Tag: Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas

Adityanath to Visit Ram Lalla Temple in Ayodhya After Poll Panel’s Gag Order

The UP chief minister also visited the Hanuman Setu temple in Lucknow on Tuesday, a day after the EC barred him from electioneering for three days.

Lucknow/Faizabad: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath will visit the Ram Lalla temple in Ayodhya on Wednesday, amid the 72-hour ban on campaigning imposed on him by the Election Commission.

Adityanath visited the famous Hanuman Setu temple in Lucknow and offered prayers on Tuesday, a day after the poll panel barred him from electioneering for three days, for likening the ongoing Lok Sabha polls to a contest between ‘Ali’ and ‘Bajrang Bali’.

In Ayodhya, along with the makeshift shrine to Ram Lalla, the chief minister will also pray at the nearby Hanuman Garhi temple.

Faizabad BJP district president Awadhesh Pandey told PTI, “The chief minister’s programme is all confirmed, he will offer prayers at Ram Janambhoomi and Hanuman Garhi temple and will meet VHP religious leaders in Ayodhya on Wednesday.”

Adityanath will be meeting Ram Janambhoomi Nyas president Mahant, Nritya Gopal Das and Digambar Akhara Mahant, Suresh Das, he said.

According to Mahant Suresh Das, the chief minister will spend Wednesday in Ayodhya and will have lunch with prominent sadhus of Ayodhya at Digambar Akhara.

Also Read: EC Bars Adityanath From Campaigning for 72 Hours, Mayawati for 48 Hours

In the evening, he will go to Devipatan, a temple of goddess Durga in Balrampur district, where he would stay the night.

The chief minister reached the Hanuman Setu temple in Lucknow on Tuesday morning and got a rousing reception from his supporters amid slogans of “Jai Gorakhdham” and “Jai Bajrangbali ji”.

He, however, refused to take questions from the media, following the poll panel’s gag order.

He spent about 25 minutes at the temple and was seen bowing before the deity and sitting with folded hands, while reciting the ‘Hanuman Chalisa’.

Though he accepted greetings from large numbers of morning worshippers present there on Tuesday, the day dedicated to Lord Hanuman, with a smile, he refrained from interacting with them.

The chief minister also stayed away from Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s roadshow, held Tuesday before he filed his nomination paper for the Lucknow Lok Sabha seat. Adityanath also cancelled his rallies in Nagina and Fatehpur Sikri.

The BJP termed the chief minister’s visit to the temple “a personal one”.

The Election Commission on Monday had barred Adityanath from campaigning for 72 hours starting 6 am on Tuesday for his “divisive” comments at a rally in Meerut.

“If the Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the BSP have faith in Ali, we too have faith in Bajrang Bali”, he had said there.

While Ali is a revered figure in Islam, Bajrang Bali is another name used for Lord Hanuman.

Watch | ‘We Are Scared…Tired of This Drama’: Ayodhya’s Ram Bhakts

The small temple town is a playing field for large political rallies, especially during the buildup to an election.

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished by a crowd of Hindu fundamentalists. The small temple town has since become a playing field for large political rallies, especially during the buildup to an election.

This short film was shot on November 25, 2018 in Ayodhya by Rough Cut Productions.

Nirmohi Akhara Moves SC, Challenges Centre’s Plea to Return ‘Non-Disputed’ Land in Ayodhya

The Akhara, one of the parties in the land dispute case, said there are many temples on the acquired land and their rights would be affected if the land is returned to one party.

New Delhi: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the litigants in the Ayodhya case, on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court opposing the Centre’s plea seeking return of 67.390 acre of “non-disputed” acquired land around the Babri Masjid site to original owners.

The Allahabad high court in 2010 had decided that 2.77 acre of disputed land at the Babri Masjid site would be divided into three equal parts and will be handed over to the Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla.

