Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Monday, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. This instant petition questioned the law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. In pursuance of this Act, the Central Government acquired 67 acres of land near the disputed site in Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi. The petition is filed by seven persons, who claim to be followers of Sanathan Dharma and worshippers of Lord Rama and they contended that the Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the State. The plea, filed by a group of seven lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, submitted that the Parliament is incompetent to legislate or enact the law as land falls within the exclusive subject matter of State as per Article 294 of the Constitution of India and only the State government, which in this case is the State of Uttar Pradesh, is competent to enact law on this subject. The petitioners contended that the state legislature has the exclusive power to make provisions relating to the management of affairs of religious institutions within its territory and the Parliament cannot acquire a land vested within the control of the State Government.
"The impugned Act is unreasonable and has been enacted at the cost of Hindu sentiments infringing their right to religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution of India and as such the same is liable to be struck down."
The petitioners further contend that the Act infringed the religious right i.e., the right of pilgrimage and worship of the Hindu devotees of Lord Ram as the disputed site was a place of pilgrimage and a historical monument. The Hindus have right to perform Puja, Arti, Bhog and other rituals at the places of worship in the temple, Ashram, Dharmshalas situated near the disputed structure and this right of religion cannot be infringed by the Centre or the States. It is alleged that a very large area which is separate from the disputed property has been acquired. The State Legislature has exclusive to make laws on the subjects of pilgrimage sites and historical monuments except those of national importance according to entries 7 and 12 of List II of Seventh Schedule. Moreover, the Act was enacted in public interest and no public interest will be served by procuring such a large area of land at the cost of Hindu religious sentiments. No reasonable basis could be laid down in the procurement of such unconnected large area. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act and the acquisition in Dr. Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India (1994). But in Mohd. Aslam Alias Bhure vs. Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court held that status quo will be operative over the entire property till the matter is finally adjudicated. However, in the instant case, the petitioners contend that the issues raised and dealt with in both the above-mentioned cases or in any other case till date are not similar to their case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824