The Faruqui case cropped up as a consequence of the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the following events that took place at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
The 1994 decision of the Supreme Court in the Dr M Ismail Faruqui case was never an issue in the title suit hearing on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid disputed site till it was introduced all of a sudden by the Muslim parties on December 5, 2017, before the Supreme Court.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Ashok Bhushan had listed the Ayodhya title suit case for final hearing on that day. It was at that point, senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan appearing for one of the Muslim parties demanded that before commencing hearing on the suit, the Faruqui judgment required reconsideration by a larger bench as it held that mosques are not an integral part of Islam.
Although this argument was opposed by the Hindu parties as a delaying tactic, the bench adjourned the matter to March 14, 2018, when a decision was taken to first settle whether the Faruqui decision needs to be revisited.
It was then that the court fixed arguments in the case to be heard every week on Friday at 2 pm, which eventually led to the judgment that came on Thursday.
(The 1992 demolition of the mosque had far reaching consequences. It polarised the country along communal lines and triggered communal riots across the nation. Since then, it has been an issue for bitter wrangling between hardliners of both Hindus and Muslims.)
The Faruqui case cropped up as a consequence of the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the following events that took place at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
The Central Government decided to acquire all the disputed areas under suits pending in the Allahabad High Court. It issued an Ordinance on January 7, 1993, namely, the 'Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Ordinance', to acquire 67.703 acres of land in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid complex.
The Centre decided to request the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court to decide if a Hindu temple existed where the disputed structure stood. In the meantime, the government replaced the Ordinance with the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. It was heard along with the Presidential reference.
This decision considered the question of acquisition of religious places by the state and held offering namaaz at a mosque as not integral to Islam, unless that mosque had any particular significance in the religion.
The Inception
The Faruqui case cropped up as a consequence of the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the following events that took place at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
The Bone Of Contention
The ayodhya site where the babri masjid stood, is revered as ram janmabhoomi; People opposed to the theory say such claims arose only in the 18th century
What The Court Has Held
The Supreme Court said on Thursday that the 1994 verdict will not impact the Ayodhya title suit case as the observations about a mosque not being essential to Islam was made only in the context of the government acquiring land where a place of worship exists. One of the three judges involved in this verdict, however, chose to disagree.
What The Court Will Consider
The Court will examine facts on both sides to adjudicate who owns title to the disputed Ayodhya land irrespective of whether there was a mosque or a temple. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court divided the land between Muslim and Hindu parties, though the main part was allocated to the Hindus. All parties involved have challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.
What Is The Dispute?
The dispute involves a plot of land measuring 2.77 acres in Ayodhya, which the Hindus consider to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Muslims argue that the land houses the Babri mosque. In 1991, Uttar Pradesh government acquired the land around the structure for the convenience of Hindu devotees. 1n 1992, the mosque was demolished by Kar Sevaks. In 1993, the Centre became the statutory receiver of the disputed 67.7 acres of land under the Ayodhya Act. SC upheld the Act but struck down certain provisions in it. This led to revival of the suits.
Who Said What
During the hearing on the tittle suit in the Supreme court, the other side always quoted the 1994 judgement that mosque is not an integral part of Islam. Now the court has made it clear that the 1994 judgement was related to the land acquisition...and that it has no connection with the tittle suit. We have achieved our goal as the Supreme Court will hear only the tittle suit.
—Khaliq Ahmad Khan, Maulana Mahfuzur Rahman’s nominee
The Supreme Court has made it clear that the case will be heard on merits, on the base of the claims of land ownership... and not on religious beliefs as the high court has done… We are fighting the case for Babri land on the basis of revenue records. Our claim is that there are no historical facts that any temple was demolished and Babri Masjid was built there.
—Iqbaal Ansari, litigant from Sunni Central Waqf Board
The SC verdict is in our favour. While we can offer our prayer anywhere and it does not mean that mosque is not integral part of Islam as it has been proved by the Quran that mosque is very essential.
—Haji Mahboob, litigant
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Babri Masjid")
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}