Also Read: Past Continuous: The Birth of the Ram Mandir Agitation, a Ticking Communal Time Bomb

The Nirmohi Akhara, in its fresh plea, has opposed the Centre’s application by which it had sought modification of the Supreme Court’s 2003 order to allow it to return to original owners the 67.390 acre of “non-disputed” acquired land around the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

The application has said that the Centre had proposed returning the acquired land to Ram Janambhoomi Nyas and that there are many temples on the acquired land and their rights would be affected if the land is returned to one party.

The apex court had recently appointed mediators to find an amicable solution to the land dispute.

Ayodhya Mediators Ban Reporting of Proceedings in Print and Other Media

This is line with what the Supreme Court had ordered while appointing the mediators.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court appointed mediation committee for the resolution of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in an order dated March 13, directed that there should “not be any reporting of the mediation proceedings in print or other media”.

The order, signed by committee chairman F.M.I. Kalifulla, is in line with the what the Supreme Court had said while ruling in favour of mediation. The court had said:

“We are also of the view that mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the mediation proceedings and those views expressed therein by any of the parties included and learned mediators shall be kept confidential and not be revealed to any other person.”

The committee comprises of former Supreme Court judge, Justice F.M.I Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. It assembled for its first meeting in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh at 10:30 am on March 13.

The committee reportedly heard everyone who attended the proceedings after notices had been issued to all the parties to different civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court regarding the issue.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Watch | Can Mediation on Ayodhya Produce a Fair Solution?

Professor Apporvanand talks about the three-member panel appointed by the Supreme Court for mediation on the disputed land in Ayodhya. 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation and appointed former apex court judge Justice (retd) F.M.I. Kalifulla as chairperson of the panel of mediators.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

Sri Sri Ravishankar Among Others to Form Ayodhya Dispute Mediation Committee

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation and appointed former apex court judge Justice (retd) F.M.I. Kalifulla as chairperson of the panel of mediators.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

The bench directed that the mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and the process should start within a week from Friday.

The bench also comprising justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer said the panel of mediators will file a progress report of the mediator proceedings within four weeks and the process should be completed within eight weeks.

In March 2018, The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani interviewed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar about the comments he made on the Ayodhya case.

Also read: Whatever Call the SC Takes on Mediation, the Modi Govt Wants Ayodhya Pot Boiling

The apex court said that “utmost confidentiality” should be maintained to ensure success of mediation and neither print nor electronic media should report the proceedings.

The bench also directed that panel of mediators can co-opt more members in the team and in case of any difficulty the chairman will inform the apex court registry about it.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

(With PTI inputs)

SC Has Ordered Mediation But the Modi Govt Wants Ayodhya Pot Boiling

The Centre’s recent petition on returning ‘extra’ acquired land to the ‘original owners’ misunderstands the Supreme Court’s previous orders on the matter.

Two weeks after suggesting mediation as an option, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the parties involved in the Ayodhya case to join a confidential, court monitored mediatory process as means of resolving the dispute. The mediators named are senior lawyer Sriram Panchu, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravishankar and Justice Kalifullah, a former judge of the Supreme Court.

After the amendment of the CPC in 2002, the court was not required to secure the consent of the parties, though obviously successful mediation requires the unanimous consent of all litigants.

On February 26, when the court suggested the parties explore a permanent solution of the issue through court monitored mediation under strict confidentiality, this suggestion was broadly accepted by all the Muslim parties and the Nirmohi Akhara, whereas the parties representing the temple side rejected the suggestion. Soon after, they took a clearer stand in writing, stating that “….they are not ready for compromise. They cannot give up their claim on any inch of land”.

We cannot forget the fact that in the last week of January, 2019, the Central government came up with an application in the Supreme Court in the Aslam Bhure case, saying that it wants to return 67 acres of acquired land around the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya to its “original owners”.

The Aslam Bhure case was disposed of by a five-judge Supreme Court bench on March 31, 2003. Now, the Centre has said in its application that “continuation of vesting of superfluous land in the central Government defeats the very temporary nature of acquisition under 1993 Act [The Acquisition Of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993]”.

