Court
observed on that day, "a great pity that a Constitutionally
elected Government could not discharge its duties in a
matter of this sensitiveness and magnitude," Commitments
to the Court and Constitution, pledges to Parliament and the H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A people, were simply cast aside. Therein by the failure,
therein the betrayal.
l.27. Today India seeks to heal, and not reopen its wounds;
to look forward with hope and not backwards with fear; to
reconcile reason with faith. Above all, India is detennined
B to press ahead with the National Agenda, undeterred by
aberrations."
It may be mentioned that a structure called the Ram-chabutra stood on
the disputed site within the courtyard of the disputed structure. This
structure also was demolished on 6tb December, 1992 (Appendix-V to the
c White Paper). Worship of the idols installed on the Ram-chabutra by Hindu
devotees in general, it appears, had been performed for a considerable
period of time without any objection by the Muslims to its worship at that
place, ·prior to the shifting of the idols from the Ram-chabutra of the
disputed structure in December 1948. As a result of demolition of Ram-
chabutra also on 6th December, 1992, the worship by Hindus in general
D even at that place was interrupted. Thereafter, the worship of idols is being
performed only by a priest nominated for the purpose without access to the
public.
A brief reference to certain suits in this connection may now be made.
In 1950, two suits were filed by some Hindus; in one of these suits in
E January 1950, the trial court passed interim orders whereby the idols
remained at the place where they were installed in December 1949 and their
puja by the Hindus continued. The interim order was confirmed by the
High Court in April 1955. On 1st February, 1986, the District Judge
Qrdered the opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum-
sanctorum of the shrine in the disputed structure and pennitted puja by the
Hindu devotees. In 1959, a suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara claiming
title to the disputed structure. In 1961, another suit was filed claiming title
to the disputed structure by the Sunni Central Wakf Board. In 1969, Deoki
Nandan Agarwal, as the next friend of the Deity filed a title suit in respect
of the disputed structure. In 1969, the aforementioned suits were transferred
to the Allahabad High Court and were ordered to be heard together. On
G
14th August, 1989, the High Court ordered the maintenance of status quo in
respect of the disputed structure (Appendix-I to the White Paper). As eariler
mentioned, it is stated in para 1.2 of the White Paper that:
' "interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties
H from removing the idols or interfering with their worship.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 19
In effect, therefore, from December, 1949 till December 8, A
1992 the structure had not been used as a mosque."
Prior to December 1949 when the idols were shifted into the disputed
structure from the Ram-chabutr~ worship by Hindu devotees at the Ram-
chabutra for a long time without any objection from Muslims is also
beyond controversy. A controversy, however, is raised about use of the B
disputed structure as a mosque from 1934 to December 1949. One version
is that after some disturbances in 1934, the use of the disputed structure as a
mosque had been stopped from 1934 itself and not merely from December
1949. The other side disputes the alleged disuse of the mosque for prayers
prior to December 1949. The stand of the Uttar Pradesh Government in the
suits was that the place was ~sed as a mosque till 1949. C
As a result of the incidents at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, the
President of India issued a proclamation under Article 356 of the
Constitution of India assuming to himself all the functions of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, dissolving the U.P. Vidhan Sabha. The
White Paper in Chapter II mentions the "BACKGROUND" and therein it is D
stated as under :
"2. l. At the centre of the RIB-BM dispute is the demand
voiced by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its allied
organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birth
place of Sri Ram in Ayodhya. Till 6th December, 1992 this E
site was occupied by the structure erected in 1528 by 'Mir
Baqi' who claimed to have built it on orders of the first
Mughal Emperor Babar. This structure has been described
in the old Government records as Masjid Janmasthan. It is
now commonly referred to as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri
Masjid. F
2.2. The VHP and its allied organisations base their demand
on the assertion that this site is the birth place of Sri Ram
and a Hindu temple commemorating this site stood here till
it was destroyed on Babar's command and a Masjid was
erected in its pJace. The demand of the VHP has found G
support from the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). The
construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site, after
removal or relocation of the existing structure, was a major
plank in BJP' s campaign during elections held in 1989 and
1991. Other major political pa..-ties, however, had generally
opposed this demand and had taken the stand that while a H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A temple should be built, the . issues in dispute should be
resolved either by negotiations or by orders.of the Court.
2.2. During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable
solution to the dispute, one issue which came to the fore
was whether a .Hindu temple had existed on the site
B occupied by the disputed structure and whether it was
demolished on Babar's orders for the constructior. of the
Masjid. It was stated on behalf of the Muslim organisations,
as well as by certain eminent historians, that there was no
evidence in favour of either of these two assertions. It was
also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions
c were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily handover the
disputed shrine to the Hindus. Naturally, this became the
central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and
AIBMAC. ~
xxx xxx xxx
D
2.12. The historical debate has thus remained inconclusive
although much progress has been made in identifying the
areas of agreement and difference. Conclusive findings can
be obtained only by way of reference to a competent
authority. However, as brought out elsewhere in this Paper
E the negotiations were disrupted at a crucial phase. Now, the
entire evidence has disappeared along with the disputed
structure. It is tragic and ironical that the Ram-chabutra and
Kaushalya Rasoi, which continued as places of worship
during periods of Muslim and British rule have disappeared
along with the RJB-BM structure at the hands of people
F professing to be 'devotees' of Lord Ram.
PLACING OF IDOLS IN THE DISPUTED STRUCTURE
2.13. As has been mentioned above, Hindu structures of
worship already existed in the outer courtyard of the RJB-
G BM structure. On the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949,
however, Hindu idols were placed under the central dome
of the main structure. Worship of these idols was started on
a big scale from the next morning. As this was likely to
disturb the public peace, the civil administration attached
the premises under section 145 of the Code of Criminal
H Procedure. This was the starting point of a whole chain of
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 21
events which ultimately led to the demolition of the A
structure. The main events of this chain have been
summarised in Appendix-I.
2.14. Soon after the installation of the idols two civil suits
were filed by Hindu plaintiffs seeking to restrain the
Administration from removing the idols from the disputed B
structure or placing any restrictions in the way of devotees
intending to offer worship. Interim injunctions were issued
by the civil court to this effect. These injunctions were
confinned by the Allahabad High Court in 1955.
2.15. The Hindu idols thus continued inside the disputed C
structure since 1949. Worship of these idols by Hindus also
continued without interruption since 1949 and the structure
was not used by the Muslims for offering prayers since
then. The controversy remained at a low ebb till 1986 when
the District Court of Faiz.abad ordered opening of the lock
placed on a grill leading to the sanctum-sanctorum of the D
shrine. An organisation called the Bahri Masjid Action
Committee (BMAC), seeking restoration of the disputed
shrine to the Muslims came into being and launched a
protest movement. The Hindu organisations, on the other
hand, stepped up their activities to mobilise public opinion E
for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site."
After the imposition of President's rule in the State of Uttar Pradesh as
a consequence of the events at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, action
taken by the Central Government is detailed in Chapter Vlll of the White
Paper with reference to the communal situation in the country wh~ch F
deteriorated sharply following the demolition of the RJB-BM structure on
6th December, 1992 and spread of communal violence in several other
States Para 8.l l in Chapter VIII relating to the "ACTION TAKEN BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT" is as under :-
"8.l l. Mention has been made above (Over-view) of the G
decisions taken on 7th December by the Government to ban
communal organisations, to take strong action for
prosecution of the offences connected with the demolition,
to fix responsibilities of various authorities for their lapses
relating to the events of December 6, to rebuild the
demolished structure and to take appropriate steps regarding H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.
A new Ram Temple. The last two decisions were further
elaborated on 27th December as follows :
"The Government has decided to acquire all areas in dispute
in the suits pending in the Allahabad High Court. It has also
been decided to acquire suitable adjacent area. The acquired
B area excluding the area on which the disputed structure
stood would be made available to two Trusts which would
be set up for construction of a Ram Temple and a Mosque
respectively and for planned development of the area.
"The Government of India has also decided to request the
c President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the
question whether there was a Hindu temple existing on the
site where the disputed structure stood. The Government
has also decided to abide by the opinion of the Supreme
Court and to take appropriate steps to enforce the Court's
opinion. Notwithstanding the acquisition of the disputed
D area, the Government would ensure that the position
existing prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance is
maintained until such time as the Supreme Court gives its
opinion in the matter. Thereafter the rights of the parties
shall be determined in the light of the Court's opinion."
In pursuance of these decisions an ordinance named
E 'Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance' was
issued on 7th January 1993 for acquisition of 67. 703 acres
of land in the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid complex. A
reference to the Supreme Court under article 143 of the
Constitution was also made on the same day. Copy of the
ordinance is at Appendix-XV and of the reference at
F Appendix-XV~."
The Acquisition of Certain Area at the Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 (No.
8 of 1993) has been replaced by the Acquisition of Certain Area at
A~ 1 odhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993), the constitutional validity of which
has to be examined by us.
G
The said Ordinance, later replaced by Act No. 33 of 1993, and the
Special Reference under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India were
made simultaneously the same day on 7th January, 1993. It would be
appropriate at this stage to quote, in extenso, the Statement of Objects and
Reasans for this enactment, the said Act No. 33 of 1993, and the Special
H Reference under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution.
I
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 23
"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS A
There has been a long-standing dispute relating to the
erstwhile Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid structure in
Ayodhya which led to communal tension and violence from
time to time and ultimately led to the destruction of the
disputed structure on 6th December, 1992. This was B
followed by wide-spread communal violence which resulted
in large number of deaths, injuries and destruction of
property in various parts of the country. The said dispute
has thus affected the maintenance of public order and
harmony between different communities in the country. As
it is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit C
of common brotherhood amongst the people of India, it was
considered necessary to acquire the site of the disputed
structure and suitable adjacent land for setting up a complex
which could be developed in a planned manner wherein a
Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library,
museum and other suitable facilities can be set up. D
2. The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance,
1993 was accordingly promulgated by the President on 7th
January, 1993. By virtue of the said Ordinance the right,
title and interest in respect of certain areas at Ayodhya
specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance stand transferred E
to, and vest in, the Central Government.
3. The Bill seeks to replace the aforesaid Ordinance.
S.B.CHAVAN
F
NEW DELHI;
The 9th March, 1993."
SPECIAL REFERENCE
G
"WHEREAS a dispute has arisen whether a Hindu temple
or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the
construction of the structure (including the premises of the
inner and outer courtyards of such structural, commonly
known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, in the area
in which the structure stood in village Kot Ramachandra in H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.
A Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in Tehsil Faiz.abad
Sadar, in the district 9f Faizabad of the St.ate of Uttar
Pradesh;
2. AND WHEREAS the said area is located in Revenue Plot
·Nos. 159 and 160 in the said village Kot Ramchandra;
B
3. AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the
maintenance of public order and harmony between different
communities in the country;
· 4. AND WHEREAS the aforesaid area vests in the Central
Government by virtue of the Acquisition of Certain Area at
c Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993;
5. AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the vesting of the
aforesaid area in the Central Government under the said
Ordinance the Central Government proposes to settle the
said dispute after obtaining the opinion of the Supreme
D Court of India and in terms of the said opinion;
6. AND WHEREAS in view of what has been hereinbefore
stated it appears to me that the question hereinafter set out
has arisen and is of such a nature and of such public
importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the
E Supreme Court of India thereon;
7. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
conferred upon me by clause (1) of article 143 of the
Constitution of India, I, Shanker Dayal Sharma, President
oflndia, hereby refer the following question to the Supreme
F Court of India for consideration and opinion thereon,
namely:
Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure
existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer
G courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the
structure stood?
Sd/-
President of India
New Delhi;
H Dated 7th January, 1993."
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 25
THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN AREA AT AYODHYA ACT, 1993 (NO. A
33OF1993)
[3rd April, 1993]
"An act to provide for the acquisition of certain area at
Ayodhya and for matters COJ;lllected therewith or incidental
thereto. B
WHEREAS there has been a long-standing dispute relating
to the structure (including the premises of the inner and
outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the
Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, situated in village Kot
Ramachandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in C
Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the
State ofUttar Pradesh;
AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the
maintenance of public order and harmony between different
communities in the country; D
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to maintain public order
and to promote communal harmony and the spirit of
common brotherhood amongst the people oflndia;
AND WHEREAS with a view to achieving the aforesaid E
objectives, it is necessary to acquire certain areas in
Ayodhya;
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Forty-fourth Year of the
Republic of India as follows :-
CHAPTER 1
F
PRELIMINARY
1. Short title and commencement - (1) This Act may be
called the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, G
1993. .
(2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 7th
day ofJanuary, 1993.
2. Definitions - In this Act unless the context otherwise
requires,- H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A (a) "area" means the area (including all the buildings,
structures or other properties comprised therein) specified
in the Schedule;
.. (b) "authorised person" means a person or body of persons
or trustees of any trust authorised by the Central
B Government under section 7;
(c) "Claims Commissioner" means the Claims
Commissioner appointed under sub-section (2) of section 8;
(d) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this
Act.
c
CHAPTER II
ACQUISITION OF THE AREA IN AYODHYA
3. Acquisition of rights in respect of certain area - On and
D
from the commencement of this Act, the right, title and
interest in relation to the area shall, by virtue of this Act,
stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government.
4. General effect of vesting - (I) The area shall be deemed
E to include all assets, rights, leaseholds, powers, authority
and privileges and all property, movable and immovable,
including lands, buildings, structures, shops of whatever
nature or other properties and all other rights and interests
in, or arising out of, such properties as were immediately
before the commencement of this Act in the ownership,
F possession, power or control of any person or the State
Govemnient of Uttar Pradesh, as the case may be, and all
registers, maps, plans, drawings and other documents of
whatever nature relating thereto.
(2) All properties aforesaid which have vested in the Central
G Government under section 2 shall, by force of such vesting,
be freed and discharged from any trust, obligation,
mortgage, charge, lien and all other encumbrances affecting
them and any attachment, injunction decree or order of any
court or tribunal or other authority restricting the use of
H such properties in any manner or appointing any receiver in
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 27
respect of the whole or any part of such properties shall A
cease to have any effect.
(3) If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or
other proceeding in respect of the right, title and interest
relating to any property which has vested in the Central
Government under section 3, is pending before any court, B
tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate.
5. Duty of person or State Government in charge of the
management of the area to deliver all assets, etc. - ( 1) The
Central Government may take all necessary steps to secure
possession of the area which is vested in that Government C
under section 3.
(2) On the vesting of the area in the Central Government
under section 3, the person or State Government of Uttar
Pradesh, as the case may be, in charge of the management
of the area immediately before such vesting shall be bound D
to deliver to the Central Government or the authorised
person, all assets, registers and other documents in their
custody relating to such vesting or where it is not
practicable to deliver such registers or documents, the
copies of such registers or documents authenticated in the
prescribed manner. E
6. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of the
area in another authority or body or trust - ( 1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3, 4, 5 and
7 the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that any
authority or other body, or trustees of any trust, set up on or F
after the commencement of this Act is or are willing to
comply with such terms and conditions as that Government
may think fit to impose, direct by notification in the Official
Gazette, that the right, title and interest or any of them in
relation to the area or any part thereof, instead of continuing
to vest in the Central Government, vest in that authority or G
body or trustees of that trust either on· the date of the
notification or on such later date as may be specified in the
notification.
(2) When any right, title and interest in relation to the area
or part thereof vest in the authority or body or trustees H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.
A referred to in sub-section (1 ), such rights of the Central
Government in relation to such area or piµt thereof, shall,
on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have
become the rights of that authority or body or trustees of
that trust.
B (3) The provisions of sections 4, 5, 7 and 11 shall, so far as
may be, apply in relation to such authority or body or
trustees as they apply in relation to the Central Government
and for this purpose references therein to the "Central
Government" shall be construed as references to such
authority or body or trustees.
c CHAPTER III
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY
7. Management of property by Government - (1)
D Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or
instrument or order of any court, tribunal or other authority
to the contrary, on and from the commencement of this Act,
the property vested in the Central Government under
section 3 shall be managed by the Central Government or
by a person or body of persons or trustees of any trust
E authorised by that Government in this behalf.
(2) In managing the property vested in the Central
Government under section 3, the Central Government or the
authorised person shall ensure that the position existing
before· the commencement of this Act in the area on which
F. the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram
Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, stood in village Kot
Ramchandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh, in
Teshil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the
State of Uttar Pradesh is maintained. .
G
CHAPTER IV
MISCELLANEOUS
8. Payment of amount - (1) The owner of any land,
H building, structure or other property comprised in the area
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 29
shall be given by the Central Government, for the transfer A
to and vesting in that Government under section 3 of that
land, building, structure or other property, in cash an
amount equiyalent to the market value of the land, building,
structure or other property.
(2) The Central Government shall, for the purpose of B
deciding the claim of the owner or any person having a
claim against the owner under sub-section (I), by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Claims
Commissioner.
(3) The Claims Commissioner shall regulate his own C
procedure for receiving and deciding the claims.
(4) The owner or any person having a claim against the
owner may make a claim to the Claims Commissioner
within a period of ninety days from the date of
commencement of this Act: . D
Provided that if the Claims Commissioner is satisfied that
the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from
preferring the claim within the said period of ninety days,.
the Claims Commissioner may entertain the clafm within a
further period of ninety days and not thereafter.
E
9. Act to override all other enactments - The provisions of
this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than this Act or any decree or order F
of any court, tribunal or other authority.
I 0. Penalties - Any person who is in charge of the
mtinagement of the area and fails to deliver to the Central
Government or the authorised person any asset, register or
other document in his custody relating to such area or, as G
the case may be, authenticated copies of such register or
document, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a tenn
which may extend to three years or with tine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
11. Protection of action taken in good faith - No suit,
prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Central Government or the authorised person or any of the
officers or other employees of that Government or the
authorised person for anything which is in good faith done
or intended to be done under this Act.
