The Supreme Court Today (June 30) dismissed a plea asking for the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya to be handed over to Buddhists, advising the petitioner to approach the Patna High Court instead. The temple remains under Bihar government’s control.
The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has paused new lawsuits while reviewing challenges to the Places of Worship Act. Advocate Hari Shankar Jain advocates restoring demolished Hindu temples, claiming the ruling benefits Hindus. The court will evaluate ongoing cases concerning religious structures in due course.
Today, On 12th December, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna will hear petitions contesting the Places of Worship Act, which preserves the status of religious sites as of August 15, 1947. Supporters argue it upholds secularism and prevents communal tensions, while challengers claim it violates religious rights and impedes judicial remedies for various faiths.
Today, On 25th October, The Supreme Court postponed a hearing on a PIL opposing ‘VIP entry charges’ in Indian temples, emphasizing a detailed review of the fees’ effects on worship access. The petition claims these charges violate equality and dignity rights, urging equal treatment for all devotees regardless of financial status and the need for standardized temple access procedures.
Today, On 22nd July, TMC MP Mahua Moitra criticized the Supreme Court’s interim stay on ‘nameplates’ for eateries along the Kanwar Yatra routes, calling it an “unconstitutional order” contradicting constitutional principles. The bench ruled that state police cannot compel shopkeepers to display their names but can only require them to indicate the food items they offer, with a hearing set for July 26.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) voiced concerns over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), challenging the government’s claim of aiding persecuted minorities. They highlighted the Act’s selectiveness in excluding certain groups and raised issues about dual citizenship. The IUML emphasized the importance of a fair and non-discriminatory refugee policy. They assert that the CAA’s implementation discriminates and lacks logical connection with its purported goal.