IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

I.A. NO: OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 105 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY…PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …..RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER

1. That on 26.02.2019 this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeals

No.(s) 10866 67 OF 2010 and Writ Petition No.105 of

2016,had observed: “We have suggested to the parties

that during the interregnum a Court appointed and

Court monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality

could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the

issues raised in the cases. “

2. That the Civil Appeals No.(s) 10866-67 OF 2010 before

this Hon’ble Court, are against the Allahabad High

Court judgment [(2010) ADJ 1 SFB (LB)] on the Ram

janmabhoomiBabri Masjid dispute delivered on

30.09.2010 regarding property/Title claims of rival

parties.

  1
 3. That the mediation/compromise for permanent

solution as queried by this Hon’ble Courtwas under

the mandate of Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code,

1908.

4. That an extract Section 89 is given below:

“89. (1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist

elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to

the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of

settlement and give them to the parties for their

observations and after receiving the observations of the

parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a

possible settlement and refer the same for—

(a) Arbitration;

(b) Conciliation;

(c) Judicial settlement including settlement through

LokAdalat; or

d) Mediation.

5. That therefore It is most respectfully submitted that in

janmabhoomi connected land in Ayodhya, out of the

total area of 67.703 acres, the disputed area where the

Babri Masjid stood, is of 0.313 acres.

6. It is most respectfully submitted that under the

concept of ‘eminent domain’, the Government is

empowered to take over any land in the public interest

  2
 under the concept of “eminent domain” & Article 300A

by paying reasonable and fair compensation.

7. That the purview of Section 89 of CPC and the concept

of “permanent solution” can cover the “Reasonability”

behind the fair compensation by the Government

which fairness is subject to judicial review

8. This area of 67.703 acres therefore has been acquired

in 1993 by the Union of India under the Acquisition of

Certain Area at Ayodhya Act (1993), which Act has

been held to be constitutionally valid by this Hon’ble

Court [Ismail Faruqui vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC

360 at page 383].

9. That having acquired thus the entire 67.703 acres of

the Ramjanambhoomi related land in Ayodhya

including the disputed portion of 0.313 acres where a

temple had earlier stood before it was replaced by the

Babri Masjid circa 1528 AD.

10. That vide this cited Act of 1993, Section 6 empowers

the Central Government vest part or whole of the said

land to any Authority, Body or Trust on conditions if

any prescribe by the Central government.

11. This executive power is unfettered by any law and

regulation except that the Central Government is

obligated to pay compensation as per lawto the

appropriate party under the Ayodhya Act, under which

compensation only is subject to judicial review.

  3
 12. That under Section 89 of the CPC, first parameter of

a compromise is “existing element of a settlement” on

which, it is submitted with the utmost respect,

element is as per the commitment given in theAffidavit

dated 14.09.1994, filed by the Learned Solicitor

General of the Government of India including the

Statement of intent of the then Prime Minister P.V.

Narasimha Rao and submitted before this Hon’ble

Court [Ismail Faruqui vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC

360]

13. The Central Government’s commitment to “enforce

a solution” thus states,inter alia as follows:

“….if the question referred is answered in the

affirmative, namely that a Hindu temple/structure did

exist prior to the construction of the demolished

structure, government action will be in support of the

wishes of the Hindu community. If one the other hand,

the question is answered in the negative, namely that

no such Hindu temple/ structure existed at the relevant

time, then government action will be in support of the

wishes of the muslim community…”.

14. This Applicant herein and Petitioner in the current

Writ Petition, had contributed to the formulation as

Cabinet Minister of Commerce, Law & Justice during

the crucial period 1990-91, later holding a Cabinet

  4
 Rank appointment in the Prime Minister Rao’s

Government.

15. Thus, on September 27 1992, as Prime Minister

Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao sent a letter to this

Applicant/Petitioner,expressingappreciation for

contributing in consultations for an early amicable

settlement of the dispute[This WP page…].

16. That further with the greatest respect it is

submitted that this fundamental right of the Petitioner

to pray at the Ram Janmabhoomi supersedes a

property right. Right to property is no longer a

fundamental right after the deletion of Article 19(1)(f)

and Article 31 from the Constitution of India. (44th

Amendment, 1978).

17. That, moreover, Namaz can be read anywhere,

including not only in a mosque built as a prayer hall,

but even on the roads, railway platform or on an

aeroplane, and hence Sharia as practiced in any

theocratic Islamic nation permits mosques to be

shifted or demolished by a government for a public

purpose.

18. This happens for example regularly in Saudi Arabia,

Iran, Pakistan and other Islamic countries. That In the

light of the above declaration of law, the religious

sentiments of Hindus who consider the Ram

  5
 Janmabhoomi site as the birthplace of Lord Rama

should be respected in law as a Fundamental Right of

Hindu worshippers under Article 25 of the

Constitution.

19. That there is a fundamental theological difference

between reading namaz in a mosque and worshiping at

a temple built according the Agama Shastra and

constructed after performing PranaPrathista Pujaat the

garbhagraha.

20. The rights claimed by the Sunni Wakf Board, an

Appellant in the Civil Suit quoted above, is that of the

right to the title on land i.e. an ordinary right to

property.

21. This is inferior to the right to pray as per faith

which is part of the Preamble. The Petitioner’s

Fundamental Right to pray at a place where faith

states Lord Ram was born is a Fundamental Right

under Article 25 of the constitution of India.

22. It is most respectfully submitted that this

Application is made bona fide and is in the public

interest. The Petitioner craves the leave of this Hon’ble

Court to add further reasons.

PRAYER

  6
 Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions,

facts and also the reasons enunciated hereinabove, it

is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court

may graciously be pleased to grant the following

reliefs:

(a) Pass an Order or Direction that the Petitioner’s present

Writ Petition being Writ Petition Civil No. 105 of 2016

be heard on priority and on an immediate basis as a

constitutional matter as the Petitioner has invoked his

fundamental right of worship.

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may pass such other and

further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of

the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PAY.

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

New Delhi:

DATE: March 6, 2019

  7