12. Power to make rules - (1) The Central Government
B may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to
carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) Every rule made by the Central Government under this
Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before
each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
c period of thirty days which may be comprised in one
session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before
the PXpiry of the sessions immediately following the session
or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in
making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree
that the rule should. not be made, the rule shall thereafter
D have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as
the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the vaiidity of
anything previously done under that rule.
13. Repeal and saving - (1) Subject to the provisions of
E sub-section (2), the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya
Ordinance, 1993, is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the said
Ordinance, -
F (a) the right, title and interest in relation to plot No. 242
situated in village Kot Ramchandra specified against SI. No.
1 of the Schedule to the said Ordinance shalf be deemed
never to have been transferred to, and vested in, the Central
Government;
G (b) any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of the
right, title and interest relating to the said plot No. 242,
pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, shall
be deemed never to have abated and such suit, appeal or
other proceeding (including the orders or interim orders of
H any court thereon) shall be deemed to have been restored to
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 31
the position existing immediately before the A
commencement of the said Ordinance;
(c) any other action taken or thing done under that
Ordinance in relation to the said• plot No. 242 shall be
deemed never to have been taken or done.
B
(3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any
action taken under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to
have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions
of this Act.
THE SCHEDULE c
[See section 2 (a)]
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
xxx xxx xxx" D
At the hearing, it was strenuously urged that the question of fact
referred under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution is vague; the answer to it
is by itself.not decisive of the real controversy since the core question has
not been referred, and it also gives no definite indication of the manner in
which the Central Government intends to act after the Special Reference is E
answered, to settle the dispute. It was urged that the question referred is,
therefore, academic, apart from being vague, and it does not serve any
constitutional purpose to subserve which the advisory jurisdiction of this
Court could be invoked; that the real object and purpose of reference is to
take away a place of worship of the Muslims and give it away to the Hindus F
offending the basic feature of secularism; and that, therefore, we should
decline to answer the Special Reference. The learned Solicitor General who
--- appeared for the Union of India was asked to clarify the stand of the Central
Government on this point. Initially, it was stated by the learned Solicitor
General that the answer to the question would provide the basis for further
negotiations between the diffe~ent groups of settle the controversy and the G
Central Government wou~d then be able to decide the effective course
available to it for resolving the controversy. On being asked to further
clarify the stand of the Central Government about the purpose of the
Special Reference, the learned Solicitor General made a statement in
writing on behalf of the Union of India on 14th September, 1994 as under:- H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A "Government stands by the policy of secularism and of
even-handed treatment of all religious communities. The
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, as well
as the Presidential Reference, have the objective of
maintaining public order and promoting communal
harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the
B people of India.
Goyemment is committed to the construction of a Ram
temple and a mosque, but their actual location will be
determined only after the Supreme Court renders its opinion
in the Presidential Reference.
c
Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on
the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the
Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.
In the light of the Supreme Court's opinion and consistent
D with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the
controversy by a process of negotiations. Govemmeht is
confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will :1ave a
salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they
will no longer take conflicting positions on the factUal issue
settled by the Supreme Court. ·
E
If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not
succeed. Government is committed to enforce a solution in
the light of the Supreme Court's opinion and consistent
with it. Government's action in this regard will be even-
handed in respect of both the communities. If the question
.F referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a
Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of
the demolished structure. Government action will be in
support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the
other hand, the question is answered in the negative,
namely, that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at. the
G relevant time, then Government action will be in support of
the wishes of the Muslim community."
This statement in writing made by the learned Solicitor General on
behalf of the Union of India forms a part of the record and has to be taken .
into account to indicate the purpose for which.the Special Reference under
H Article 143 (l) has been made to this Court. ·
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 33
The dispute and its background are mentioned in paras 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 A
of Chapter II of the White Paper quoted earlier. This is the backdrop in
which the constitutional validity of Act No. 33 of 1993 and the
maintainability of the Special Reference made under Article 143 ( 1) of the
Constitution of India have to be examined.
VALIDITY OF ACT NO. 33 OF 1993 B
Broadly stated, the focus of challenge to the statute as a whole is on the
grounds of secularism, right to equality and right to freedom of religion.
Challenge to the acquisition of the area in excess of the disputed area is in
addition on the ground that the acquisition was unnecessary being unrelated
to the dispute pertaining to the small disputed area within it. A larger C
argument advanced on behalf of some of the parties who have assailed the
Act with considerable vehemence is that a mosque being a place of
religious worship by the Muslims, independently of whether the acquisition
did affect the right to practise religion, is wholly immune from the State's
power of acquisition and the statute is, therefore, unconstitutional as
violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India for this reason D
alone. The others, however, limited this argument of immunity from
acquisition only to places of special significance, forming an essential and
integral part of the right to practise the religion, the acquisition of which
would result in the extinction of the right to freedom of religion itself. It
was also contended that the purpose of acquisition in the present case dose
not bring the statute within the ambit of Entry 42, list III but is referable to E
Entry l, List II and, therefore, the Parliament did not have the competence
to enact the same. It was then urged by learned counsel canvassing the
Muslim interest that the legislatioh is tilted heavily in favour of the Hindu
interests and, therefore, suffers from the vice of non-secularism and
discrimination in addition to violation of the right to freedom of religion of
the Muslim community. It was also urged by them that the Central F
Government, after the Prime Minister's statement made on 7th December,
1992, to rebuild the demolished structure (para 1,22 in Chapter I of the
White Paper) resiled from the same and by incorporating certain provisions
in the statute has sought to perpetuate the injustice done to the Muslim
community by the act of vandalism of demolition of the structure at
Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992. On behalf of the Muslim community, it . G
is urged that the statute read in the context of the content of the question
referred under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, as it must be, is a mere
veiled concealment of a device adopted by the Central Government to
perpetuate the consequences of the demolition of the mosque on 6th
December, 1992. The grievance of the Hindu opponents is that the mischief H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A and acts of vandalism committed by a few are being attributed to the entire
Hindu community the majority of whom is equally hurt by, and critical of,
the shameful act. They urge· that this disapproval by the majority
community is evident from the result of the subsequent elections in which
the Bhartiya Janata Party was rejected at the hustings by the Hindu
majority. They also submit that the fact of demolition of Hindu structures
B like the Ram-chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi which stood since ages in the
disputed site resulting i~ interruption of even the undisputed right of
worship of Hindus within that area is being ignored. It is also contended
that there is no justification for acquisition of any property in excess of the
disputed area and, therefore, the acquisition at least of the excess area
belonging, admittedly, to Hindus is invalid.
c
On behalf of the Central Government, it is urged that in the existing
situation and in view of the wide-spread communal flare-up throughout the
country on account of the events at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, the
most appropriate course, in the opinion of the Central Governinent, was to
make this acquisition along with the Special Reference to decide the
D question which would facilitate a negotiated solution of the problem, and if
it failed, to enable the Central Government to take any other appropriate
action to resolve the controversy and restore communal harmony in the
country. It was made clear that acquisition of the disputed area was not
meant to deprive the community found entitled to it, of the same, or to
retain any part of the excess area which was not necessary for a proper
E resolution of the dispute or to effectuate the purpose of the acquisition, it
was submitteci that an assurance of communal harmony throughout the
country was a prime constitutional purpose and avoidance of escalation of
the dispute in the wake of the incident at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992
was an essential step in that direction, which ·undoubtedly promotes the
creed of secularism instead of impairing it. It was submitted that the charge
~F levelled against the Central Government of discrimination against any
religious community or of anti-secularism is wholly unwarranted.
Another argument advanced on behalf of the Muslim community was
that the defences open to the minority community in the suits filed by the
other side including that of adverse possession by virtue of long possession
G of the disputed site for over 400 years since its construction in 1528 A.D.
have also been extinguished by the acquisition, giving an unfair advantage
to the other side. It was also urged that the core questiein in the dispute
between the parties was not the subject-matter of the Special Reference
made under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution and, therefore, answer to the
H same would not result in a resolution of the dispute between the parties to
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 35
the suits. It was accordingly urged, there is deprivation of the judicial A
remedy for adjudication of the dispute without the substitution of an
alternate dispute resolution mechanism, which is impermissible under the
Constitution.
It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the provisions of the statute
before we deal with the arguments challenging its constitutional validity. B
The Statement of Objects and Reasons says that there is a long-standing
dispute relating to the disputed structure in Ayodhya which led to
communal tension and violence from time to time and ultimately has led to
the destruction of the disputed structure on 6th December, 1992 followed
by wide-spread communal violence resulting in loss of many lives and
destruction of property throughout the country. The said dispute has thus C
affected the maintenance of public order and communal harmony in the
country. Obviously, it is necessary to maintain and promote communal
harmony and fraternity amongst the people of India. With this objective in
view it was considered necessary to acquire the site of the disputed
structure and the requisite adjacent area to be utilised in an appropriate
manner to achieve this object. For this purpose, the Acquisition of Certain D
Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993 was promulgated by the President on 7th
January, 1993 and, simultaneously, on the same day, this Reference was
also made by the President to this Court under Article 143 (1) of the
Constitution. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Acquisition of
Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (No. 33 of 1993) to the same effect,
and Section l (2) provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into E
force on the 7th January, 1993. The provisions of the said Act are now
considered.
Section 3 provides for acquisition of rights in relation to the "area"
defined in Section 2 (a). It says that on and from the commencement of this
Act the right, title and interest in relation to the area shall, by virtue of this F
Act, stand transferred to, and vest in, the Central Government. It is well-
settled that 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 in every
context. In Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [1977] 1
SCR 1072 at page l 081, it was held, G
" .... .Is such a construction of 'vesting' in two different
senses in the same section, sound? Yes. It is, because
'vesting' is a word of slippery import and has many
meanings. The context controls the text and the purpose and
scheme project the particular semantic shade or nuance of H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A meaning. That is why even definition clauses allow
themselves to be modified by contextual compulsions ....."
The meaning of "vest" in Section 3 and in Section 6 is of significance
in the context of the constitutional validity of the statute. It can vary in
different parts of the statute or even the same Section, depending on the
B context of its use. .
Section 4 then provides the general effect of vesting. Obviously, the
effect of vesting will depend on the meaning of the word "vest" used in
Section 3 and the kind of vesting in the present context. Sub-section (i) of
Section 4 provides that the area shall be deemed to include all assets, rights,
c etc. specified therein of whatever nature relating thereto. Sub-section (2)
further says that all properties aforesaid which have vested in the Central
Government under Section 3 shall, by force of such vesting, be freed and
discharged .from all encumbrances affecting them and any attachment,
injunction, decree or order of any court or tribunal or other authority
restricting the use of such properties in any manner or appointing any
D receiver in respect of the whole or any part of the propf:;rty shall cease to
have effect. In other words, the effect of such vesting is to free all
properties aforesaid which have vested in the Central Government under
Section 3 of all encumbrances and the consequence of any order of any
court or tribunal of any kind restricting their user in any manner. Sub-
section (3) of Section 4 provides for abatement of all pending suits and
E legal proceedings. The ·meaning of the word "vest" in Section 3 has a
bearing on the validity of this provision since the consequence of abatement
of suits etc. provided therein is relatable only to absolute vesting of the
. disputed area which is the subject matter of the suits and not to a situation
where the vesting under Section 3 is of a limited nature for a particular
purpose, and is of limited duration till the happening of a future event.
F Section S indicates the.duty of the person or State Government in charge of
the management of the area to deliver all assets etc. to the Central
Government on such vesting. Sub-section (I) empowers the Central
Government to take all necessary steps to secure possession of the area
which is vested in the Central Governinent under Section 3. Sub-section (2)
obliges the person or State Government of Uttar Pradesh, as the case may
G be, in charge of the management of the area immediately before such
vesting to deliver to the Central Government or the authorised person all
assets etc. in their custody relating to such vesting. In short, Section S
provides the consequential action to be taken by the Central Government
with the corresponding obligation of the person or State Government in
charge of the management of the area to deliver possession of the area,
H together with its management, to the Central Government, on such vesting.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 37
Then comes Section 6 which is the last Section in Chapter A
II, to which detailed reference would be made later. At this
stage a general reference to its contents is sufficient. Section
6 contains the power of Central Government to direct
vesting of the area in another authority or body or trust.
Sub-section (l) provides that the Central Government may,
notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 3, 4, 5 and B
7, direct by notification in the Official Gazette, that the
right, title and interest or any of them in relation to the area
or any part thereof, instead of continuing to vest in the
Central Government, vest in that authority or body or
trustees of that trust from the specified date. If it is satisfied C
that the same is willing to comply with such terms and
conditions as the Central Government may think fit to
impose. In short, sub-section (I) empowers the Central
Government to transfer its right, title and interest or any of
them in the area or any part thereof to any authority or other
body or trustees of any trust on such terms and conditions D
as it may think fit... ...... of continuing to retain the same
itself sub-section (2) provides for the consequences of the
action taken under sub-section (I) giving recognition to the
statutory transfer effected by the Central Go.vernment to
effectuate the purpose of such transfer by the Central E
Government by declaring that the transfree would then step
into the shoes of the Central Government acquiring the
same right, title and interest in a area or part thereof which
by virtue of enactment had earlier vested in the Central
Government. Sub-section (2) is another consequence of the
action taken under section (I) and provides that Sections 4, F
5, 7 and 11 far as may be, would apply to such transfree as
they apply in relation to the Central Government. It may
here be recalled that Section 4 relates to the effect of
vesting under Section 3; Section 5 to the duty of the person
or State in charge of the management of the area to deliver
possession etc. to the Central Government or the authorised G
person. Section 7 to the management and the administration
of property by the Central Government on its vesting; and
Section 11 gives protection to action taken in good faith by
the Central Government or the authorised person or any one
acting on its behalfunder this Act. H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Chapter III contains Section 7 alone which would be considered at
length later in view of the serious challenge made to its constitutional
validity. This Section deals with the management and administration of the
property by the Central Government, on its vesting, Sub-section (I)
provides for management of the property vested in the Central Government
under Section 2 by the Central Government or by any authorised person, on
B such vesting, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
contract or instrument or o~der of any court, tribunal or other authority. In
other words, in spite of any contrary provision in any contract of instrument
or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, from the commencement
of this Act, the management of the property vested in the Central
Government under Section 2 shall be by the Central Government or by an
c authorised person, so authorised by the Government its behalf and none
else. This p!'ovision expressly supersedes any earlier provision relating to
the management of the property so vested in the Central Government. Sub-
section (2) then provides for the manner of the management of the property
by the Central Government or the authorised person. It mandates the
Central Government or the authorised person, in managing the property
D vested in the Central Government under Section 3, to ensure that the
position existing before the commencement of this Act "in the area on
which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid, stood" is maintained. This means that the power of
management of the Central Government or the authorised person under
E sub-section (I) of Section 7 is coupled with the duty contained in the
mandate given by sub-section (2). The mandate is that in managing the
property so vested in the Central Government, the Central Government or
the authorised person shall ensure maintenance of the status quo "in the
area on which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-
F Babri Masjid, stood". There was some debate as to the meaning of the word
"area" in this context. One construction suggested was that the word "area"
used in this expression has the same meaning as in the definition contained
in Section ~ (a), that is, the entire area specified in the Schedule to the Act.
Section 2 itself says that the definitions therein give the meaning of the
words defined "unless the context otherwise requires". The context in
G which the word "area" is used in the expression in Section 7 (2) gives the
clear indication that its meaning is not the same as in Section 2 (a) to mean
the entire area specified in the Schedule since the words which follow
qualify its meaning confining it only to the site on which this structure,
commonly known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid stood, which site
or area is undoubtedly smaller and within "the area specified in the
H Schedule."
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 39
Chapter IV contains the miscellaneous provisions. Therein Section 8 A
provides for payment of amount equivalent to the market value of the land,
building, structure or other property by the Central Government for the
transfer to, arid vesting of the property in, the Government under Section 3,
to its owner. Remaining part of Section 8 contains the machinery provisions
for payment of the amount. Section 9 gives the overriding affect of the
provisions of this Act on any other law or decree or order of any court, B
tribunal or other authority. Section l 0 provides for penalties. It says that
any person who is in charge of the management of the area and fails to
deliver to the Central Government or the authorised person the possession
etc. required under this Act shall be punishable in the manner provided.
Section 11 gives protection to the Central Government or the authorised
person or any one acting qn its behalf for anything done or intended to be C
done under this Act in good faith. Section 12 contains the rule making
power of the Central Government to carry out the provisions of this Act and
the manner in which the rules are to be made. Section 13 is the last section ·
of the Act providing for repeal of the earlier Ordinance and savings.
The foregoing is a brief resume of the provisions of Act No. 33 of D
1993, the constitutional validity of which has to be examined in the light of
the grounds of challenge. The meaning of the word "vest" in Section 2 and
the kind of vesting contemplated thereby, the effect of vesting including
abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedings, according to Section
4, the power of Central Government to direct vesting of the area or any part
thereof in another authority or body or trust and its effect according to E
Section 6, and Section 7 providing for management of property by the
Central Government or the authorised person are the provisions of
particular significance for deciding the question of constitutionality. Section
8 also is of some significance in this context.
We may now proceed to consider the merits of the grounds on which F
the Act is assailed as constitutionally invalid.
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE
The legislative competence is traceable to Entry 42. List III and the
State of Uttar Pradesh being U!lder President's rule at the relevant time, the G
legislative competence of the Parliament, in the circumstances, cannot be
doubted. That apart, the pith and substance of the legislation is "acquisition
of property" and that falls squarely within the ambit of Entry 42, List III.