The disputed area is only 0.313 acres, according to the government, and the original owners of the rest of the acquired land in Ayodhya are entitled to get it back. The government is duty-bound to return this land, the application said.

Also read: Babri Masjid Case: Why Representation of Minority Judges Matters

The Centre acquired this 67 acres of adjacent land under the 1993 Act. Subsequently, the Ismail Faruqui judgement of 1994 justified the Centre’s retention of this larger area of land while the Ayodhya title dispute is resolved.

Now, while the courts are still hearing the issue, the Central government has sought to create the impression that a resolution has been reached.

Misrepresented terms

Before anything else, it is important to understand a few terms, as the government’s application plays around with them to suits its needs.

‘Disputed area’ cannot mean just 0.0313 acres. The pre-acquisition and pre-Faruqui case claims of Muslim parties in their civil suit filed in 1961 said the disputed area would be between four and five acres. This extended area of land took into account the graveyard surrounding the mosque.

The way the government’s application has been worded, it would also result in Muslim parties getting back this four or five acres of land, leaving aside the 0.313 acres. This is because the government cannot treat Muslims’ claims on the acquired land differently.

However, since the acquisition of the surrounding land has been upheld in the Faruqui case of 1994, no one can ask for it back it this point – Hindus and Muslims alike. All parties will have to wait for final resolution of the title dispute case.

Instead of the term ‘disputed area’, the proper term for the 0.313 acres would be the ‘mosque area’ or ‘disputed structure’, in which the outer courtyard area is also included.

Also read: Centre Is Duty Bound to Maintain Status Quo in Ayodhya

In para 96(6) of the Faruqui judgment, the Supreme Court said that all the adjacent area acquired shall be used for the purposes set out in the 1993 Act. The Act had said that the acquisition “of the site of disputed structure and adjacent land [is] for setting up complex which could be developed in planned manner wherein a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library and a museum and other suitable facilities can be set up”.

This intent of the Act cannot be fulfilled by the Central government at this stage because the parties’ suits are still pending in the Supreme Court. After the dispute has been resolved, the government will have to plan the area’s development as per the purpose set out in the 1993 Act. After that, if some land remains as ‘excess’, then the “original owners” of that land will have to initiate litigation if they want to get it back.

Another term used incorrectly in the application is ‘undisputed area’. The proper term which ought to have been used is ‘excess or surplus area in the adjacent area’. This land can only be identified after the final resolution plan. In its application, however, the Centre has declared the entire adjacent area to be ‘superfluous area’ by misreading the earlier judgements.

Considering the facts – that the adjacent land will be utilised depending on the outcome of the litigation – and further taking note of maintaining communal harmony and fulfilling the objectives of the Act, the Supreme Court bench in the Aslam Bhure case directed that the “larger extent of land is incidental to the main purpose”. The disputed and non-disputed land are “intrinsically connected”, the court said, and at this stage of the proceedings, no religious activity of any kind is permitted on the 67 acres.

Why now?

After the Faruqui case, the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the “original owners” according to the Centre) had filed an application before the Central government for the restoration of the land, and also claimed compensation for the land acquired. This application was rejected on August 14, 1996, with the Centre stating that the land cannot be restored till the case is decided. The Nyas was told to approach the claims commissioner for compensation. When hearing a challenge to this order, the high court backed the Central government.

Now the Centre, on a suo motu basis, is saying that they should be ‘permitted’ to hand over the (wrongly understood) ‘superfluous’ land to its original owners. This amounts to overreach, as the main case is still pending before five judges. The delay in hearing the main case because one of the judges had a genuine concern. It seems that the Central government’s application was an attempt to keep the polarising discussion going, for their political gains.

The constitutional scheme of this country prohibits the governments from playing the role of a religious leader. At the most, it can play a role in the religious affairs of different parties by ensuring equal treatment for all. A nine-judge Supreme Court bench said in the 1994 Bommai judgment that “strong religious consciousness not only narrows the vision but hampers the rule of law”. The judgment also defined the secular parameters within which a government is bound to operate.

