A fresh petition relating to Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Acquisition of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993..Pursuant to this Act, the Central government had acquired around 67 acres of land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya..This is the second time the 1993 Act is coming under challenge. Earlier, it was challenged in 1993 and the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge and upheld the Act in 1994. This was in the much cited judgment of Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India..The petition has been filed by eight individuals on the ground that the Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire or take over this land that belongs to the State..In the present petition filed through Advocate Ankur S Kulkarni, it has been contended that the State Legislature has “exclusive power to make provision relating to the management of the affairs of religious institutions working in the State.”.The Act has also been challenged on the grounds as being violative of the Right to Practice and propagate one’s religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India..The petition states that the State of Uttar Pradesh would have right over the land adjacent to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid disputed site..“In the exercise of the power for making law relating to the acquisition of property the Parliament cannot take over any part of land vested in the State under Article 294 of the Constitution of India..… It is undisputed that the property in question situated at Ayodhya has not been declared as Ancient and Historical monument by any law made by Parliament.”.As regards the Act being ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the petition states that there are places of worship and pilgrimage situated in the land acquired by the Centre under this Act. This acquisition infringes on the right of the Hindus to practice their religion, a right which is guaranteed under Article 25..“The impugned Act is ultra vires to Article 25 of the Constitution of India in so far it restricts the rights of Hindus to perform Darshan and Puja in the temple and Dharmshalas and other place of worship situated in and around the disputed structure.”.The petition, therefore, prays for the Act to be declared void and as being ultra vires Article 25. Additionally, the petitioners have also sought a direction to be given to Centre to restrain from “interfering in Puja, Darshan and performance of rituals at the places of worship situated within the land admeasuring 67.703 acres acquired by the impugned Act.”.This petition comes just days after the Centre had filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking restoration of “undisputed land” adjacent to the disputed territory to their original owners.
A fresh petition relating to Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid dispute has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Acquisition of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993..Pursuant to this Act, the Central government had acquired around 67 acres of land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya..This is the second time the 1993 Act is coming under challenge. Earlier, it was challenged in 1993 and the Supreme Court had dismissed the challenge and upheld the Act in 1994. This was in the much cited judgment of Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India..The petition has been filed by eight individuals on the ground that the Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire or take over this land that belongs to the State..In the present petition filed through Advocate Ankur S Kulkarni, it has been contended that the State Legislature has “exclusive power to make provision relating to the management of the affairs of religious institutions working in the State.”.The Act has also been challenged on the grounds as being violative of the Right to Practice and propagate one’s religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India..The petition states that the State of Uttar Pradesh would have right over the land adjacent to the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid disputed site..“In the exercise of the power for making law relating to the acquisition of property the Parliament cannot take over any part of land vested in the State under Article 294 of the Constitution of India..… It is undisputed that the property in question situated at Ayodhya has not been declared as Ancient and Historical monument by any law made by Parliament.”.As regards the Act being ultra vires Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the petition states that there are places of worship and pilgrimage situated in the land acquired by the Centre under this Act. This acquisition infringes on the right of the Hindus to practice their religion, a right which is guaranteed under Article 25..“The impugned Act is ultra vires to Article 25 of the Constitution of India in so far it restricts the rights of Hindus to perform Darshan and Puja in the temple and Dharmshalas and other place of worship situated in and around the disputed structure.”.The petition, therefore, prays for the Act to be declared void and as being ultra vires Article 25. Additionally, the petitioners have also sought a direction to be given to Centre to restrain from “interfering in Puja, Darshan and performance of rituals at the places of worship situated within the land admeasuring 67.703 acres acquired by the impugned Act.”.This petition comes just days after the Centre had filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking restoration of “undisputed land” adjacent to the disputed territory to their original owners.