Competing entry set up is Entry l, List II relating to "public order",
"Acquisition of property" and not "public order" is the pith and substance
of the statute. H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. S S.C.R.
A In The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of
Darbhanga and Others, [1952] SCR 889, it was pointed OIJt that where the
·dominant purpose of the Act was that of transference to the State of the
interests of the proprietors and tenure holders of the land, the pith and
substance of the legislation was the transference of ownership to the State
Government and it was an "acquisition" Act. In Deputy Commissioner and
B Collector, Kamrup and Ors. v. Durga Nath Sarma, [1968] I SCR 561,
Bachawat, J. pointed out that a law for permanent acquisition of property is
not a law for promotion of public health etc. since only the taking of
temporary possession of private properties can be regarded as a law for
promotion of public health.
c It is significant to bear· in mind that Entry 42, List III, as it now exists,
was substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act to read as
·under:-
"Acquisition and requisitioning of property."
D
Before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, the relevant entries
read as follows :-
"List I, Entry 33:
Acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purposes of
E the Union.
List II, Entry 36:
Acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the
purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of Entry 42
F of List III.
List III, Entry 42:
Pri'.:ciples on which compensation for property acquired is
G requisitioned for the purposes of the Union or of a State or
for any other public purpos~ is to be determined, and the
fonn and the manner in whiCh such compensation is to be
given."~
By the Amendment so made, Entry 42, List III reads as extracted
H earlier while Entry 22, List I and Entry 26, List II have been omitted. The(
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 41
comprehensive Entry 42 in List III as a result of the Constitution (Seventh A
Amendment) Act leaves no doubt that an acquisition Act of this kind fails
clearly within the ambit of this Entry and therefore, the legislative
competence of the Parliament to enact this legislation cannot be doubted.
This ground of challenge is, therefore, rejected.
SECULARISM, RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND RIGHT TO B
EQUALITY
It would be appropriate now to consider the attack based on secularism
which is a basic feature of the Constitution, with the two attendant rights.
The argument is that the Act read as a whole is anti-secular being slanted in
favour of the Hindu community and against the Muslim minority since it C
seeks to perpetuate demolition of the mosque which scope on the disputed
site instead of providing for the logical just action of rebuilding it,
appropriate in the circumstances. It is urged that Section 4 (3) provides for
abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedings depriving the Muslim
community of its defences including that of adverse possession for over 400
years since 1528 A.D. when the mosque was constructed on that site by Mir D
Baqi, without providing for an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, and
thereby it deprives the Muslim community of the judicial remedy to which
it is entitled in the constitutional scheme under the rule of law. It is urged
that the Special Reference under Section 143 (1) of the Constitution to this
Court by the President of India is· not of the core question, the answer to
which would automatically resolve the dispute but only of a vague and E
hypothetical issue, the answer to which would not help in the resolution of
the dispute as a legal issue. It is also urged that Section 6 enables transfer of
the acquired property including the disputed area to any authority, body or
trust by the Central Government without reference to the real title over the
disputed site. It is further contended that Section 7 perpetuates the mischief
of the demolition of the mosque by directing maintenance of the status quo F
as on 7th January, 1993 which enables the Hindus to exercise the· right of
worship of some kind in the disputed site keeping the Muslims totally
excluded from that area and this discrimination can be perpetuated to any
length of time by the Central Government. The provision in Section 7, it is
urged, has the potential of perpetuating this mischief. Reference was also G
made to Section 8 to suggest that it is meaningless since the question of
ownership over the disputed site remains to be decided and with the
abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedings, there is no mechanism
by which it can be adjudicated. The objection to Section 8 is obviously in
the context of the disputed area over which the title is in dispute and not to
the remaining area specified in the Schedule to the Act, the ownership of H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A which is not disputed. The validity of acquisition is also challenged by
others including those who own some of the acquired properties and in
whose case the title is not. disputed. Their contention is that acquisition of
their property, ti* to which is undisputed, is unnecessary. Parties to the
pending suits which have aba~ed, other than the Sunni Central Wakf Board,
have also challenged the validity of the Act, even though on other grounds.
B Violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 also is alleged on these grounds. This
discussion, therefore, covers these grounds.
For a proper consideration of the challenge based.on the ground of
secularism, it is appropriate to refer to the concept of secularism and the
duty of the courts in construing a statute in this context.
c The polity assured to the people of India by the Constitution is
described in the Preamble wherein the word "secular" was added by the
42nd Amendment. It highlights the fundamental rights guaranteed in
Articles 20 to 26 that the State shall have no religion of its own and all
persons shall be equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right
D freely to profess, practise and propagate religion of their own choice, in
brief, this is the concept of secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution
of India and the way of life adopted by the people of India as their abiding
faith and creed. M.C. Setalvad in Patel Memorial Lectures - 1985, on
Secularism, referring to the Indian concept of secularism, stated thus:
E " .....The coming of the partition emphasised the great
importance of secularism. Notwithstanding the partition, a
large Muslim minority, constituting a tenth of the
population, continued to be the citizens of Independent
India. There were also other important minority groups of
citizens. In the circumstances, a secular constitution for
F independent India, under which all religions could enjoy
equal freedom and 'all citizens equal rights, and which could
weld together into ·one nation the different religious
communities, became inevitable."
(at pages 481-82)
G
" ..... The ideal, therefore, of a secular State in the sense of a
State which treats all religions alike and displays a
benevolent neutrality towards them is in a way more suited
to the Indian environment and climate than that of a truly
secular State."
H (at page 485)
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 43
" ..... Secularism, in the Indian context, must be given the A
widest possible content. It should connote the eradication of
all attitudes and practices derived from or connected with
religion which impede our development and retard our
growth into an integrated nation. A concerted and earnest
endeavour, both by the State and citizen, towards
seculariSation in accordance with this wide concept alone B
lead to the stabilisation of our democratic state and the
establishment of a true and cohesive Indian nationhood."
(at page 488-89)
A reference to the Address of the President of India, Dr. Shanker Dayal C
Sharma, as the then Vice-President of India, on "Secularism in the Indian
· Ethos" while delivering Dr. Zakir Hussain Memorial Lecture of Vishva-
Bharati, Shantiniketan, on 29th April, 1989 is useful. Therein, he referred to
the difference between our understanding of the word "secular" and that in
the West or its dictionary meaning, and said:-
D
"We in India, however, understand secularism to denote
'Sarva Dharma Samabhaav' an approach of tolerance and
understanding of the equality ofall religions."
xxx xxx xxx
"This philosophical approach of understanding, co- E
existence and tolerance is the very spirit of our ancient
thought. ..."
xxx xxx xxx
The Yajurveda states : F
~ 'tl'TT.I~ ~ 'Ff1R wfr~I
~
fil:H416 T.I~ ~ 'Ff1R wfr~ I
~ T.I~ wfr~ll G
(~: ~l-~l)
"May all beings look on me with the eyes of a friend: May I
look on all beings with the eyes of a friend. May we look on
one another with the eyes of a friend." H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A A very significant manifestation of secular outlook is
'contained in the Prithvi Sukta in the Atharva Veda:
This Earth, which accommodates peoples of different
B persuasions and languages, as in a peaceful home - may it
benefit all of us.
"Oh, Mother Earth, give to us, as your children the capacity
to interact harmoniously; may we speak sweetly with one
c another."
And the Rg. Veda emphatically declares:
''~~iifl'Rr:''
D "All human beings are of one race."
Thus a philosophical and ethnological composite is
provided by ancient Indian thought for developing Sarva
Dharma Samabhaav or secular thought and outlook. This
enlightenment is the true nucleus of what is now known as
E Hinduism."
Proceeding further, referring to the impact of other religions
on the Indian ethos, he said:
"Two aspects in.this regard are noteworthy. First, the initial
F appearance of Christianity or Islam or zoroastrianism in
India and their establishment on the mainland did not occur
as a result of military conquest or threat of conquest. 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
G second aspect is even more important: Christianity, Islam
and Zoroastrianism brought with them spiritual and
humanistic thought harmonious and, in fact, identical to the
core ideas of the established religious thought in India as
exemplified by the basic beliefs of Vedic. Vedantic,
H Buddhist and Jain philosophy."
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 45
The influence of saints and holy persons was indicated thus: A
" ..... There was natural interest, therefore, in Islam as a
revealed religion brought forth by a Prophet of profound
charisma who had faced adversities, and in Christianity,
which spread the light of Jesus Christ who had suffered a
terrible crucification for humanity's sake. The Quran B
moreover referred to great souls such as Abraham, Issac,
Ishmael, Jacob, Moses mentioned in the Old Testament of
the Christian faith, and Jesus, Al-Fatiha or Fatiha Tu
Alfatha which is also referred to as Ummul Quran or the
essence of the Quaran refers to 'Allah' as Rab-ul-Alamin or
Lord of the entire universe. It does not confine him to C
Muslims alone. The Second Surah in the Quran, titled "AJ-
Baqurah" gives a warning, which is repeated throughout the
Quran, that it is not mere professing of one's creed, but
righteous conduct, that is true religion. Verses 44, 81 and 82
from this Surah make this absolutely clear."
D
Dr. Sharma also adverted to the contribution made to growth of
secularism by Akbar who founded "Din-e-Ilahi" and the support he was
given by Abdul Rahim Khane Khana in addition to the secularism of Dara
Shikoh. Impact of Muslim mysticism on Hinduism and contribution of
Kabir to the Indian ethos has been lasting. Secular ideals led to formation of E
the Sikh faith and the Gurus have made a lasting contribution to it. He said:
"Guru Gobind Singh further magnified the secular ideal of
the Sikh faith. The following lines composed by Guru
Govind Singh come to mind.
~~mt. ~alt~~. F
"i:Jf.RH~~ -Q:qi ~ • <fil ~~I
~ aM9~, ~ alt¥\R ~.
v;-Q:qim~~. ~mGRTq~1
G
"Mandir or Mosque, Puja or Namaz, Puran or Quran have
no difference. All human beings are equal."
After adverting to the significant role of Mahatma Gandhi
and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan in recent times, Dr. Sharma
concluded: H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. .
A "The Constitution of India specifically articulated the
commitment of secularism on the basis of clear
understanding of the desirable relationships between the.
individual and Religion, between Religion and Religion~
Religion and the State, and the State and the
Individual... ...."
B
xxx xxx xxx
"I shall conclude with a few words, very meaningful made
from a speech by Dr. Zakir Hussain. "We want peace
between the individual and groups within no time. These
c are all vitally interdependance. If the spirit of the Sermon
on the Mount, Buddha's philosophy of compassion, the
Hindu concept of Ahimsa, and the passion of Islam for
obedience to the will of God can combine, then we would
succeed in generating the most potent influence for world
peace."
D
In S.R. Bommai v. Union ofIndia, [1994) 3 SCC 1, a nine-Judge Bench
referred to the concept of "secularism" in the Indian context. Sawant, J.
dealt with this aspect and after referring to the Setalvad Lecture, stated thus:
"As stated above, religious tolerance and equal treatment of
E all religious groups and protection of their life and property
and of the places of their worship are an essential part of
secularism enshrined in our Constitution. We have accepted
the said goal not only because it is our historical legacy and
a need of our national unity and integrity but also as a creed
of universal brotherhood and humanism, it is our cardinal
F faith. Any profession and action which go counter to the
aforesaid creed are a prima facie proof of the conduct in
defiance of the provisions of our Constitution ...."
(at pages 147-48)
G Similarly, K. Ramaswamy, J. in the same decision stated:
" .....Though the concept of "secularism" was not expressly
engrafted while making the Constitution, its sweep,
operation and visibility are apparent from fundamental
rights and directive principles and their related provisions.
H It was made explicit by amending the preamble of the
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VER.f\1A, J.] 47
Constitution 42nd Amendment Act. The concept of A
secularism of which religious freedom is the foremost
appears to visualise not only of the subject of God but also
an understanding between man and man. Secularism in the
Constitution is not anti-God and it is sometimes believed to
be a stay in a free society. Matters which are purely
religious are left personal to the individual and the secular B
part is taken charge by the State on grounds of public
interest, order and general welfare. The State guarantee
individual and corporate religious freedom and dealt with
an individual as citizen irrespective of his faith and
religious belief and does not promote any particular religion
nor prefers one against another. The concept of the secular C
State is, therefore, essential for successful working of the
democratic form of Government. There can be no
democracy if anti-secular forces are allowed to work
dividing followers of different religious faith flying at each
other's throats. The secular Government should negate the
attempt and bring order in the society. Religion in the D
positive sense, is an active instrument to allow the citizen
full development of his person, not merely in the physical
:ind material but in the non-material and non-secular life."
(at page 163)
E
" .... .It would thus be clear that Constitution made
demarcation between religious part personal to the
individual and secular part thereof. The State does not
extend patronage to any particular religion, State is neither
pro particular religion nor anti particular religion, it stands
aloof, in other words maintains neutrality in matters of F
religion and provides equal protection to all religions
subject to regulation and actively !lCts on secular part."
(at page 168)
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. in the same context in the decision stated G
thus:
" ..... While the citizens of this country are free to profess,
practice and propegate such religion, faith or belief as they
choose, so far as the State is concerned, i.e., from the point
of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A is immaterial. To it, all are equal and all are entitled to be
treated equally. How is this equal treatment possible, if the
State were to prefer or promote a particular religion, race or
caste, which necessarily means a less favourable treatment
of all other religions, races and castes. How are the
constitutional promises of social justice, liberty of belief,
B faith or worship and equality of status and of opportunity to
be attained unless the State eschew: the religion, faith or
belief of a person from its consideration altogether while
dealing with him, his rights, his duties and his entitlements?
Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude or religious
tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all
c religions. This attitude is described by some as one of
neutrality towards religion or as one of benevolent
neutrality. This may be a concept evolved by western liberal
thought or it may be, as some say, an abiding faith with the
Indian people at all points of time. That is not material.
D What is material is that it is a constitutional goal and a
basic .feature of the Constitution as affirmed in
Kesavananda Bharati, [1973] 4 SCC 225; (1973] Suppl.
SCR 1 and Indira N. Gandhi v. Raj Narain; [1975] Suppl.
. SCC l: [1976] 2 SCR 847. Any step inconsistent with this
constitutional policy is, in plain words, unconstitutional.
. E This does not mean that the State has no say whatsoever in
matters of religion. Laws can be made regulating the secular
affairs of temples, mosques and other places of worships
and maths. (See S.P. Mittal v. Union ofIndia, [1983] 1 SCC
51; [1983] l SCR 729)."
(emphasis supplied)
F
(at page 233)
Ahmadi, J. while expressing agreement with the views of Sawant,
Ramaswamy and Jeevan Reddy, JJ. stated thus:
G "Notwithstanding the fact that the words 'Socialist' and
'Secular' were added in the Preamble of the Constitution in
1976 by the 42nd Amendment, the concept of secularism
was very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy.
The term 'Secular' has advisedly . not been defined
H presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 49
precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this A
amendment what was implicit was made explicit... ..."
(at page 77)
It is clear from the constitutional scheme that it guarantees equality. in
the matter of religion to all individuals and groups irrespective of their faith B
emphasising that there is no religion of the State itself. The Preamble of the
Constitution read in particular with Articles 25 to 28 emphasises this aspect
and indicates that it is in this manner the concept of secularism embodied in
the constitutional scheme as a creed adopted by the Indian people has to be
understood while examining the constitutional validity of any legislation on
the touchstone of the Constitution. The concept of secularism is one facet of C
the right to equality woven as the central golden thread in the fabric
depicting the pattern of the scheme in our Constitution.
It is useful in this context to refer to some extracts from a paper on
"Law in a Pluralist Society" by M.N. Venkatachaliah, J., as he then was,
(one ofus). Therein, he said: D
"The purpose of law in plural soc1et1es is not the ·
progressive assimilation of the minorities in the majoritarian
milled. This would not solve the problem but would but
would vainly seek to dissolve it. What then is its purpose?
Again in the words of Lord Scarman (Minority Rights in a E
.) .
Plural Society, P. 63):
" ..... The purpose of the law must be not to extinguish the
groups which make the society but to devise political, social
and legal means of preventing them from falling apart and
so destroying the plural society of which they are F
members."
In a pluralist, secular polity law is perhaps the greatest
integrating force. A cultivated respect for law and its
institutions and symbols; a pride in the country's heritage G
and achievements; faith that people live under the
protection of an adequate legal system are indispensable for
sustaining unity in pluralist diversity. Rawlsian pragmatism
of ''justice as fairness" to serve as an 'over-lapping
consensus' and deep seated agreements on fundamental
questions of basic structure of society for deeper social H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A unity is a political conception of justice rather than a
comprehensive moral conception."
xxx xxx xxx
"What are the limitations on laws dealing with issues of
B pluralism? Law should not accentuate the depth of the
cleavage and become in itself a source of aggravation of the
very condition it intends to remedy .... "
xxx xxx xxx
"To those that live in fear and insecurity all the joys and
c bright colours of life are etched away. There is need to
provide a reassurance and a sense of belonging. It is not
enough to say "look here .... I never promised you a rose
garden. I never promised you perfect justice." But perfect
justice may be an unattainable goal. At least it must be a
D tolerable accommodatfon of the conflicting interests of
society. Though there may really be no "Royal road to
attain such accommodations concretely". Bentham alluded
to the pursuit of equality as 'Disappointment-preventing'
principle as the principle of distributive justice and part of
the secUrity~providing principle."