The Modi government’s application is an attempt to keep the pot boiling, irrespective of the outcome. This will only further endanger rule of law, which is already under serious attack.

Note: This article was submitted last week and has been updated by The Wire editors to reflect latest developments.

M.R. Shamshad is the advocate-on-record for Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title suit.

Ram Mandir Brings Shiv Sena, BJP Together Again

After having launched continuous unrestrained attacks on the BJP for over three years, Uddhav Thackeray announced that he has made “peace” for the larger “Hindutva agenda”.

Mumbai: The two sparring allies Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have finally decided to bury the hatchet and retain their tie-up in the upcoming general elections and Maharashtra state elections. The two made a seat- sharing announcement on Monday February 18 in Mumbai.

Shiv Sena will contest 23 seats of the total 48 seats, and BJP the remaining 25 seats in the general elections which are to be held in April. For the state assembly elections, the two parties have decided to go with 50:50 seat sharing. The state is likely to head to the polls in September. 

Larger ‘Hindutva agenda’

After having launched continuous unrestrained attacks on the BJP for over three years, Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray today announced that he has made “peace” with its ally for the larger “Hindutva agenda”.

Thackeray said his demand for Ram Mandir to be built on the disputed land in Ayodhya at the earliest is still on BJPs agenda and the two parties have come together to fulfil this larger goal. Both BJP chief Amit Shah and Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis agreed with his demand.

“If we are seeking Ram rajya in this country, we need a Ram Mandir to be built in Ayodhya at the earliest,” Thackeray said.

Also read: BJP, Shiv Sena Split Maharashtra’s Seats in Tie-Up For Lok Sabha, Assembly Polls

Addressing a press conference in Mumbai along with Shah and Fadnavis, Thackeray said he has agreed to overlook his differences and focus on the “larger good”. An hour before the press meet, Shah along with Fadnavis and other senior party leaders had visited Thackeray at Matoshree, his residence in suburban Bandra. 

“The two parties had stuck together for over 25 years on its single ideology of nationalism and Hindutva agenda. We have had differences in the past but we are ready to leave them behind and come together to push the Hindutva agenda on a national level,” Thackeray declared at the conference.

Credit: Sukanya Shantha/The Wire

Sena, which has been a bickering ally over the past few years, has on multiple occasions given hints about its intentions of heading to the polls alone, using its mouthpiece Saamna to hit out at the BJP and the prime minister Narendra Modi.

In a scathing editorial piece in December – soon after the BJP lost elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh – Thackeray had taken to his newspaper to “congratulate the voters” for taking a “bold decision” of ousting the BJP from their respective states.

Also read: Shiv Sena Celebrates BJP Collapse in the Hindi Belt

The Sena, in the editorial, had said that both PM Narendra Modi and Shah have been side-lined in the “Hindi belt” of the country and given space to the “meritorious star” Rahul Gandhi. The title of the editorial reads: “Those (BJP) trying to fly high, have collapsed.”

But today at the press conference, the mood was entirely different. Fadnavis claimed that the two parties have managed to “amicably resolve” all its issues and have accepted each other “with open hearts”. “Uddhavji has been raising some pertinent issues in the recent times and we have agreed to take care of them favourably,” Fadnavis said.

He further added that Thackeray has been persistent with few of his demands, particularly about the need to expedite the process of building the temple at Ayodhya.

Reiterating Fadnavis’ claims, Shah added, “Under PM Modi’s guidance, the work has already been initiated.”

He further added that the central government has already sought the surplus 67 acres of land acquired in 1993 to be handed over to its “rightful owners” Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

The upper hand

Going by today’s announcement on the seat-sharing, it is evident that the BJP has managed to have an upper hand in the state.  This has remained a root of much of the friction between the two allies. Both party leaders, however, stayed quiet about the probable chief ministerial candidate in the state elections, one of the other most contentious issue between the two parties.

The BJP has also agreed to resolve issue of the Nanar oil refinery project in the coastal region of Maharashtra.

