Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2018

Citation: Not Available in source

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI and Ashok Bhushan, J. (Majority Opinion); S. Abdul Nazeer, J. (Dissenting Opinion)

Can the Supreme Court revisit its earlier stance on whether a mosque is an essential part of Islamic practice? This question lies at the heart of a recent judgment where a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India decided not to refer a prior Constitution Bench judgment for reconsideration. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of religious freedom and the significance of places of worship in Islam, particularly in the context of the Ayodhya dispute. The bench was comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ashok Bhushan, who delivered the majority opinion, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, who penned a dissenting opinion.

Case Background

The case stems from a long-standing dispute over land in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid once stood. The central question was whether the site was of particular religious significance to Muslims, and whether its acquisition would violate their fundamental rights. The dispute has seen various turns, including the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and subsequent legal battles. The Supreme Court had previously addressed the issue in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case, which made certain observations about the essentiality of mosques in Islam. The present appeals were filed after the Allahabad High Court’s judgment on the title suits, which were revived after the 1994 judgment.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses several key legal provisions and constitutional articles:

• ✓ Article 25 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Court notes that this does not necessarily include the right to acquire or own property, or the right to worship at any and every place.
• ✓ Article 26 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• ✓ Article 143 of the Constitution of India: Allows the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact.
• ✓ Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993: Legislation enacted by the Parliament to acquire land in Ayodhya, including the site of the Babri Masjid. The validity of the Act was challenged on the grounds of secularism and religious freedom.
• ✓ Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code: Deals with the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided by a competent court.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides were extensive, focusing on the following key areas:

• ✓ Appellants’ Arguments (led by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan):
  • The core argument was that the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment made observations that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and that namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open.
  • These observations were made without detailed examination of Islamic beliefs and practices, hence, are contrary to law.
  • The essentiality of a religious practice requires a detailed examination of the faith’s tenets and practices, not a mere ipse dixit of the Court.
  • The test of integrality is interchangeable with the essentiality test and that the test of essentiality cannot be cut down by a later judgment of lesser strength.
  • The observations in Ismail Faruqui have influenced the decisions in the appeals and the impugned judgment of the High Court.
• ✓ Respondents’ Arguments (led by Shri K. Parasaran and Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan):
  • The prayer for reconsideration of the judgment in Ismail Faruqui is not maintainable at the instance of the appellants.
  • Those who were eo nomine parties to the proceedings in Ismail Faruqui litigated bona fide in respect of a public right and are barred by res judicata.
  • The observations in Ismail Faruqui have to be read in the context of the validity of the acquisition of the suit property under the Act, 1993.
  • The Court has not ruled that offering namaz by Muslims is not an essential religious practice, but only that the right to offer namaz at every mosque is not an essential religious practice.
  • The faith/practice to offer namaz is an essential part of Muslim religion and, therefore, it may be performed in any mosque at Ayodhya.
• ✓ Additional Arguments:
  • Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the judgment in Ismail Faruqui is correct law and does not deserve to be disturbed.
  • Shri Parmeshwar Nath Mishra argued that not all mosques are essential for the practice of Islam, and referred to various texts and sculptures of the religion of Islam.
  • Shri S.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for Nirmohi Akhada, also refuted the submission that Ismail Faruqui needs to be referred to a larger Bench.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the observations made in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment regarding the essentiality of a mosque in Islam require reconsideration by a larger bench?
2. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the present appeals, preventing the appellants from raising the issue of the essentiality of a mosque?
3. Whether the High Court’s judgment was influenced by the observations in Ismail Faruqui case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Shirur Mutt and other cases on essential religious practices: The Court acknowledged the principles laid down in these cases that the essentiality of a religious practice must be determined by examining the doctrines and tenets of that religion.
• ✓ Ismail Faruqui: The Court clarified that the observations made in this case were specific to the context of land acquisition and not a general statement on the essentiality of mosques.
• ✓ Other cases on res judicata: The Court applied the principles of res judicata but found that the conditions were not met in the present case.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the importance of the issues raised, ultimately declined to refer the Ismail Faruqui judgment for reconsideration. The majority opinion emphasized that the observations in Ismail Faruqui were specific to the context of land acquisition and should not be interpreted as a general statement on the essentiality of mosques in Islam. The Court also held that the principle of res judicata did not apply in the present case, as the issues in the appeals were different from those in Ismail Faruqui. The Court also did not find any merit in the submission that the High Court was influenced by the observations made in Ismail Faruqui.

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, in his dissenting opinion, disagreed with the majority’s view on the need for reconsideration of the Ismail Faruqui judgment. He emphasized the importance of examining the doctrines, tenets, and beliefs of a religion before making pronouncements on its essential practices.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court also quoted from the judgments of Justice S.U. Khan in the Allahabad High Court and Justice J.S. Verma in Ismail Faruqui, highlighting the importance of communal harmony and tolerance. The Court also noted the message of King Asoka and Dr. S. Radhakrishnan on tolerance of religious faiths.

“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.”

“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 essential or integral part thereof.”

“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 integral part of that right.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The sentiment analysis of the Court’s reasoning reveals a balanced approach, emphasizing both legal principles and factual context. The Court’s decision not to refer the Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration was primarily influenced by the following:

• ✓ The specific context of the observations in Ismail Faruqui, which were made in relation to land acquisition and not as a general proposition of law.
• ✓ The need to adhere to the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided.
• ✓ The importance of maintaining a secular approach, which does not favor any particular religion over others.
• ✓ The fact that the issues in the present appeals were different from those in Ismail Faruqui.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court also gave weight to the fact that the issues in the present appeals were different from those in Ismail Faruqui. The Court also noted the message of King Asoka and Dr. S. Radhakrishnan on tolerance of religious faiths.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das is a significant one in the context of the Ayodhya dispute and the interpretation of religious freedom in India. By declining to refer the Ismail Faruqui case for reconsideration, the Court has upheld its previous stance that the essentiality of a mosque in Islam is not a general proposition of law but must be considered in the specific context of a case. The judgment also reinforces the importance of the principle of res judicata and the need to maintain a secular approach in matters of religion. The Court’s decision also highlights the importance of examining the doctrines and tenets of a religion before making pronouncements on its essential practices. The case also underscores the need for communal harmony and tolerance in a diverse society like India.

The judgment has significant implications for the ongoing Ayodhya dispute, as it sets the stage for the final adjudication of the title suits. The Court’s decision will also have implications for future cases involving religious freedom and the essentiality of religious practices. The judgment also reinforces the importance of the principle of res judicata and the need to maintain a secular approach in matters of religion. The judgment also underscores the need for communal harmony and tolerance in a diverse society like India.

Key Takeaways:

• ✓ The Supreme Court declined to refer the Ismail Faruqui judgment for reconsideration.
• ✓ The observations in Ismail Faruqui were specific to the context of land acquisition.
• ✓ The principle of res judicata did not apply in the present case.
• ✓ The essentiality of a religious practice must be determined by examining the doctrines and tenets of that religion.
• ✓ The Court emphasized the importance of communal harmony and tolerance.