E
Keeping in mind .the trUe concept of secularism, and the role of
judiciary in a pluralist society, as also the duty of the court in interpreting
such a law, we now proceed to consider the submissions with reference to
the provisions of the enactment. ·
F It is necessary to first contrUe the provisions of Act No. 33 of 1993
~ith reference to which the grounds of challenge have to be examined.
The meaning of the word "vest" as earlier stated has different shades
taking colour from the context in which it is used. It does not necessarily
mean absolute .vesting in every situation and is capable of bearing the
G meaning of a limited vesting, being limited, in title as well as duration.
Thus the meaning of "vest" used in Section 3 has to be determined in the
light of the text of the statute and the purpose of its use. If the vesting be
absolute. being unlimited in any manner, there can be no limitation on the
right to transfer or manage the acquired property. In the event of absolute
vesting, there is' no need for a provision enabling the making of transfer
H after acquisition of the property, right to transfer being a necessary incident
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 51
of absolute title. Enactment of Section 6 in the same statute as a part of the A
scheme of acquisition of the property vesting it in the Central Government
is, therefore, contra indication of the vesting under Section 3 in the Central
Government being as an absolute owner without any particular purpose in
view. The right to manage and deal with the property in any manner of an
absolute owner being unrestricted, enactment of Section 7 which introduces
an express limitation on the power of management and administration of B
property comprising the disputed area till the transfer is effected in the
manner indicated in Section 6, is a clear indication of the acquisition of
only a limited and not an absolute title in the disputed property by the
Central Government Sections 6 and 7 read together give a clear indication
that the acquisition of the disputed property by this Act is for a particular
purpose and when the purpo~e is achieved the property has to be transferred C
in the manner provided in Section 6; and the Central Government is obliged
to maintain the status quo as in existence on 7th January, 1993 at the site
where the disputed structure stood, till the time of that transfer. The purpose
to be effectuated is evidently the resolution of the dispute which has defied
the steps taken for its resolution by negotiations earlier. The modes of D
resolution of the dispute contemplated are referrable to, and connected
with, the question referred for the decision of this Court under Article 143
(1) of the Constitution. It is a different matter that the dispute may not be
capable of re.solution merely by answer of the question referred. That is
material for deciding the validity of Section 4 (3) of the Act which brings
about the abatement of all penqing suits and legal proceedings indicating E
that the alte~ate dispute resolution mechanism adopted-· is only the
Reference made under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution.
If th~ Presidential Reference is incapable of satisfying the requirement
of alternate dispute resolution mechanism and, therefore, has the effect of
denying a judicial remedy to the parties to the suit, this itself may have a F
bearing on the constitutional validity of Section 4 (3) of the Act. In that
event Section 4 (2) may be rendered invalid resulting in revival of all
pending suits and legal proceedings sought to be abated by Section 4 (3),
the effect being that any transfer by the Central Government of the acquired
disputed property under Section 6 would be guided and regulated by the
adjudication of the dispute in the. revived suits. This is, of course, subject to G
the severability of Section 4 (3).
It is, therefore, clear that for ascertaining the true meaning of the word
"vest'' used in Section 6 we must first consider the validity of Sections 6
and 7 of the Act on which it largely depends. If Sections 6 and 7 of the Act,
which limit the title of the Central Government cannot be sustained, the H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A limitation read in Section 3 to the title acquired by the Central Government
under the Act through this mode would disappear. For t?is reason, we
proceed to examine the validity of Sections 6 and 7.
Between Sections 6 and 7, it is Section 7 which imposes a greater
restriction on the power of Central Government. It gives the mandate that in
B management of the area over which the disputed structure stood, it has to
maintain status quo as it existed at the time of acquisition on 7th January,
1993. Such a limitation is clearly inconsistent with the acquisition of
absolute ownership of the property. The validity of Section 7 (2) of the Act
must, therefore, be considered.
c Section 7 as we read it, is a transitory provision, intended to maintain
status quo in the disputed area, till transfer of the property is made by the
Central Government on resolution of the dispute. This is to effectuate the
purpose of that transfer and to make it meaningful avoiding any possibility
of frustration of the exercise as a result of any change in the existing
situation in the disputed area during the interregnum. Unless status quo is
D ensured, the final outcome on resolution of the dispute may be frustrated by
any change made in the disputed area which may frustrate the
Implementation of the result in favour of the successful party and render it
meaningless. A direction to maintain status quo in the disputed property is a
well-known method and the usual order made during the pendency of a
dispute for preserving the property and protecting the interest of the true
E owner till the adjudication is made. A change in the existing situation is.
fraught with the danger of prejudicing the rights of the true owner, yet to be
determined. This itself is a clear indication that the exercise made is to find
put the true owner of the disputed area, to maintain status quo therein
during the interregnum and to hand it over to the true owner found entitled
F to it.
The question now is whether the provision in Section 7 containing the
mandate to maintain the status quo existing at the disputed site as on 7th
January, 1993 is a slant in favou; of the Hindu community, intended to
perpetuate an injustice done to the Muslim community by demolition of the
G mosque on 6th December, 1992 and, therefore, it amounts to an anti-secular
or discriminatory act rendering the provision unconstitutional. For this
purpose it is necessary to recall the situation a8 it existed on 7th January,
1993 along with the significant events leading to that situation. It is
necessary to bear in mind the comparative use of the disputed area and the
right of worship practised therein, by the two communities on 7th January,
H 1993 and for a significant period immediately preceding it. A reference to
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 53
the comparative user during that period by the two communities would A
indicate whether the provision in Section 7 directing maintenance of status
quo till resolution of the dispute and the transfer by the Central Government
contemplated by Section 6 is slanted towards the Hindu community to
render the provision violative of the basic feature of secularism or the rights
to equality and freedom of religion.
B
As earlier stated, worship by Hindu devotees of the idols installed on
the Ram chabutra which stood on the disputed site within the courtyard of
the disputed structure had been performed without any objection by the
Muslims even prior to the shifting of those idols from the Ram chabutra
into the disputed structure in· December 1949; in one of the suits filed in
January 1950, the trial court passed interim orders whereby the idols C
remained at the place where they were installed in 1949 and worship of the
idols there by the Hindu devotees continued; this interim order was
confirmed by the High Court in April 1955; the District Judge ordered the
opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum-sanctorum of
the shrine in the disputed structure on 1st February, 1986 and permitted
worship of the idols there to Hindu devotees; and this situation continued D
till demolition of the structure on 6th December, 1992 when Ram chabutra
also was demolished. It was only as a result of the act of demolition on 6th
December, 1992 that the worship by the Hindu devotees in general of the
idols at that place was interrupted. Since the time of demolition, worship of
the idols by a pujari alone is continuing. This is how the right of worship of E
the idols practised by Hindu devotees for a long time from much prior to ·
1949 in the Ram chabutra within the disputed site has been interrupted
since the act of demolition on 6th December, I 992 restricting the worship
of the idols since then to only by one pujari. On the other hand, at least
since December I949, the Muslims have not been offering worship at any
place in the disputed site though, it may turn out at the trial of the suits that F
they had a right to do so.
The communal holocaust unleashed in the country disrupting the
prevailing communal harmony as a result of the demolition of the structure
on 6th December, I992 is well known to require further mention. Any step
taken to arrest escalation of communal tension and to achieve communal G
accord and harmony can, by no stretch of argumentation, be termed non-
secular much less anti-secular or against the concept of secularism - a creed
of the Indian people embedded in the ethos.
The narration of facts indicates that the acquisition of properties under
the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those of H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A the Muslim community. The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over
the disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The
objection of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining
entire property acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed
by the Muslims. A large part thereof comprises of properties of Hindus of
which the title is not even in dispute. The justification given for acquisition
B of the larger area including the property respecting which title is not
disputed is that the same is necessary to ensure that the final outcome of
adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the existence of
properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the disputed structure in
case the Muslims are found entitled to the disputed site. This obviously
means that in the event of the Muslims succeeding in the adjudication of the
c dispute requiring the disputed structure to be handed over to the Muslim
community, the.ir success should not be thwarted by denial of proper
success to, and enjoyment of rights in, the disputed area by exercise of
rights of ownership of Hindu owners or the adjacent properties. Obviously,
I
it is for this reason that the adjacent area has also been acquired to make
available to the successful party, that part of it which is considered
!n necessary, for proper enjoyment of the fruits of success on the final
outcome of the adjudication. It is clear that one of the purposes of the
acquisition of the adjacent properties is the ensurement of the effective
enjoyment of the disputed site by the Mui:;lim community in the event of its
success in the litigation; and acquisition of the adjacent area is incidental to
the main purpose and cannot be termed unreasonable. The "Manas
E Bhawan" and "Sita ki Rasoi", both belonging to the Hindus, are buildings
which closely overlook the disputed site and are acquired because they are
strategic in locations in relation to the disputed area. The necessity of
acquiring adjacent temples or religious buildings in view of their proximity
to the disputed structure area, which forms a unique class by itself, is
permissible. See M Padmanabha Iyengar v. Government of Andhra
F
Pradesh and Ors., AIR (1990) AP 357 and Akhara Shri Braham Bula,
Amritsar v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR (1990) P and H 198. We
approve the principle stated in these decisions since it serves a larger
purpose.
However, at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is
G
needed, for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition, can be
determined, it would not merely be permissible but also desirable that the
superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its
ear Ii.er owner. Th~ challenge to acquisition of any part of the adjacent area
on the ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the objec;:tive of settling
H the dispute relating to the disputed area cannot be examined at this· stage
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 55
but, in case the superfluous area is not returned to its owner even after the A
exact area needed for the purpose is finally determined, it would be open to
the owner of any such property to then challenge the superfluous
acquisition being unrelated to the purpose of acquisition. Rejection of the
challenge on this ground to acquisition at this stage, by the undisputed
owners of any such property situate in the vicinity of the disputed area, is
with the reservation of this liberty to them. There is no contest to their B
claim of quashing the acquisition of the adjacent properties by anyone
except the Central Government which seeks to justify the acquisition on the
basis of necessity. On the construction of the statute made by us, this
appears to be the logical, appropriate and just view to take in respect of
such adjacent properties in which none other than the undisputed owner
claims title and interest. C
It may also be mentioned that even as Ayodhya is said to be of
particular significance to the Hindus as a place of pilgrimage because of the
ancient belief that Lord Rama was born there, the mosque was of
significance for the Muslim community as an ancient mosque built by Mir
Baqi in 1526 A.D. As a mosque, it was a religious place of worship by the D
Muslims. This indicates the comparative significance of the disputed site to
the two communities and also that the impact of acquisition is equally on
the right and interest of the Hindu communify. Mention of this aspect is
made only in the context of the argument that the statute as a whole, not
merely Section 7 thereof, is anti-secular being slanted in favour of the
Hindus and against the Muslims. Section 7 (2) of the Act freezes the E
situation admittedly in existence on 7th January, 1993 which was a lesser
right of worship for the Hindu devotees than that in existence earlier for a
long time till the demolition of the disputed structure on 6th December,
1992; and it does not create a new situation more favourable to the Hindu
community amounting to conferment on them of a larger right of worship F
in the disputed site than that practised till 6th December, 1992.
Maintenance of status quo as on 7th January, 1993 does not, therefore,
confer or have the effect of granting to the Hindu community any further
benefit thereby. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that the persons
responsible for demolition of the mosque on 6th December, 1992 were
some miscrea.11ti; who cannot be identified and equated with the entire G
Hindu community and, therefore, the act of vandalism so perpetrated by the
miscreants cannot be treated as an act of the entire Hindu community for
the purpose of adjudging the constitutionality of the enactment. Strong
reaction against, and condemnation by the Hindus of the demolition of the
structure in general bears eloquent testimony to this fact. Rejection of
Bhartiya Janata Party at the hustings in the subsequent elections in Uttar H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Pradesh is another circumstance to that effect. The miscreants who
demolished the mosque had no reiigion, caste or creed except the character
of a criminal and the mere incident of birth of such a person in any
particular community cannot attach the stigma of his crime to the
community in which he was born.
B Another effect of the freeze imposed by Section 7 (2) of the Act is that
it ensures that there can be nq occasion for the Hindu community to seek to
enlarge the scope of the practice of worship by them as on 7th January,
1993 during the interregnum till the final adjudication on the basis that in
fact a larger right of worship by them was in vogue upto 6th December,
1992. It is difficult to visualise how Section 7 (2) can be construed as a
c slant in favour of the Hindu community and, therefore, anti-secular. The
provi:;;ion does not curtail practice of right of worship of the Muslim
community in the disputed area, where having been de facto no exercise of
the practice or worship by them there at least since December 1949; and it
maintains status quo by the freeze to the reduced right of worship by the
Hindus as in existence on 7th January, 1993. Howeve!", confining exercise
D of the right of worship of the Hindu community to its reduced form within
the disputed area as on 7th January, 1993, lesser than that exercised till the
demolition on 6th December, 1992, by the freeze enacted in Section 7 (2)
appears to be reasonable and just in view of the fact that the miscreants who
demolished the mosque are suspected to be persons professing to practise
E the Hindu religion. The Hindu community must, therefore, bear the cross
on its chest, for the misdeed of the miscreants reasonably suspected to
belong to their religious fold.
This is the proper perspective, we say, in which the statute as a whole
and Section 7 in particular must be viewed. Thus the factual foundation for
F challenge to the statute as a whole and Section 7 (2) in particular on the
ground of secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution, and the rights to
equality and freedom of religion is non-existent.
· Reference may be made to the statements of the Central Government
soon after the demolition on 7th December, 1992 and 27th December, 1992
G ' wherein it ·was said that the mosque would be rebuilt. It was urged that the
action taken on 7th January, 1993 to issue an Ordinance, later replaced by
the Act, and simultaneously to make the Reference to this Court under
Article 143 (I) of the Constitution amounts to resiling from the earlier
statements for the benefit of the Hindu community. It is sufficient to say
that the earlier statements so made cannot limit the power of the Parliament
H and are not material for adjudging the constitutional validity of the
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 57
enactment. The validity of the statute has to be determined on the A
touchstone of the Constitution and not any statements made prior to it. We
have therefore no doubt that Section 7 does not suffer from the infirmity of
being anti-secular or discriminatory to render it unconstitutional.
We would now examine the validity of Section 6. Sub-section (I) of
Section 6 empowers the Central Government to direct vesting of the area B
acquired or any part thereof in another authority or body or trust. This
power extends to the entire acquired area or any part thereof. This is
notwithsta.'lding anything contained in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7. Section 3
provides for acquisition of the area and its vesting in the Central
Government. It is, therefore made clear by sub-section ( l) of Section 6 that
the acquisition of the area and its vesting in the Central Government is not a C
hindrance to the same being vested thereafter by the Central Government in
another authority or body or trust. Section 4 relates to the effect of vesting
and Section 5 to the power of the Central Government to secure possession
of the area vested, with the corresponding obligation of the person or the
State Government in possession thereof to deliver it to the Central
Government or the authorised person. Section 4 (3) relating to abatement of D
pending suits and legal proceedings would be considered separately.
Section 7 which we have already upheld, relates to management and
administration of the property by the Central Government or the authorised
person during the interregnum till the exercise of power by the Central
Government under Section 6 (l ). Section 7 has been construed by us as a
transitory provision to maintain status quo in the disputed area and for E
proper management of the entire property acquired during the interregnum.
Thus, sub-section (l) of Section 6 read with sub-section (2) of Section 7 is
an in-built indication in the statute of the intent that acquisition of the
disputed area and its vesting in the Central Government is not absolute but
for the purpose of its subsequent transfer to the person found entitled to it
as a result of adjudication of the dispute for the resolution of which this step F
was taken, and enactment of the statute is part of that exercise. Making of
the Reference under Article 143 (I) simultaneously with the issuance of
Ordinance, later replaced by the Act, on the same day also is an indication
of the legislative intent that the acquisition of the disputed area was not
meant to be absolute but iimited to holding it as a statutory receiver till G
resolution of the dispute; and then to transfer it in accordance with, and in
terms of the final determination made in the mechanism adopted for
resolution of the dispute. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 indicates
consequence of the action taken under sub-section ( l) by providing that as a
result of the action taken under sub-section (l ), any right, title and interest
in relation to the area or part thereof would be deemed to have become H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. S S.C.R.
A those of the transferee. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 enacts that the
provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7 and I I shall, so far as may be, apply in
relation to such authority or body or trustees as they apply in relation to the
Central Government. The expression "so far as may be" is indicative of the
fact that all or any of these provisions may or may not be applicable to the
transferee under sub-section (1 ). This provides for the situation of transfer
B being made, ifnecessary, at any stage and of any part of the property, since
Section 7 (2) is applicable only to the disputed area. The provision however
does not countenance the dispute remaining unresolved or the situation
continuing perpetually. The embargo on transfer till adjudication, and in
terms thereof, to be read in Section 6 (I), relates only to the disputed area,
while transfer of any part of, the excess area, retention of which till
c adjudication of the dispute relating to the disputed area may not be
necessary, is not inhibited till then, since the acquisition of the excess area
is absolute subject to the duty to restore it to the owner if its retention is
found, to be unnecessary, as indicated. The meaning of the word "vest" in
Sections 3 and 6 has to be so construed differently in relation to the
disputed area and the excess area in its vicinity.