“The Sena has made it clear that it is not opposed to the project per se but to the issue of land acquisition of the farmers in the region. I had already announced in the past that we have stopped our process of acquiring land in Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg region. Today, I am announcing that we will soon be starting with the reversal process of handing over the land back to the farmers,” Fadnavis declared.

Also read: Why BJP Will Continue to Give in to Shiv Sena’s Demands

Talking of the woes of farmers in the state, Fadnavis said over 50 lakh farmers have benefitted from the loan waiver scheme in the state.

“But we will ensure all those who have been left behind because of the technical issues at the local village level. Uddhav ji wanted me to give this assurance and BJP promises to take this up seriously,” he added. 

Expressing confidence over winning the polls, Shah said, “I am confident that in the Lok Sabha elections, BJP and Shiv Sena will together win 45 out of total 48 seats in Maharashtra.” Shah had made similar claim at his recent visit to Pune.

“Our hearts have always been together. We are making a fresh start today and I believe all Hindu voters will rejoice today. The two parties will now move forward together with a clean heart,” Thackeray said.

Centre Is Duty Bound to Maintain Status Quo in Ayodhya

A scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s judgments makes it clear that the Centre cannot hand over any land, superfluous or not.

Despite the Supreme Court’s past statements, the Centre on January 29 moved the apex court seeking permission to return “all excess acquired land” to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. The Nyas was formed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to promote and oversee construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

The apex court has time and again reiterated that no part of the 67.703 acres of acquired land located in revenue plots No 159 & 160 in Kot Ramchandra village would neither be handed over by the government to anyone nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith. It shall be retained by the government till the disposal of the case, the court said.

The Centre, in fact, has sought modification of the March 31, 2003 order of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Aslam Bhure vs Union of India and Ors wherein it had directed to maintain status quo with regard to entire land, including the non-disputed acquired plots.

The government is seeking permission to allow it to return to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas the 67.390 acre of “non-disputed” land acquired through legislation in 1993 after the demolition of Babri Masjid by frenzied ‘karsevaks‘ on December 6, 1992. The government claims that the disputed structure was built only on 0.313 acre of land and the remaining area was acquired around it is undisputed and can be returned to its original owners.

Also Read: Rebuilding the Babri Masjid: Considering Somnath and Ayodhya

The government has primarily relied upon the observation of the Supreme Court in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India and Ors case. The Centre claims that the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had held that if the Centre wanted to return the superfluous area of acquired land to its original owners, which is other than the disputed area of 0.313 acres, then it may do so. The Centre’s plea argues that one party, Ram Janmbhoomi Nyas, whose land measuring approximately 42 acres was acquired and which is a part of the superfluous/excess land has approached it to return the same.

A similar request in the past

Interestingly, when a similar request was made by the Nyas in 2002 seeking permission to perform Pooja, the then Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee in view of an interim order passed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on March 13, 2002 in Mohd. Aslam Bhure case, had categorically refused to alter the status quo of entire acquired land. The court unambiguously ruled that no religious activity should take place on the adjacent land. It also refused to accede to Nayas’ demand that part of that acquired land be returned to it.

In a statement in the Rajya Sabha on March 14, 2002, Vajpayee reiterated that his government is the statutory receiver of the land and “is duty bound to maintain the status quo at the disputed site in Ayodhya”. This stand was taken despite the fact that the then attorney general Soli Sorabjee had submitted before the Supreme Court that “temporary use” of the undisputed adjacent land per se would not violate the status quo order.

A year later, on March 31, 2003, while reaffirming its previous interim order of March 13, 2002, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that no religious activity of any kind by anyone, either symbolic or actual including bhumipuja or shila puja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place on the entire 67.703 acres of acquired land. The court held that the disputed Babri Masjid area of 0.313 acre and the acquired adjacent land of over 67 acres were intrinsically connected with one another and cannot be separated at this stage of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that no religious activity of any kind by anyone, either symbolic or actual, shall be permitted or allowed to take place . Credit: PTI/Ravi Choudhary

After disposal of the suit by the Allahabad high court in 2010, wherein it had divided the 2.77 acres of the disputed site equally among three parties – one-third each to Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board – one may assume that the status quo order has become infructuous.

