2018 (9) TMI 2082 - SC - Indian Laws

Places of religious worship can be acquired under the State's sovereign power of acquisition or not - violation of Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution or not - whether right to practice, profess and propagate religion guaranteed Under Article 25 does not extend to the right of worship at any and every place of worship? - protection Under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is to religious practice which forms an essential or integral part of the religion or not - whether a practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of practice of that religion? - reference to the Larger Bench. HELD THAT - Considering the Constitutional importance and significance of the issues involved, the following need to be referred to a larger Bench (a) Whether in the light of Shirur Mutt and other aforementioned cases, an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question? (b) Whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality? (c) Does Article 25, only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential? (d) Do Articles 15, 25 and 26 (read with Article 14) allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken? The Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reconsideration of the judgment in Ismail Faruqui's case.
2. The applicability of res judicata.
3. The influence of Ismail Faruqui's judgment on the impugned judgment.
4. The necessity for a larger bench to address the issues.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Reconsideration of the Judgment in Ismail Faruqui's Case:
The appellants argued that the judgment in Ismail Faruqui's case requires reconsideration, particularly the observation that "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." This observation was claimed to influence decisions under appeal and was argued to be contrary to the law relating to essential practices. The appellants contended that the essential practice of a religion requires a detailed examination, which was not done in Ismail Faruqui's case. The respondents opposed this, arguing that the judgment is binding and does not need reconsideration.

2. The Applicability of Res Judicata:
The respondents claimed that the appellants are barred by res judicata from seeking reconsideration of the Ismail Faruqui judgment, as the interests of the Muslim community were adequately represented in the earlier case. The appellants countered that the issues in Ismail Faruqui's case were different from those in the current appeals, and thus, res judicata does not apply.

3. The Influence of Ismail Faruqui's Judgment on the Impugned Judgment:
The appellants argued that the impugned judgment was influenced by the observations in Ismail Faruqui's case, particularly regarding the essentiality of a mosque. They pointed out various references to Ismail Faruqui in the impugned judgment to support their claim. The respondents contended that the impugned judgment was not affected by Ismail Faruqui's observations and that the High Court had independently decided the issues based on the evidence on record.

4. The Necessity for a Larger Bench to Address the Issues:
The appellants and some respondents argued that the matter should be referred to a larger bench due to its importance and the need to align Ismail Faruqui's judgment with other authoritative pronouncements. They cited instances where important constitutional issues were referred to larger benches. The respondents opposed this, stating that the issues could be decided by the current bench and that there was no need for a larger bench.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui's case were made in the context of land acquisition and were not relevant for deciding the suits or the appeals. The court held that no case was made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment in Ismail Faruqui's case for reconsideration. The court also appreciated the assistance rendered by the counsel for both parties and directed that the appeals be listed for hearing in the week commencing 29th October 2018. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, in a separate opinion, disagreed with the majority view on the relevance of the questionable observations in Ismail Faruqui's case and opined that the matter should be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on several constitutional questions.