D
Acquisition of the adjacent undisputed area belonging to Hindus has
been attacked on the ground that it was unnecessar}' since ownership of the
same is undisputed. Reason for acquisition of the larger area adjacent to the
disputed area has been indicated. It is, therefore, not unrelated to the
resolution of the dispute which is the reason for the entire acquisition. Even
E though, prima facie, the acquisition of the adjacent area in respect of which
there is no dispute of title and which belongs to Hindus may appear to be a
slant against the Hindus, yet on close scrutiny it is not so since it is for the
larger national purpose of maintaining and promoting communal harmony
and in consonance with the creed of secularism. Once it is found that it is
permissible to acquire an area in excess of the disputed area alone, adjacent
F to it, to effectuate the purpose of acquisition '•f :he disputed area a""!•l to
implement the outcome of the final adjudica.;011 bttween the parties to
ensure that in the event of success Clf the Muslim c ;rnmunity in the a1tpute
their success remains meaningful, the extent of adjacent area considered
necessary is in the domain of policy and not a matter for judicial scrJtiny .or--
a ground for testing the constitutional validity of the enactment, as earlier
G
indicated. However, it is with the caveat of the Central Government's duty
to restore it to its owner, as indicated earlier, if it is found later to be
unnecessary; and reservation of liberty to the owner to challenge the
needless acquisition when the total need has been determined.
H We find no infirmity in Section 6 also to render it unconstitutional.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 59
The status of the Central Government as a result of vesting by virtue of A
Section 3 of the Act is, therefore, of a statutory receiver in relation to the
disputed area, coupled with a duty to manage and administer the disputed
area maintaining status quo therein till the final outcome of adjudication of
the long-standing dispute relating to the disputed structure at Ayodhya.
Vesting in the Central Government of the area in excess of the disputed
area, is, however, absolute. The meaning of "vest" has these different B
shades in Sections 3 and 6 in relation to the two parts of the entire area
acquired by the Act.
The question now is of the mode of adjudication of the dispute, on the
final outcome of which the action contemplated by Section 6 (1) of the Act
of effecting transfer of the; disputed area has to be made by the Central C
Government.
Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides for abatement of all pending suits
and legal proceedings in respect of the right, title and interest relating to
any property which has vested in the Central Government under Section 2.
The rival claims to the disputed area which were to be adjudicated in the D
pending suits can no longer be determined therein as a result of the
abatement of the suits. This also results in extinction of the several defences
raised by the Muslim community including that of adverse possession of
the disputed area for over 400 years since construction of the mosque there
in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi. Ostensibly, the alternate dispute resolution E
mechanism adopted is that of a simultaneous Reference made the same day
under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution to this Court for decision of the
question referred. It is clear from the issues framed in those suits that the
core question for determination in the suits is not covered by the Reference
made, and it also does not include therein the defences raised by the
Muslim community. It is also clear that the answer to the question referred, F
whatever it may be, will not lead to the answer of the core question for
determination in the pending suits and it will not, by itself, resolve the long-
standing dispute relating to the disputed area. Reference made under Article
143 (1) cannot, therefore, be treated as an effective alternate dispute
resolution mechanism in substitution of the pending suits which are abated G
by Section 4 (3) of the Act. For'this reason, it was urged, that the abatement
of pending suits amounts to denial of the judicial remedy available to the
Muslim community for resolution of the dispute and grant of the relief on
that basis in accordance with the scheme of redress under the rule of law
envisaged by the Constitution. The validity of sub-section (5) of Section 4
is assailed on this ground. H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A To appreciate the stand of the Central Government on this point, we
permitted the learned Solicitor General to make a categori~al statement for
the Union of India in this behalf. The final statement made by the learned
Solicitor General of India in writing dated 14.9.1994 forming a part of the
record, almost at the conclusion of the hearing, also does not indicate that
the answer to the question referred would itself be decisive of the core
B question in controversy between the parties to the suits relating to the claim
over the disputed site. According to the statement, the Central Government
proposes to resort to a process of negotiation between the rival claimants
after getting the answer to the question referred, and if the negotiations fail,
then to adopt such course as it may find appropriate .in the circumstances.
There can be no doubt, in these circumstances, that the Special Reference
c made under Article 143 (l) of the Constitution cannot be construed as an
effective alternate dispute resolution mechanism to permit substitution of
the pending suits and legal proceedings by the mode adopted of making this
Reference. In our opinion, this fact alone is sufficient to invalidate sub-
section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. See Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi/Shri Raj
Narain v. Shri Raj Narain/Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, [1975] Supp. SCC I.
D We accordingly declare sub-sectiop. (3) of Section 4 to be unconstitutional.
However, sub-section (3) of Section 4 is severable, and, therefore, its
invalidity is not an impediment to the remaining statute being upheld as
valid.
There is no serious challenge to the validity of any other provision of
E the Act except a feeable attack on Section 8. For Section 8, it was urged,
that performance of the exercise of payment of compensation thereunder
would be impractical in respect of the property of which ownership is in
dispute. This argument itself does not visualise any such difficulty in
respect of the remaining undisputed property. In the view we have taken
that the vesting in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3 in relation
F to the disputed are i!i or.ly as a statutory receiver, and Section 4 (3) being
declared invalid results in revival of the pending suits and legal
proceedings, the application of Section 8 would present no difficulty.
Section 8 is meant only for the property acquired absolutely, other than the
disputed area, being adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the disputed area.
G The disputed area being taken over the Central Government only as a
statutory receiver, there is no question of payment of compensation for the
same as it is meant to be handed over to the successful party in the suits, in
terms of the ultimate judicial verdict therein, for the faithful implementation
of the judicial decision. The exercise of the power under Section 8 by the
Central Government is to be made only then in respect of the disputed area,
H in accordance with the final judicial decision, preserving status quo therein
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 61
in terms of Section 7 (2) till then. No further discussion of this aspect is A
necessary.
A construction which the language of the statute can bear and promotes
a larger national purpose must be preferred to a strict literal construction
tending to promote factionalism and discord.
B
MOSQUE - IMMUNITY FROM ACQUISITION
A larger question raised at the hearing was that there is no power in the
State to acquire any mosque, irrespective of its significance to practice of
the religion of Islam. The argument is that a mosque, even if it is of no
particular significance to the practice of religion of Islam, cannot be C
acquired because of the special status of a mosque in Mahomedan Law.
This argument was not confined to a inosque of particular significance
without which right to practise the religion is not conceivable because it
may form an essential and integral part of the practice of Islam. In the view
that we have taken of limited vesting in the Central Government as a
statutory receiver of the disputed area in which the mosque stood, for the D
purpose of handing it over to the party found entitled to it, and requiring it
to maintain status quo therein till then, this question may not be of any
practical significance since there is no absolute divesting of the true owner
of that property. We may observe that the proposition advanced does
appear to us to be too broad for acceptance inasmuch as it would restrict the
sovereign power of acquisition even where such acquisition is essential for E
an undoubted national purpose, if the mosque happens to be located in the
property acquired as an ordinary place of worship without any particular
significance attached to it for the practice of Islam as a religion. It would
also lead to the strange result that in secular India there would be
discrimination against the religions, other than Islam. In view of the
vehemence with which this argument was advanced by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan F
and Shri Abdul Hannan to contend that the acquisition is invalid for this
reason alone, it is necessary for us to decide this question.
It has been contended that acquisition of a mosque violates the right
given under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. This requires
reference to ·the status of a mosque under the Mahomedan Law. G
Even prior to the Constitution, places of worship had enjoyed a special
sanctity in India. In order to give special protection to places of worship
and to prevent hurting the religious sentiments of followers of different
religious in British India, Chapter XV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
enacted. This Chapter exclusively deals with the offences relating to H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A religion in Sections 295, 295A, 296, 297 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code.
Lord Macaulay in drafting the Indian Penal Code, had indicated the
principle on which it was desirable for all governments to act and the
British Government in India could not depart from it without risking the
disintegration of society. The danger of ignoring the religious sentiments of
the people of India which could lead to spread of dissatisfaction throughout
B the country was also indicated.
In British India, the right to worship of Muslims in a mosque and
Hindus in a temple had always been recognised as a civil right. Prior to
1950, the Indian Courts in British India had maintained the balance
between the different communities or sects in· respect of their right of
C worship.
Even prior to the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Constitution
of India. Chief Justice Turner in Muthialu Chetti and Ors. v. Bapun Saib,
ILR 2 Madras 140, had held that during the British Administration all
religions were to be treated equally with the State maintaining neutrality
D having regard to public welfare. In Sundram Chetti and Ors. v. The Queen,
ILR 6 Madras 203 (FB) approving ILR 2 Madras 140, Chief Justice Turner
said: · ·
" ...But with reference to these and to other privileges
claimed on the 'ground of caste or creed, I may observe that
'' E they had their origin in times when a State religion
influenced the public and private law of the counay, and are
hardly compatible with the principles which regulate British
administration, the equal rights of all citizens and the
complete neutrality of the State in matters of
religion .....Whefi anarchy or absolutism yield piace to well
F ordered liberty, change there must be, but change in ·a
direction · which should command the assent of the
intelligence of the country."
(at page 217)
G In Mosque known as Masjid Shahid Ganj and Others v. Shiromcni
Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee, Amritsar, AIR (1938) Lahore 369, it
was held that where .a mosque has been adversely possessed by non-
Muslims, it lost its sacred character as mosque. Hence, the view that once a
constructed mosque, it remains always a place of worship as a mosque was
not the Mahomedan Law of India as approved by Indian Courts. It was
H further held by the majority that a mo.>que in India was an immovable
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. (J.S. VERMA, J.] 63
property and the right of worship at a particular place is lost when the right A
to property on which it stands is lost by adverse possession. The conclusion
reached in the minority judgment of Din Mohd., J. is not the Maholtledan
Law of British India. The majority view expressed by the learned Chief
Justice of Lahore High Court was approved by the Privy Council in AIR
(1940) PC 116, in t~ appeal against the said decision of the Lahore High
Court. The Privy Council held : B
" .... .It is impossible to read into the modem Limitation Acts
any exception for property made wakf for the purposes of
mosque whether the purpose be merely to provide money
for the upkeep and conduct of a mosque or to provide a site
and building for the purpose. While their Lordships have C
every sympathy with the religious sentiment which would
ascribe sanctity and inviolability to a place of worship, they
cannot under the Limitation Act accept the contentions that
such a building cannot be possessed adversely to the wakf,
or that it is not so possessed so long as it is .referred to as
"mosque" or unless the building is razed to the ground or D
loses the appearance which reveals its original purpose."
(at page 121)
It may also be indicated that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is
applicable uniformly to all properties including places of worship. Right of E
acquisition thereunder was guided by the express provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and executive instructions were issued to regulate
acquisition of places of worship. Clause l 02 of the Manual of Land
Acquisition of the State of Maharashtra which deals with the acquisition of
religious places like churches, temples and mosques, is of significance in
this context. F
The power of acquisition is the sovereign or prerogative power of the
State to acquire property. Such power exists independent of Article 300A of
the Constitution or the earlier Article 31 of the Constitution which merely
indicate the limitations on the power of acquisition by the State. The
Supreme Court from the beginning has consistently upheld the sovereign G
power of the State to acquire property. B.K. Mukherjee, J. (as he then was)
held in Chiranjitla/ Chowdhuri v. The Union of India and Others, (1950]
SCR 869 at pages 901-902 as under:
"It is a right inherent in every sovereign to take and
appropriate private property belonging to individual citizens H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A for public use. This right, which is described as eminent
domain in American law, is like the power of taxation, an
offspring of political necessity, and it is supposed to be
based upon an implied reservation by Government that
private property· acquired by its citizens under its protection
may be taken or its use controlled for public benefit
B irrespective of the wishes of the owner.... "
Patanjali Sastri, C.J., in the State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose
and others., (1954] SCR 587 at page 605 held as under:
" .... and among such powers was included the power of
C "acquisition or requisitiohing of property" for Union and
State purposes in entry No. 33 of List I and No. 36 of List II
respectively. Thus, what is called the power of eminent
domain, which is assumed to be inherent in the sovereigncy
of the State according to Continental and American jurists
and is accordingly not expressly provided for in the
D American Constitution, is made the subject of an express
grant in our Constitution ..... "
It appears from various decisions rendered by this Court, referred later,
that subject to the protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution,
places of religious worship like mosques,. churches, temples etc. can be
E acquired under the State's sovereign power of acquisition. Such acquisition
per se does not violate either Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution ..
The decisions relating to taking over of the management have no bearing on
the sovereign power of the State to acquire property.
Khajamian Wakf Estates etc. v. State of Madras and Another, (1971] 2
F SCR 791 at page 797, has held: ·
"It . was next urged that by acqumng the properties
belonging to religious denominations the legislature
violated Art. 26 (c) and (d) which provide that religious
denominations shall have the right to own and acquire
G movable · and immovable property and administer such j,
property in accordance with law. These provisions. do not
take away the right of the State to acquire property
l
l
belonging to religious denominations. Those denominations
can own or acquire properties and ~dminister them in
accordance with law. That does not mean that the property
H owned by them cannot. be acquired. As a result of
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 65
acquisition they cease to own that property. Thereafter their A
right to administer that property ceases because it is no
longer their property. Article 26 does not interfere with the
right of the State tc acquire property."
Acharaya Maharajshri Narandra Prasadji Anand Prasadji Maharaj
etc. etc. v. The State ofGujarat and others, (1975] 2 SCR 317 at pages 327- B
328, has held :
" .....One thing is, however, clear that Article 26 guarantees
inter alia the right to own and acquire movable and
immovable property for managing religious affairs. This
right, however, cannot take away the right of the State to C
compulsorily acquire property ......if, on the other hand,
acquisition of property of a religious denomination by the
State can be proved to be such as to destroy or completely
negative its right to own and acquire movable and
immovable property for even the survival of a religious
institution the question may have to be examined in a D
different light. "
(emphasis supplied)
It may be noticed that Article 25 does not contain any reference to
property unlike Article 26 of the Constitution. The right to practise, profess E
and propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution does
not necessarily include the right to acquire or own or possess property.
Similarly this right does not extend to the right of worship at any and every
place of worship so that any hindrance to worship at a particular place per
se may infringe the religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution. The protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the F
Constitution is to religious practice which forms an essential and integral
part of the religion. A practice may be a religious practice but not an
essential and integral part of practice of that religion.
While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, its offering at G
every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential
or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular
significance for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part
thereof. Places of worship of any religion having particular significance for
that religion, to make it an essential or iniegral part of the religion, stand on
a different footing and have to be treated differently and more reverentially. H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A A five-Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Raja
Suryapalsingh others v. The U.P. Govt., AIR(l951) All. 674, held:
"Arguments have been advanced by learned counsel on
behalf of certain waqfs and Hindu religious institutions
based on Articles 25 (1) and 26, cl.(c) of the Constitution .....
B
It is said that a mutawalli's right to profess his religion is
infringed if the waqf property is compulsorily acquired, but
the acquisition of that property under Article 31 (to which
the right conferred by Article 25 is expressly subject) has
nothing to do with such rights and in no way interferes with
c this exercise."
(at page 690)
It has been contended that a mosque enjoys particular position in
Muslim Law and once a mosque established and prayers are offered in such
a mosque the same remains for all time to come a property of Allah and the
D same never reverts back to the donor or founder of the mosque and any
person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque and even
if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where the Namaz .
can ·be offered. As indicated hereinbefore, in British India, no such
protection was given ·to a mosque and the mosque was subjected to the
provisions of statute of limitation thereby extinguishing the right of
E
Muslims to offer prayers in a particular mosque lost by adverse possession
over that property.
Section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act comprehends the categories
of properties known to Indian Law. Article 387 of the Constitution adopts
this secular ccincept of property for purposes of our Constitution. A temple,
F
church or mosque etc. are essentially immovable properties and subject to
protection under Articles 25 and 26. Every immovable property is liable to
be acquired. Viewed in the proper perspective, a mosque does not enjoy
any additional protection which is not available to religious places ·of
worship of other religions.
G
The correct position may be summarised thus, under the Mahomedan
Law applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession.
(See Mulla's Principles ofMahomedan Law, ~9th Edn. by.M. Hidaytullah -
Sec. 217: and AIR ( 1940) PC 116). If that is the position in law, there can
be no reason to hold that a mosque has a unique or special status, higher
H than that of the places of worship of other religions in secular India to make
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 67
it immune from acquisition by exercise of the sovereign or prerogative A
power of the State. A mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the
religion of Islam and Namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere,
even in open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the
provisions in the Constitution of India. Irrespective of the status of a
mosque in an Islamic country for the purpose of immunity from acquisition
by the State in exercise of the sovereign power, its status and immunity B
from acquisition in the secular ethos of India under the Constitution is the
same and equal to that of the places of worship of the other religions,
namely church, temple etc. It is neither more nor less than that of the places
of worship of the other religions. Obviously, the acquisition of any religious
place is to be made only in unusual and extraordinary situations for a larger
national purpose keeping ii:t view that such acquisition should not result in C
extinction of the right to practise the religion, if the significance of that
place be such. Subject to this condition, the power of acquisition is
available for a mosque like any other place of worship of any religion. The
right to worship is not at any and every place, so long as it can be practised
effectively, unless the right to worship at a particular place is itself an D
integral part of that right.
MAINTAINABILITY OF THE REFERENCE
in the view that we have taken on the question of validity of the statute
- (Act No. 33of1993) and as a result of upholding the validity of the entire
statute, except Section 4 (3) thereof, resulting in revival of the pending suits E
and legal proceedings wherein the dispute between the parties has to be
adjudicated, the Reference made under Article 143 (I) becomes superfluous
and unn~cessary. For this reason, it is unnecessary for us to examine the
merits of the submissions made on the maintainability of this Reference.
We accordingly, very respectfully decline to answer the Reference and F
return the same.