However, one should not forget that the Supreme Court on May 9, 2011 in the Mohd Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das and Ors case, while hearing the appeal against the 2010 order of the Allahabad high court, had not only stayed the operation of the impugned judgment, but also ordered again to maintain status quo on entire 67.7 acre of the acquired land till it decides the matter. In September 2018, the Supreme Court once again clarified that its 2003 judgment holds the field till the title suit is finally adjudicated.

Though the Centre’s move to hand over of the so called ‘superfluous land’ around the disputed site to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is without any legal infirmity, a detailed scrutiny of all the relevant judgments and the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 would make it clear that this is not so.

Ensuring communal harmony

While taking any proposal on the transfer of land into consideration, the Centre must also take into account the purpose of the land acquisition as explained by the Supreme Court in the Faruqui case which was twofold. Firstly, to ensure communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India and to ensure that the party/parties who succeeded in the title dispute will be able to access the site so that it could enjoy the ‘fruits of success on the final outcome of the adjudication’.

Further, the site of the disputed structure and suitable adjacent land was acquired for specific purpose as provided in the preamble to the Ayodhya Act of 1993. This is 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.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that any attempt by the Centre to restore the acquired excess land around the disputed site to the Nyas would not only be violative of the various orders passed by the Supreme Court for maintaining status quo at entire land, but also negates the very purpose of the Act through which the land was acquired.

Also Read: How Modi and Shah Have Harnessed the VHP and its Ayodhya Bluster

The Centre must understand that it is only a trustee of the acquired land as a statutory receiver with a duty to manage and administer it in the manner provided in the Act. The Centre is duty bound to maintain the status quo and it can’t return the superfluous land during the pendency of the suit.

In the larger national interest, the Centre must avoid taking any move which would disturb the communal harmony at this crucial juncture when the Supreme Court is set to adjudicate the case as this is bound to stoke communal passions.

It is pertinent here to recall what the apex court said in the Ismail Farooqui case:

Even 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 closer 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 which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Centre is ‘duty bound’ to protect the Constitution and not to restore the acquired land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

Aftab Alam is a professor of political science at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

Ayodhya: Plea Filed in SC Challenging Law on Land Acquisition Near Disputed Site

The plea contends that parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state.

New Delhi: A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court Monday challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

The plea contends that parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state.

The plea, filed by seven individuals including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, submitted that state legislature has the exclusive power to make provisions relating to the management of affairs of religious institutions inside its territory.

The petitioners submitted that the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 Act infringes right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

They have sought the court’s direction restraining the Centre and the UP government from interfering in “Puja, Darshan and performance of rituals at the places of worship situated within the land admeasuring 67.703 acres acquired under the Act particularly at the land belonging to Shri Ram Janm Bhoomi Nyas, Manas Bhavan, Sankat Mochan Mandir, Ram Janmasthan Temple, Janki Mahal and Katha Mandap”.

Also read: Want to Return Non-Disputed Land in Ayodhya to ‘Original Owners’, Centre Tells SC

In the petition, it has been contended that in view of the clear provision contained in Article 294 of the constitution, the land and properties situated within the Uttar Pradesh vested in the state government from the date of the enforcement of the Constitution.

“As such the land and property situated at Ayodhya continued to the property of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Union cannot take over any part of the land of the State of Uttar Pradesh including the land and property situated at Ayodhya,” the petition said.

The petition has been filed within a week of the Centre, on January 29, moving an application in the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.

The Centre had said it had acquired 67 acres of land around the 2.77 acre disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

The Centre’s plea has said that the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas (a trust to promote construction of Ram Temple) had sought return of excess land acquired in 1991 to original owners.

The Centre has claimed that only 0.313 acre of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by ‘kar sevaks’ on December 6, 1992.