RESULT
The result is that all the pending suits and legal proceedings stand
revived, and they shall be proce~ded with, and decided, in accordance with G
law. It follows further as a result of the remaining enactment being upheld
as valid that the disputed area has vested in the Central Government as a
statutory receiver with a duty to manage and administer it in the manner
provided in the Act maintaining status quo therein by virtue of the freeu
enacted in Section 7 (2); and the Central Government would exercise its
power of vesting that property further in another authority or body or trust H.
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A in accordance with Section 6 (1) of the Act in terms of the final
adjudication in the pending suits. The power of the courts in the pending
legal proceedings to give directions to the Central Government as a
statutory receiver would be circumscribed and limited to the extent of the
area left open by the provisions of the Act. The Central Government would
be bound to take all necessary steps to implement the decision in the suits
B and other legal proceedings and to hand over the disputed area to the party
found entitled to the same on the final adjudication made in the suits. The
parties to the suits would be entitled to amend their pleadings suitably in the
light of our decision.
Before we end, we would like to indicate the consequence if the entire
C Act had been held to be invalid then we had declined to answer the
Reference on that conclusion. It would then result in revival of the abated
wits along with all the interim orders made therein. It would also then result
automatically in revival of the worship of the idols· by Hindu devotees,
which too has been stopped from December 1992, with all its ramificance
without granting any benefit to the Muslim community whose practice of
D worship in the mosque (demolished on 6th December, 1992) had come to a
stop, for whatever reason, since at least December 1949. This situation,
unless altered subsequently by any court order in the revived suits, would,
therefore, continue during the pendency of the litigation. This result could
be no solace to the Muslims whose feelings of hurt as a result of the
demolition of mosque, must be assuaged in the manner best possible
E
without giving cause for any legitimate grievance to the other community
leading to the possibility of reigniting communal passions detrimental to the
spirit of communal harmony in· a secular state.
The best solution in the circumstances, on revival of suits is, therefore,
to maintain status quo as on 7th January, 1993 when the law came into
F
force modifying the interim orders. in the suits to that extent by curtailing
the practice of worship by Hindus in the disputed area to the extent it stands
reduced under the Act instead of conferring on them the larger right
available under the c.ourt orders till intervention was made by legislation.
G Section 7 (2) achieves this purpose by freezing the interim arrangement
for worship by Hindu devotees reduced to this extent and curtails the larger
right they enjoyed under the court orders, ensuring that it cannot be
enlarged till final adjudication of the dispute and consequent transfer of the
disputed area to the party round entitled to the same. This being the purpose
,and true effect of Section i (2), it promotes and strengthens the
H commitment of the nation to secularism instead of negating it. To hold this
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 69
provision as anti-secular and slanted in favour of the Hindu community A
would be to frustrate an attempt to thwart anti-secularism and unwittingly
support the forces which were responsible for the events of 6th December,
1992.
GENERAL
B
Some general remarks are appropriate in the context. We must place on
record our appreciation and gratitude to the learned members of the Bar
who assisted us at the hearing of this matter of extraordinary and unusual
importance to the national ethos. The learned Attorney General, the learned
Solicitor General, the learned Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh, the
learned Advocate General of Rajasthan, Shri F.B. Nariman, Shri Soli J. C
Sorabjee, Late Shri R.K. Garg, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Shri Anil B. Divan,
Shri Satish Chandra, Shri P.P. Rao, Shri Abdul Mannan, Shri O.P.Shanna,
Shri S.N. Mehta, Shri P.N.Duda, Shri V.M. Tarkunde, Shri Ashok H. Desai,
Shri Shakil Ahmed Syed, Ms. N. Bhagat and the other learned counsel who
assisted them rendered ·their valuable assistance with great zeal after
considerable industry in the highest traditions of the Bar. Shri Deoki D
Nandan Agarwal, one of the parties in a suit as the next friend of the Deity
appeared in person and argued with complete detachment. Dr. M. Ismail
Faruqui also appeared in person, it was particularly heartening to find that
the cause of the Muslim community was forcefully advocated essentially by
the members of the Bar belonging to other communities. Their commitment E
to the cause is evident from the fact that Shri Abdul Mannan who appeared
for the Sunni Central Wakf Board endorsed the arguments on behalf of the
Muslim community. The reciprocal gesture of Shri Mannan was equally
heartening and indicative of mutual trust. The congenial atmosphere in
which the entire hearing took place was a true manifestation of secularism
in practice. F
The hearing left us wondering why the dispute cannot be resolved in
the same manner and in the same spirit in which the matter was argued,
particularly when some of the participants are common and are in a position
to negotiate and resolve the dispute. We do hope this hearing has been the
commencement of that process which will ensure an amicable resolution of G
the dispute and it will not end with hearing of this matter. This is a matter
suited essentially to requisition by negotiations which does not end in a
winner and a loser while adjudication leads to that end. It is in the national
interest that there is no loser at the end of the process adopted for resolution
of the dispute so that the final outcome does not leave behind any randour
in anyone. This can be achieved by a negotiated solution on the basis of H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A which a decree can be obtained in terms of such solution in these suits.
Unless a solution is found which leaves everyone happy, that cannot be the
beginning for continued harmony between "we the people of India."
In 1993 World's Parliament of Religions was held in Chicago. The
Chairman of the Parliament John Henry Barrows indicated its object and
B observed. "It was felt to be wise and advantageous that the religions of the
world, which are competing at so many points in all the continents, should
be brought together not for contention but for loving conference, in one
room." In the Parliament Swami Vivekananda spoke of 'Hinduism as the
religion that has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance'
and described the diversity of religions as "the same light coming through
c different colours." The assembly recited the Lord's Prayer as a universal
prayer and Rabbi Emli Hirsch proclaimed "The day of national religions is
past. The God of the universe appease of all mankind". At the closing
session Chicago lawyer Charles Bonney, one of the Parliament's Chief
visionaries, declared, "Henceforth the religions of the world will make war,
not on each other, but on the giant evils that afflict mankind." Have we,
D during the last century, moved towards the professed goal?
"As 1993 began, communal violence returned to India, sparked by the
Controversy over a 16th century mosque said to stand on the ruins of an
ancient Hindu temple honouring Lord Rama." It may be said that
'fundamentalism and pluralism pose the two challenges that people of all
E religious traditions face' and "to the fundamentalists, the borders of
religious certainty are tightly guarded; to the pluralist, the borders are good
fences where one meets the neighbour. To many fundamentalists,
secularism, seen as the denial of religious claims, is the enemy; to pluralists,
secularism, seen as the separation of government from the domination of a
single religion, is the essential concomitant of religious diversity and the
F
protection of religious freedom." The present state may be summarised
thus: "At present, the greatest religious tensions are not those between any
one religion and another; they are the tensions between the fundamentalist
and the pluralist in each and every religious tradition." The spirit of
universalism popular in the late 19th century was depicted by Max Muller
G who said, "The living kernel of religion can be found. I believe in almost
every creed, however much the husk may vary. And think what that means.
It means that above and beneath and behind all religions there is one
eternal, one universal religion."
The year 1993 has been described as the "Year of Inter-religious
H Understanding and Co-operation." Is that century old spirit of conciliation
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 71
and co-operation reflected in reactions of the protagonists of different A ·
religious faiths to justify 1993 being called the "Year of Inter-religious
Understanding and Co-operation"? ("Reflections on Religious Diversity"
by Diana L. BCK in SPAN - September 1994). It is this hope which has to
be realised in the future.
A neutral perception of the requirement for communal harmony is to B
be found in the Baha'i faith. In a booklet, "Communal Harmony - India's
Greatest Challenge," forming part of the Baha'i literature, it is stated thus:
" ..... The spirit of tolerance and assimilation are the hall
marks of this civilisation. Never has the question of
communal harmony and social integration raised such a C
wide range of emotions as today ...."
xxx xxx xxx
"Fear, suspicion and hatred are the fuel which feed the
flame of communal disharmony and conflict. Though the D-.
Indian masses would prefer harmony between various
communities, it cannot be established through the
accommodation 'separate but equal', nor through the
submergence of minority culture into majority culture -
whatever that may be ....."
E
"Lasting harmony between heterogeneous communities can
only come through a recognition of the oneness of mankind,
a realization that differences that divide us along ethnic and
religious lines have no foundation. Just as there are no
boundaries drawn on the earth of separate nations, F
distinctions of social, economic, ethnic and religious
identity imposed by peoples are artificial; they have only
benefitted those with vested interests. On the other hand,
naturally occurring diverse regions of the planet or the
country, such as mountain and plains, each have unique
benefits. The diversity created by God has infinite value, G
while distinctions imposed by man have no substance."
We _conclude with the fervent hope that communal harmony, peace and
tranquility would soon descend in the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Father of
the Nation, whose favourite bhajan (hymn) was - H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A ''t JS'{ ~ 'ij{ -;in:r,
~~~~I"
"Ishwar and Allah are both your names,
Oh God! Grant this wisdom to all."
B We do hope that the people of India would remember the gospel he
preached and practised, and live up to his ideals. "Better late than never."
CONCLUSION
As a result of the above discussion, our conclusions, to be read with the
C discussion are as follows:-
(1) (a) Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act abates all pending suits
and legal proceedings without providing for an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism for resolution of the dispute between the parties
thereto. This is an extinction of the judicial remedy for resolution of the
D dispute amounting to negation of rule of law. Sub-section (3) of Section 4
of the Act is, therefore, unconstitutional ~md invalid.
(I) (b) The remaining provisions of the Act do not suffer ·from any
invalidity on the construction made thereof by us. Sub-section (3) of
Section 4 of the Act is severable from the remaining Act. Accordingly, the
E challenge to the constitutional validity of the remaining Act, except for sub-
section(~) of Section 4 is rejected.
(2) Irrespective of the status of a mosque under the Muslim law
applicable in the Islamic countries, the status of a mosque under the
Mahomedan Law applicable in secular India is the same and equal to that of
F any other place of worship of any religion and it does not enjoy any greater
immunity from acquisition in exercise of the sovereign or prerogative
power of the State, than that of the places of worship of the other religions.
(3) The pending suits and other proceedings relating to the disputed
area within which the structure (including the premises of the inner and
G outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janma
Bhumi-Babri Masjid stood, stand revived for adjudication of the dispute
therein, together with the interim orders made, except to the extent the
interim orders stand modified by the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
(4) The vesting of the said disputed area in the Central Government by
H virtue of Section 3 of the Act is limited, as a statutory receiver, with the
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [J.S. VERMA, J.] 73
duty for its management and administration according to Section 7 A
requiring maintenance of status quo therein under sub-section (2) of
Section 7 of the Act. The duty of the Central Government as the statutory
receiver is to hand over the disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of
the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for implementation of
the final decision therein. This is the purpose for which the disputed area
has been so acquired. B
( 5) The power of the courts in making further interim orders in the
suits is limited to, and circumscribed by, the area outside the ambit of the
Section 7 of the Act.
(6) The vesting of the adjacent area, other than the disputed area C
acquired by the Act in the Central Government by virtue of Section 3 of the
Act is absolute with the power of management and administration thereof in
accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, till its further
vesting in any authority or other body or trustees of any trust in accordance
with Section 6 of the Act. The further vesting of the adjacent area, other
than the disputed area, in accordance with Section 6 of the Act has to be D
made at the time and in the manner indicated, in view of the purpose of its
acquisition.
(7) The meaning of the word "vest" in Section 3 and Section 6 of the
Act has to be so understood in the different contexts.
E
(8) Section 8 of the Act is meant for payment of compensation to
owners of the property vesting absolutely in the Central Government, the
title to which is not in dispute being in excess of the disputed area which
alone is the subject matter of the revived suits. It does not apply to the
disputed area, title to which has to be adjudicated in the suits and in respect
of which the Central Government is merely the statutory receiver as F
indicated, with the duty to restore it to the owner in terms of the
adjudication made in the suits.
(9) The challenge to acquisition of any part of the adjacent area on the
ground that it is unnecessary for achieving the professed objective of
settling the long-standing dispute cannot be examined at this stage. G
However, the area found to be superfluous on the exact area needed for the
purpose being determined on adjudication of the dispute, must be restored
to the undisputed owners.
(IO) Rejection of the challenge by the undisputed owners to acquisition
of some religious properties in the vicinity of the disputed area, at this stage H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A is with the liberty granted to them to renew their challenge, if necessary at a
later appropriate stage, in case of continued retention by Central
Government of their property in excess of the exact area determined to be
needed 011 adjudication of the dispute.
(11) Consequently, the Special Reference No. l of 1993 made by the
B President of India under Article 143 (I) of the Constitution of India is
superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be answered. For this
reason we very respectfully decline to answer it and return the same.
(12) The question relating to the constitutional validity of the said Act
and maintainability of the Special Reference are decided in these terms.
c
These mattes are disposed of, accordingly, in the manner stated above.
BHARUCHA, J. We have had the benefit of reading the erudite
Judgment of our learned brother, Verma, J. We are unable to take the view
D expressed by him and must respectfully dissent. .,
It is convenient to deal with the validity of The Acquisition of Certain
Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993, and the maintainability of the Presidential
Reference dated 7th January, 1993 under Article 143 (I) of the Constitution
of India in a common opinion.
E
The historical background, as now set out, is drawn from the White
Paper on Ayodhya issued by the Government of India in February, 1993.
This was the basis upon which the Bill to bring the said Act upon the statute
book was prepared and the Reference was made.
F "Ayodhya......has long been a place of holy pilgrimage because of its
mention in the epic Ramayana as the place of birth of Shri Ram. The
structure commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid was erected
as a mosque by Mir Baqi in Ayodhya in 1528 AD. It is claimed by some
sections that it was built at the site believed to be the birth-spot of Shri Ram
where a temple had stood earlier." (Para 1.1 of the White Paper). The
G disputed structure was used by the Muslims for offering prayers until the
night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949, "when Hindu idols were placed under
the central dome of the main portion of the disputed structure. Worship of
these idols was started on a big scale from the next morning. As this was
likely to disturb the public peace the civil administration attached the
premises under the provisions of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure
H
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 75
Code. This was the starting point of a whole chain of events which A
ultimately Jed to the demolition of the structure." (Paras 2.13 and 2.15). In
1950 two suits were filed by Hindu gentlemen; in one of these suits, in
January 1950, the Civil Judge concerned passed interim orders whereby the
idols remained in place and puja continued. The interim order was
confirmed by the High Coµrt in April 1955. On Ist February, 1986, the
District Judge concerned ordered the opening of the locks upon the B
disputed structure and permitted puja by devotees. In 1959 a suit was filed
claiming title to the disputed structure by the Nirmohi Akhara. In 1961
another suit was filed claiming title to the disputed structure by the Sunni
Central Wakf Board. In 1989 Devki Nandan Agarwal as the next friend of
the deity, that is to say, the said idols, filed a title suit in respect of the
disputed structure. In 1989.the suits aforementioned were transferred to the C
Allahabad High Court and were ordered to be heard together. On 14th
August, 1989, the High Court ordered the maintenance of status quo in .
respect of the disputed structure. (Appendix I to the White Paper). "The
controversy entered a new phase with the placing of idols in the disputed
structure in December 1949. The premises were attached under Section 145
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Civil suits were filed shortly thereafter. D
The interim orders in these civil suits restrained the parties from removing
the idols or interfering with their worship. In effect, therefore, from
December 1.949 till December 1992 the structure had not been used as a
mosque." (Para 1.2) On 6th December, 1992, the disputed structure was
demolished. "The demolition .......was a most reprehensible act. The E
perpetrators of this deed struck not only against a place of worship but also
at the principles of secularism, democracy and the rule of law ......." (Para
l.35.) At 5.45 p.m. on that day the idols were replaced where the disputed
structure had stood and by 7.30 p.m. work had started on the construction
of a temporary structure for them. (Para 1.20.) At about 9.10 p.m. the
President of India issued a proclamation under the provisions of Article 356 F
assuming to himself all the functions of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
and dissolving its Vidhan Sabha. (Para l.21.)
A structure called the Ram chabutra stood on the disputed site, within
the courtyard of the disputed structure. This structure was also demolished
on 6th December, 1992 (Appendix V of the White Paper). As a result, G
worship by the Hindus thereat, which, it appears, had been going on for a
considerable period of time without objection by the Musfims, came to an
end.
After the imposition of President's rule, the Central Government took,
inter alia, the following decision: "the Government will see to it that the H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A demolished structure is re-built; and appropriate steps will be taken
regarding new Ram temple." (Para 1.22)
On 27th December, 1992, the aforesaid decisions taken on 7th
December, 1992 "to re-build the demolished structure and to take
appropriate steps regarding new Ram temple" were "elaborated..... as
B follows:
The Government has decided to acqt1ire all areas in dispute in the suits
pending in the Allahabad High Court. It has also been decided to acquire
suitable adjacent area. The acquired area excluding the area on which the
disputed structure stood would be made available to two trusts which would
C be set up for construction of a Ram Temple and a Mosque respectively and
for planned development of the area.
The Government of India has also decided to request the President to
seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question whether there was a
Hindu temple existing on the site where the disputed structure stood. The
D Government has also decided to abide by the opinion of the Supreme Court
and to take appropriate steps to enforce the Court's opinion.
Notwithstanding the acquisition of the disputed area, the Government
would ensure that the position existing prior to the promulgation of the
Ordinance is maintained until such time as the Supreme Court gives its
opinion in . the matter. Thereafter the rights of the parties shall be
E determined in the light of the Court's opinion." (Para 8.11).
An Ordinance, which was replaced by the said Act, was issued on 7th
January, 1993. The Reference under Article 143 was made on the same day.
We shall refer to the provisions of the Act later. For the present, it is
necessary to set out the Reference in full: ·
F
"WHEREAS a dispute has arisen whether a Hindu temple
or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the
construction of the structure (including the premises of the
inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly
known as the Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, in the area
G in which the structure stood in village Kot Ramachandra in ·
Ayodhya, in Pargana Have Ii Avadh, in Tehsil Faizabad
Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
2. AND WHEREAS the said area is located in Revenue Plot
H Nos. 159 and 160 in the said village not Ramachandra;
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 77
3. AND WHEREAS the said dispute has affected the A
maintenance of public order and hannony between different
communities in the country;
4. AND WHEREAS the aforesaid area vests in the Central
Government by virtue of the Acquisition of Certain Area at
Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993; B
5. AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the vesting of the
aforesaid area in the Central Government under the said
Ordinance the Central Government proposes to settle the
said dispute after obtaining the opinion of the Supreme
Court of India and in tenns of the said opinion; C
6. AND WHEREAS in view of what has been hereinbefore
stated it appears to me that the question hereinafter set out
has arisen and is of such a nature and of such public
importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the
Supreme Court of India thereon; D
7. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers
conferred upon me by clause (I) of article 143 of the
Constitution of India, I, Shanker Dayal Sharma, President
of India, hereby refer the following question to the Supreme
Court of India for consideration and opinion thereon, E
namely,
Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure
existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi-
Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the F
structure stood?"
It will be seen that the fifth recital of the Reference states that "the
Central Government proposes to settle the said dispute after obtaining the
opinion of the Supreme Court of India and in tenns of the said opinion."
The learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Central Government, G
submitted that this meant that the Central Government "was committed to
bring about a settlement in the light of the Supreme Court opinion and
consistent therewith. However, at this stage it cannot be predicated as to the
precise manner in which progress towards a solution could be made." If, he
submitted orally, no amicable solution was reached, the Central
Government would take steps to enforce the Supreme Court's opinion. To H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A avoid ambiguity, the learned Solicitor General was asked to take
instructions and put in writing the Central Government's position in this
behalf: if the answer to the question posed by the Reference was that no
Hindu temple or religious structure had stood on the disputed site prior to
the construction of the disputed structure, would the disputed structure be
re-built? On 14th September, 1994, the learned Solicitor General made the
B following statement in response:
"Government stands by the policy of secularism and of
even-handed treatment of all religious communities. The
Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, as well
as the Presidential Reference; have the objective of
C maintaining public order and promoting communal
harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the
people of India.
Government is committed to the construction of a Ram
temple and a mosque, but their actual location will be
D determined only after the Supreme Court renders its opinion
in the Presidential Reference.
Government will treat the finding of the Supreme Court on
the question of fact referred under Article 143 of the
Constitution as a verdict which is final and binding.
E
In the light of the Supreme Court's opinion and consistent
with it, Government will make efforts to resolve the
controversy by a process of negotiations. Government is
confident that the opinion of the Supreme Court will have a
salutary effect on the attitudes of the communities and they
F will no longer take conflicting positions on the factual issue
settled !>y the Supreme Court.
If efforts at a negotiated settlement as aforesaid do not
· succeed, Government is committed to enforce a solution in
the light of the Supreme Court's opinion and consistent
G with it, Government's action in this regard will be even-
handed in respect of both the communities. If the question
referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a
Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of
the· demolished structure, Government action will be in
support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the
H other hand, the question is answered in the negative,
M.L FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 79
namely, that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at the A
relevant time, then Government action will be in support of
the wishes of the Muslim community.
The learned Solicitor General was asked to clarify whether the Central
Government proposed to act in support of either community's wishes as
presently known or as ascertained after the answer to the Reference was B
given and negotiations had failed. The learned Solicitor General was unable
to get instructions in this behalf from the Central Government. It is fair to
say that he had not much time to do so as the arguments were closed on the
day after the clarification was sought.
It is relevant now to refer to the content of the dispute. "At the centre C
of the dispute is the demand voiced by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
and its allied organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birth
place of Shri Ram in Ayodhya. Till 6th December, 1992, this site was
occupied by the structure erected in 1528 by Mir Baqi who claimed to have
built it on orders of the first Mughal Emperor Bahar." "The VHP and its
allied organisations based their demand on the assertion that this site is the D
birth place of Shri Ram and a Hindu temple commemorating this site stood
here till it was destroyed on Babar's command and a masjid was erected in
its. place." "During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable solution to
the dispute one issue which came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple
had existed on the site occupied by the disputed structure and whether it
was demolished on Babar's order for the construction of the masjid......... .It E
was stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved,
the Muslims would ·voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the
Hindus." [Paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the White Paper.]
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act states :
F
"It was considered necessary to acquire the site of the
disputed structure and suitable adjacent land for setting up a
complex which could be developed in a planned manner
wherein a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a
library, museum and other suitable facilities can be set up."
G
The Act has been placed on the statute book to provide for the
acquisition of"certain area at Ayodhya and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto." The Act recites that there had "been a long-standing
dispute" relating to the structure aforementioned which had affected the
maintenance of public order and harmony between different communities
in the country. It was "necessary to maintain public order and promote H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among the
people oflndia." It was necessary to acquire certain areas in Ayodhya "with
a view to achieve the aforesaid objectives."
The Act, by reason of Section I (2), is deemed to have come into force
on 7th January, 1993 (which is the date on which the Ordinance was
B passed). Section 2 (a) defines "area" to mean the area specified in the
Schedule to the Act, including the buildings, structur~s or other properties
comprised therein. Section 2 (b) defines "authorised person" to mean "a
person or body of persons or trustees of any trust authorised by the Central
Government under Section 7." '
C By reason of Section 3, on and from the commencement of the Act,
the right, title and interest in relation to the area stands transferred to and
vests in the Central Government. ·
·section 4 (I) states that the "area shall be deemed to include all assets,
rights, leaseholds, powers, authority and privileges and all property,
D movable and immovable, ........ and all other rights and interests in or arising
out of such properties as were immediately before the commencement of
this Act in the ownership or control of any person or the State
Government... ... and all registers, maps, plans, drawings and other
documents of whatever nature relating thereto." By reason of Section 4 (2)
all the properties which have vested in the Central Government under
E Section 3 shall, by the force of such vesting, stand freed and discharged
from any trust, obligation, mortgage, charge, lieQ and all_ other
encumbrances affecting them and any attachment, injunction, decree or
order of any court or tribunal or other authority restricting the use of such
properties in any manner or appointing any receiver in respect of the whole
or any part of such properties shall cease to have any effect. Section 4 (3)
F states that any suit, appeal or other proceedings in respect of the right, title
and interest relating to any property which is vested in the Central
Government under Section 3 which was pending before any court, tribunal
or other authority on the date of the commencement of the Act "shall
abate."
G Section 5 empowers the Central Government to take all steps necessary
to secure the possession of the area that vests in it.
Section 6 reads thus :
"(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3, 4, 5
H and 7 the Central Government may, if it is satisfiei that any
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 81
authority or other body, or trustees of any trust, set up on or A
after the commencement of this Act is or are willing to
comply with such terms and conditions as that Government
may think fit to impose, direct by notification in the Official
Gazette, that the right, title and interest or any of them in
relation to the area or any part thereof, instead of continuing
to vest in the Central Government, vest in that authority or B
body of trustees of that trust other on the date of the
notification or on such later date as may be specified in the
notification.
(2) When any right, title and interest in relation to the area
or part thereof vest in the authority or body or trustees C
referred to in sub-section (I), such rights of the Central
Government in relation to such area or part thereof, shall,
on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have
become the rights of that authority or body or trustees of
that trust.
D
(3) The provisions of sections 4, 5, 7 and 11 shall, so far as
may be, apply in relation to the Central Government and for
this purpose references therein to the Central Government
shall be construed as references to such au.thority or body or
trustees."
E
Section 7 is the only section under the Chapter entitled "Management
and Administration of Property", and it reads thus:
"(I) Notwithstanding an}ithing contained in any contract or
instrument or order of any court, tribunal or other authority
to the contrary, on and from the commencement of this Act, F
the property vested in the Central Government under
section 3 shall be managed by the Central Government or
by a person or body of persons or trustees of any trust
authorised by that Government in this behalf.
(2) In managing the property vested in the Central G
Government under section 3, the Central Government or the
authorised person shall ensure that the position existing
before the commencement of this Act in the area on which
the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer
courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram
Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid, stood in village Kot H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Ramachandra in Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh; in
. Tehsil Faizabad Sadar, in the district of Faizabad of the
State ofUttar Pradesh is maintained."
By reason of Section 8 the owner of any land, building, structure or
other· property comprised in the "area" shall be given by the Central
B Government in cash all amount equivalent to the market value of the land,
building, structure or other property that has been transferred to and vests in
the Central Government under Section 3. For the purpose of deciding the
claim of the owner, .the Central Government is to appoint a Claims
Commissioner. Claims are required to be made within a period of 90 days
from the date of the commencement of the Act.
c
Section 9 makes it clear that the provisions of the Act would have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by
virtue of any law other than the Act or any decree or order of any court,
tribunal or other authority. Section I 0 provides for penalties for non-
D compliance with the provisions of the Act. Section I I provides for
protection for action taken in good faith under the Act. Section 12
empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions
of the Act. By reason of Section 13 the Ordinance is repealed.
The Act may now be analysed.
E
"Area" under Section 2 (a) of the Act is that specified in the Schedule.
Again, "area" under Section 3 is that specified in the Schedule. "Area",
\.
by
reason of Section 4 (I), includes assets and all property, movable and
immovable, and all other rights and interests in or arising out of such
property. "Area", in other words, includes the whole bundle of movable and
F immovable property in the area specified in the Schedule and all other -,
rights and interests therein or arising thereol,lt. The whole bundle of
property and rights vests, by reason of Section 4 (2), in the Central
Government freed and discharged from all encumbrances.
Section 7. (l) speaks of property vested in the Central Government
G under Section 3. It, therefore, speaks of the whole bundle of property and
rights. These are to be managed by the Central Government or any person
or body of persons or trustees of any trust so authorised. In managing the
whole bundle of property and rights "the Central Government or the
authorised person shall ensure that the position existing before the
commencement of this Act in the area on which the structure (including the
H premises of the inner and outer court-yards) .............. stood ................... is
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 83
maintained." Tiiis provision in Section 7 (2) relates only to that part of the A
area upon which the disputed structure stood (the disputed site).
Now, as to the "authorised person", Section 7 (1) says that the whole
bundle of property and rights shall be managed by the Central Government
or by a person or body of persons or trustees of any trust authorised by the
Central Government. This, as Section 7 (2) shows, is the "authorised B
person" under Section 2 (b ). He or it may not be the authority or other body
or trustees referred to in Section 6 ( 1). In other words, the power to manage
the whole bundle of property and rights may be conferred upon any person
or body of persons or trustees of any trust even though he or they are not
required to comply with the terms and conditions that the Central
Government may deem fit to impose under Section 6 ( l ). C
"In managing the property vested in the Central Government under
Section 3" (which, read with Section 4 (I), means the whole bundle of
property and rights) "the Central Government or the authorised person shall
ensure that the position existing before the commencement of this Act in
the area on which the structure (including the premises of the inner and D
outer court-yards of such structure) ....................... stood..................... .is
maintained." This provision in Section 7 (2) speaks of"the position existing
before the commencement of this Act," i.e., existing before midnight on the
night of 6ttif7th January, 1993. This provision, therefore, requires the
Central Government or the authorised person to ensure, in managing the E
whole bundle of property and rights, that the position existing on the
disputed site before midnight on the night of 6th/7th January, 1993, is
maintained.
The obligation is cast in regard to the "management" of the whole
bundle of property and rights. This implies that the Central Government or F
the authorised person is required to continue with the puja that was being
performed on the disputed site before 7th January, 1993. This is provided
for even though, by reason of Section 4 (2), the orders of the court in this
behalf cease to have effect.
There is no provision in the Act which indicates in clear terms what use G
the whole bundle of property and rights, including the disputed site, will be
put to by the Central Government. An indication in this behalf is provided
by Section 6. Section 6 is an enabling provision. By reason of Section 6 (I),
notwithstanding the vesting in the Central Government of the whole bundle
of property and rights, "t~ Central Government may, if it is satisfied that
any authority or other body or trustees of any trust set.up on or after the H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A commencement of this Act is or are willing to comply with such terms and
conditions as that Government might think fit to impose direct... ....that the
right, title and interest or any of them" in relation to the whole bundle of
property or rights or any part thereof, instead of continuing to vest in the
Central Government, shall vest in that authority or body or trustees of that
trust. Thereupon, by reason of Section 6 (2), the rights of the Central
B Government in the whole bundle of property and rights or such part thereof
as has been vested under Section 6 (1) shall, on and from the date of such
vesting, be deemed to have become the rights of that authority or body or
trustees of that trust. In other words, when the vesting takes place in respect
of the whole bundle of property and rights or of any part thereof, all the
rights of the Central Government in the whole bundle of property and rights
c or such part thereof as has been vested, shall be deemed to be transferred to
the authority or body or trust in which it is vested.
The provisions of Section 6 apply to the whole bundle of property and
rights; that is to say, they 'apply also to the disputed site. The disputed site
may also be vested in an authority or body or trust that is willing to comply
D with the terms and conditions that the Central Government might think fit
to impose. Those terms and conditions are not specified in the Act, nor is
there any indication in that behalf available. The only restriction imposed
upon such authority or body or trust, apart from the terms and conditions
that the Central Government may think fit to impose, are those provided in
Section 7. This is set out in Section 6 (3). The provisions of Sections 4, 5
E and 11 which are also mentioded in Section 6 (3) are provisions that
empower and protect the authority or body or trust.
Section 7 relates to the management and administration of the whole
bundle of property znd rights. Section 7 ( l) states that it shall be managed
by the Central Government or by a body of persons or trustees of any trust
F authorised by the Government in this behalf; in other words, the authorised
person. Section 7 (2) obliges the Central Government or the authorised
person, in managing the whole bundle of property and rights, to ensure that
"the position existing" before the commencement of the Act in the area on
which the disputed structure stood "is maintained". The Central
Government or the authorised person is, therefore, obliged to maintain the
G "position" in respect of the disputed site as "i.t was before midnight on the
night of 6th/7th January, 1993, and it is required to do so in "managing" the
whole bundle of property and rights. This implies not only that the debris of
the demolished structure must be maintained as it stands but also that the
idols which had been placed on the disputed site after the demolition had
taken place must be retained where they are .and the puja carried on before
H them must be continued.
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 85
Since the Act does not spell out the use to which the whole bundle of A
property and rights is intended to be put and since the provisions of Section
7 are applicable even to the authority or body or trust in which the Central
Government may vest the whole bundle of property and rights or any part
thereof under the provisions of Section 6, it is possible to read the
provisions of Section 7 as being of a permanent nature. The Act read by
itself, therefore, suggests that the idols shall remain on the disputed site for B
an indefinite period of time and puja shall continue to be performed before
them.
Section 8 gives to the owner of any land, building, structure or other
property which is acquired compensation equivalent to the market value
thereof. Claims in that behalf are to be entertained by a Claims C
Commissioner to be appointed by the Central Government. For the
purposes of establishing his claim, the owner would have to establish his
title to the property that has been acquired. The suits in the Allahabad High
Court which abate by reason of Section 4 (3) relate to the title of the
disputed site. In other words, the forum for the adjudication of the title to
the disputed site is shifted from the courts to the Claims Commissioner. D
The above is an analysis of the Act by itself. It is necessary to read it
also in the context of its Statement of Objects and Reasons and the
Reference.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons state that the acquisition of the E
whole bundle of property and rights is necessary for setting up a planned
complete housing "a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a
library, museum and other suitable facilities". The authority or other body
or trustees of any trust willing to comply with such terms and conditions as
the Central Government may think fit to impose would, under the
provisions of Section 6, be vested with a part of the whole bul).dle of F
property and rights to construct and maintain a Ram temple and
concommitant amenities. Another authority or body or trust so willing
would be vested with another part of the whole bundle of property and
rights to construct and maintain a mosque and concommitant facilities. So
read, the provisions relating to the management and administration of the G
whole bundle of property and rights contained in Section 7 are interim
provisions, to operate until vesting under Section 6 has taken place.
Having regard to the provisions of Section 6, the Statement of Objects
and Reasons and the Reference, the acquisition of the disputed site and
surrounding land is to hold the same pending the resolution of the dispute H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.
A regarding the disputed site. The resolution of the dispute is to take place in
the manner stated in the Reference. Upon such resolution the disputed site
would be handed over for the construction of a mosque or a Ram temple, as
the case may be, and the surrounding area would house a place of worship
of the other religion and ancilliary facilities for the places of worship of
both the Muslim and the Hindu communities. The validity of the provisions
B of Section 3, by reason of which the whole bundle of property and rights
stands transferred to and vests in the Central Government, and, therefore, of
the Act itself. Depends upon the validity of the provisions that follow it,
particularly, Section 4.
Section 4 (I) states that the "area shall be deemed to include all assets,
c rights, leaseholds, powers, authority and privileges and all property,
movable and immovable......... and all other rights and interests in or arising
out of such properties as were immediately before the commencement of
this Act in the ownership or control of any person or the State
Government................. and all registers, maps, plans, drawings and other
documents of whatever nature relating thereto." By reason of Section 4 (2)
D
all the properties which have vested in the Central Government . under
Section 3 shall, by the force of such vesting, stand freed and discharged
from any trust, obligation, mortgage, charge, lien and all other
encumbrances affecting them and any attachment, injunction, decree or
order of any court or tribunal or other authority restricting the use of such
E properties in any manner or appointing any receiver in respect of the whole
or any part of such properties shall cease to have any effect. Section 4 (3)
states that any suit, appeal or other proceedings in respect of the right, title
and interest relating to any property which is vested in the Central
Government under Section 3 which was pending before any court, tribunal
or other authority on the date of the commencement of the Act "shall
F abate". By reason of Section 8 the owner of any land, building, structure or
other property comprised in the "area" shall be given by the Central
Government in cash an amount equivalent to the market value of the land,
building, structure or other property that has been transferred to and vests in
the Central Government under Section 3. Such claims are to be decided by
G a Claims Commissioner, who is entitled to regulate his own procedure.
As the ·White Paper shows, the demolished structure was built as a
mosque in 1528. It was used as a mosque from 1528 until the night of
22nd/23rd December, 1949, when the idols were placed therein. The idols
continue ir. the disputed structure by reason of the orders of the courts.
H Under the orders of the court passed in 1986 public worship of the idols
· M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.) 87
was permitted. This state of affairs continued until 6th December, 1992, A
when the disputed structure was demolished.
The effect of Section 4 of the Act is that the Sunni Wakf Board, which
administered the mosque that was housed in the disputed structure, and the
Muslim community lose their right to plead adverse possession, of the
disputed site from 1528 until 1949, if not up-to-date,.considering that the B
idols remained in the disputed structure only under the orders of the courts.
Instead of judicial determination of the title to the disputed site on the basis
of the law, the disputed site, along with surrounding land, has been acquired
and a complex with a mosque and a temple thereon is planned. What is to
happen to the disputed site is to depend upon the answer to the question
posed in the Reference and negotiations based thereon. The question posed C
in the Reference is: whether a Hindu temple or any other Hindu religious
structure existed prior to the construction of the disputed structure on the
disputed site. The learned Solicitor General fairly stated that the Court
should read the question as asking whether ·any Hindu temple or other
Hindu religious structure stood on the disputed site immediately before the
disputed structure was built thereon. The dispute, it will be remembered, D
was that a Ram temple had stood on the disputed site and it was demolished
to make place for the disputed structure; the question posed, however, is:
was there "a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure" on the
disputed site. Secondly, the salient fact as to whether the temple, if any, was
demolished to make place for the disputed structure is not to be gone into.
The disputes as to title to the disputed site survive for consideration for the E
purpose of award of compensation. For this purpose title shall have to be
established not before a court of law but before a Claims Commissioner to
be appointed by the Central Government, who is entitled to devise his own
procedure. No right of appeal or reference to a Civil Court is provided for
with the result that the decision of the Claims Commissioner would be final F
except for a remedy under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. For the
reasons aforesaid, the provisions of Sections 4 and 8 of the Act must be
held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
More importantly, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, inasmuch as
they deprive the Sunni Wakf Board and the Muslim community of the right G
to plead and establish adverse possession as aforesaid and restrict the
redress of their grievance in respect of the disputed site to the answer to the
limited question posed by the Reference and to negotiations ·subsequent
thereto, and the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which vest the whole
bundle of property and rights in the Central Government to achieve this
purpose, offend the principle of secularism, which is a part of the basic H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A structure of the Constitution, being slanted in favour of one religious
community as against another.
That secularism is a part of the basic features of the Constitution was ·
held in Kesavananda Bharati v: State of Kera/a, (1973] 4 SCC 225. It was
unanimously reaffirmed by the nine Judge Bench of this Court in S.R.
B Bommai v. Union of India, [1994] 3 SCC I. Sawant, J. analysed the
Preamble of the Constitution and various articles therein and held that these
provisions, by implication, prohibited the establishment of a ~eocratic
State and prevented the State from either identifying itself with or favouring
any particular religion. The State was enjoined to accord equal treatment to
all religions. K. Ramaswamy, J. quoted the words written by Gandhiji that
C are as apposite now as they were when he wrote them: "The Allah of
Muslims is the sarr.e as the God of Christians and Ishwara of Hindus". B.P.
Jeevan Reddy, J. said:
"While the citizens of this country are free to profess,
practice and propagate such religion, faith_ or belief as they
D choose, so far as the State is concerned, i.e., from the point
of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person
is immaterial. To it, all are equal and all are entitled to be
treated equally. How is this equal treatment possible, if the
State were to prefer or promote a particular religion, race or
caste, which necessarily means a less favourable treatment
E of all other religions, races and castes. How are the
constitutional promises of social justice, liberty of belief,
faith or worship and equality of status and of opportunity to
be attained unless the State eschews the religion, faith or
belief of a person from its consideration altogether while
· dealing with him, his rights, his duties and his entitlements?
F Secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious
tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal. treatment of all
religions. This attitude is described by some as one of
neutrality towards religion or as one of benevolent
neutrality. This may be a concept evolved by Western
liberal thought or it may be, as some say, an abiding faith
G with the Indian people at all points of time. That is not
material. What is material is that it is· a constitutional goal
and a basic feature of the Constitution as affirmed in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kera/a, [1973] 4 SCC 225
and Indira N Gandhi v. Raj Narain, [1975] Supp. SCC 1:
[1976] 2 SCR 347. Any step inconsistent with this
H constitutional policy is, in plain words, unconstitutional."
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.) 89
The State has no religion. The State is bound to honour and to hold the A
scales even between all religions. It may not advance the cause of one
religion to the detriment of another.
The core provisions of the Act are Sections 3, 4 and 8. The other
provisions of the Act are only ancillary and incidental to Sections 3, 4 and
8. Since the core provisions of Sections 3, 4 and 8 are unconstitutional, the B
Act itself cannot stand.
The provisions of Section 7 are referred to in support of the finding
that the Act is skewed to favour one religion against another.
The provisions of Section 7 (1) empower the Central Government to C
entrust the management of the acquired area to "any person or body of
persons or trustees of any trusf'. Section 7 (2) states that "in managing the
property vested in the Central Government under Section 3 the Central
Government or the authorised person .................. shall ensure that the
position existing before the commencement of this Act in the area on
which" the disputed structure "stood........................ .is maintained." It is D
relevant to note that "the position" is required to be maintained in the
course of "managing the property". Before "the commencement of this
Ace' the disputed structure had been demolished, the idols had been placed
on the disputed site and puja thereof had begun. Section 7 (2), therefore,
requires that the puja must continue so long as the management continues.
For how long such management is to continue and on the happening on E
what event it will come to end is not indicated. Section 7 (2), thus,
perpetuates the performance of puja on the disputed site. No account is
taken of the fact that the structure thereon had been destroyed in "a most
reprehensible act. The perpetrators of this deed struck not only against a
place of worship but at the principles of secularism, democracy and the rule F
of law ..... " (White Paper, para 1.35.) No account is taken of the fact that
there is a dispute in respect of the site on which puja is to be performed;
- that, as stated in the White Paper, until the night of 22nd/23rd December,
1949, when the idols were placed in the disputed structure, the disputed
structure was being used as a mosque; and that the Muslim community has
a claim to offer namaaz thereon. G
Reference was made in the course of the proceedings to the provisions
of the Places of Worship Special Provisions Act, 1991. It is a statute to
prohibit the conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the
maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed
on 15th August, 1947. It enjoins that no person shall convert any place of H
90 SUPREME <;:OURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R
A worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of
worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a
different religious denomination or any section thereof. It declares that the
religious character of a place of worship existing on 15th August, 1947,
shall continue to be the same as it existed on that date. It is specified that
nothing contained in the statute shall apply to the place of worship which
B was the disputed structure at Ayodhya and to any suit, appeal or other
proceedings relating to it. Based upon The Places of Worship Act, it was
submitted that what had happened at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992,
could never happen again. The submission overlooks the fact that the
Indian penal Code contains provisions in respect of offences relating to
religion. Section 295 thereof states that whoever destroys, damages ·or
c defiles any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of
persons with the object of thereby insulting the religion of any class of
persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider
such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion shall be
punished. Section 295 provides for punishment of a person who with the
deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any
D class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representation or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the
religion or religious beliefs of that class. Those who razed the disputed
structure to the ground on 6th December, 1992, were not deterred by these
provisions. Others similarly minded are as little likely to be deterred by the
provisions of the Places of Worship Act.
E
The Preamble to the Constitution of India proclaims that India is a
secular democratic republic. Article 15 in Part III of the Constitution, which
provides for fundamental rights, debars the State from discriminating
against any citizen on the ground of religion. Secularism is given pride of
place in the Constitution. The object is to preserve and protect all religions,
F to place all religious communities on a par. When, therefore, adherents of
the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail
the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create
conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional
obligation· of the State to protect that place of worship and to perverse
..
public order, usuig for the purpose such means and forces of law and order
G as are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the Constitution
for the State to acquire that place of worship to preserve public order. To
condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to
efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution.
We must add a caveat. If the title to the place of worship is in dispute
H in a court of law and public order is jeopardised, two courses are open to
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 91
the Central Government. It may apply to the concerned court to be A
appointed Receiver of the place of worship, to hold it secure pending the
final adjudication of its title, or it may enact legislation that makes it
statutory Receiver of the place of worship pending the adjudication of its
title by the concerned court. In either event, the Central Government would
bind itself to hand over the place of worship to the party in whose favour its
title is found. B
The learned Solicitor General submitted :
When conflicting claims are made and deep sentiments are
involved, a solution may hurt one or other of the
sentiments, but on that account it cannot be characterised as C
partial or lacking in neutrality.
When amity and harmony between communities are
threatened, it is one of the secular duties of the State to help
the parties towards a solution which the Government feels
will be accepted over the course of time, if not immediately, D
and which will have the effect of abating and blunting the
violence of the strife and conflict. The Act and the
Reference make an attempt in the direction of restoring
amity and harmony between the communities. Their
objective is secular.
E
We cannot, for the reasons stated above, agree.
A brief reference to Article 25 ( 1) may now be made. It reads :
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice
and propagation of religion - (1) Subject to public order, F
morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part,
all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate
religion."
Article 25 (1) protects the rights of individuals. See The Commissioner, G
Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar
o/Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) S.C.R. 1005 at 1021. Exercise of the right of the
individual to profess, practice and propagate religion is subject to public
order. Secularism is absolute; the State may not treat religions differently
on the ground that public order requires it. H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A The principle of secularism illumines the provisions of Articles 15 and
16. Article 15 obliges the State not to discriminate against any citizen on
the ground of religion. The obligation is not subject to· any restriction.
Article 16 (I) declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State. Article 16 (2) puts the requirement negatively: no citizen
B shall on the ground of religion be ineligible for or be discriminated against
in respect of any employment or office under the State. Again, the
obligation in this behalf is not subject to any restriction. The "hands-off'
approach required of the State in matters of religion is illustrated also by
Article 27, by reason whereof no person can be compelled to pay any taxes
the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses
c for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. Article 29 (2)
may also be noted for its absolute tenns; no citizen can be denied admission
into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out
of State funds on the ground of religion.
This brings us to the Reference. The Act having been struck down, the
D suits as to the title of the disputed site in the Allahabad High Court revive
and the purpose for which the Reference was made may be said to have
become redundant. On the other hand, it may be said that the revival of the·
suits does not debar the Central Government from negotiating to bring an
amicable solution to the dispute at Ayodhya and such negotiations depend
upon the answer given to the question posed by the Reference. We shall,
E
therefore, deal with the Reference, and proceed upon the basis that it is
maintainable under the provisions of Article 143.
In Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 4;13, this Court
held:
F "It is quite true that under Article 143 (1) eveit if questions
are referred to this Court for its advisory opinion, this Court
is not bound to give such advisory opinion in every case.
Article 143 (1) provides that after the questions fonnulated
by the President are received by this Court, it may, after
such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its
G
opinion thereon. The use of the word "may" in contrast with
the use of the word "shall" in the provision prescribed by
Article 143 (2) clearly brings out the fact that in a given
case, this Court may respectfully refuse to express its
advisory opinion if it is satisfied that it should not express
H its opinion having regard to the nature of the questions
,
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.] 93
forwarded to it and having regard to the other relevant facts A
and circumstances."
In Reference the Special Courts Bill, 1978, [1979] 3 SCR 476, this
Court said:
"Article 143 (1) is couched in broad terms which provide B
that any question of law or fact may be referred by the
President for the consideration of the Supreme Court if ;~
appears to him that such a question has arisen or is likely to
arise and if the question is of such a nature and of such
public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion
of the Court upon it. Though questions of fact have not C
been referred to the Court in any of the six references made
under Article 143 (1), that Article empowers the President
to make a reference even on questions of fact provided the
other conditions of the article are satisfied. It is not
necessary that the question on which the opinion of the
Supreme Court is sought must have arisen actually. It is D
competent to the President to make a reference under article
143 (l) at an anterior stage, namely, at the stage when the
President is satisfied that the question has arisen or is likely
to arise and whether it is of such a nature and of such public
importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the
Supreme Court upon it, is a matter essentially for the E
President to decide. The plain duty and function of the
Supreme Court under article 143 (1) of the Constitution is
to consider the question on which the President has made
the reference and report to the President its opinion,
provided of course the question is capable of being
pronounced upon and falls within the power of the Court to F
decide. If, by reason of the manner in which the question is
framed or for any other appropriate reason the Court
considers it not proper or possible to answer the question it
would be entitled to return the reference by pointing out the
impediments in answering it. The right of this Court to G
decline to answer a reference does not flow merely out of
the different phraseology used in clauses (1) and (2) of
article 143, in the sense that clause (1) provides that the
Court "may" report to the President its opinion on the
question referred to it, while clause (2) provides that the
Court "shall" report to the President its opinion on the H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1994) SUPP, 5 S.C.R.
A question. Even in matters arising under clause (2), though
that question does i:iot arise in this reference, the Court may
be justified in returning the reference unanswered if it finds
for a valid reason that the question is incapable of being
answered. With these preliminary observations we will
consider the contentions set forth above."
B
This Court is, therefore, entitled to decline to imswer a question posed
to it under Article 143 if it considers that it is not proper or possible to do
so, but it must indicate its reasons.
In our view, the Reference must not be answered, for the following
C reasons ..
The Act and the Reference, as stated hereinabove, favour one religious
community and disfavour another; the purpose of the Reference is,
therefore, opposed to secularism and is unconstitutional. Besides, the
Reference does not serve a constitutional purpose.
D
Secondly, the fifth recital to the Reference states that "the Central
Government proposes to settle the said dispute after obtaining the opinion
of the Supreme Court of India and in terms of the said opinion." (Emphasis
supplied.) It is clear that the Central Government does not propose to settle
the disP.ute in terms of the Court's opinion, it proposes to use the Court's
., E opinion as a springboard for negotiations. Resolution of the dispute as a
result of such negotiations cannot be said to be a resolution of the dispute
"in terms of the said opinion." Asked to obtain instructions and tell the
Court that the mosque would be rebuilt if the question posed by ·the
Reference was answered in the negative, the learned Solicitor General made
the statement quoted above. It leaves us in no doubt that even in the
F circumstance that this Court opines that no Hindu temple or Hindu religious
structure existed on the disputed site before the disputed structure was built
thereon, there is no certainty that the mosque will be rebuilt.
Thirdly, there is the aspect of evidence in relation to the question
referred. It is not our suggestion that a court of law is not competent to
G decide such a question. It can be done if expert evidence of archaeologists
and historians is led, and is tested in cross-examination. The principal
protagonists of the two stands are not appearing in the Reference; they will
neither lead evidence nor cross-examine. The learned Solicitor General
stated that the Central Government would lead no evidence, but it would
place before the Court the material that it had collected from the two sides
H during the course of earlier negotiations. The Court being ill equipped to
M.I. FARUQUI v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.) 95
examine and evaluate such material, it would have to appoint experts in the A
field to do so, and their evaluation would go unchallenged. Apart from the
inherent inadvisability of rendering a judicial opinion on such evaluation,
the opinion would be liable to the criticism of one or both sides that it was
rendered without hearing them or their evidence. This would ordinarily be
of no significance for they had chosen to stay away, but this opinion is
inteaded to create a public climate for negotiations and the criticism would B
find the public ear, to say nothing of the fact that it would impair this
Court's credibility.
Ayodhya is a storm that will pass. The dignity and honour of the
Supreme Court cannot be compromised because of it.
c
No observation that we have made is a reflection on the referring
authority. We have the highest respect for the office of the President of
India and for its present incumbent; his secular credentials are well known.
Having regard to the construction that we have placed upon the Act
and the Reference, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to discuss the D
other challenges to their validity and maintainability, respectively. It may,
however, be said that we found the argument that the Act was public order
legislation and, therefore, beyond the competence of Parliament very
plausible.
We are indebted to the learned Attorney General for the assurance that E
he has rendered to the Court. We are indebted to counsel who have
appeared in these matters; if we single out Mr. R.K. Garg, it is because of
his untimely demise.
Before we pass final orders, some observations of a general nature
appear to be in order. Hinduism is a tolerant faith. It is that tolerance that p
has enabled Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism,
Jainism and Sikhism to find shelter and support upon this land. We have no
doubt that the moderate Hindu has little taste for the tearing down of the
place of worship of another to replace it with a temple. It is our fervent
hope that that moderate opinion shall find general expression and that
communal brotherhood shall bring to the dispute at Ayodhya an amicable G
solution long before the courts resolve it.
To quote Gandhiji again, "India cannot cease to be one nation because
people belonging to different religions live in it.. ............ .ln no part of the
world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms, nor has it
ever been so in India." H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, is struck down
as being unconstitutional. The writ petitions impugning the validity of the
Act are allowed. The issues in the suits in the Allahabad High Court
withdrawn for trial to this Court are answered accordingly.
The Presidential Reference is returned respectfully, unanswered.
B
There shall be no order as to costs.
U.R Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Acquisition of land"Sign in to search