A Chandausi court has fixed August 28 for hearing the Shahi Jama Masjid–Harihar temple case after the Muslim side argued that the matter is already pending before the Supreme Court. The dispute, which earlier triggered violence in Sambhal, remains one of the most sensitive temple-mosque cases in Uttar Pradesh.
The Chandausi civil court has postponed the Shahi Jama Masjid-Harihar temple case to August 21 due to a lawyers’ strike. The case involves claims that the mosque stands over a pre-existing Hindu temple.
Hearing in the Shahi Jama Masjid–Harihar Mandir dispute has been postponed to August 5 due to a lawyers’ strike. The case involves claims of a mosque built over a temple, sparking legal and communal tensions.
Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh: A district court has scheduled April 28, 2025, for the next hearing of a petition claiming that the Shahi Jama Mosque was originally a Harihar Temple.
The Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea regarding the consolidation of 15 lawsuits related to the Mathura Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute, initially ordered by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court supported this consolidation as it serves the interests of justice and stated the plea could be raised later.
Today, On 24th December, The survey report on the mosque is almost ready and will likely be submitted in January, said the Sambhal court commissioner. The report is part of the ongoing case. Officials are carefully checking all details to make sure everything is included. The final report is expected to help decide the next steps in the case.
Today, Petitioners seek removal of the mosque in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, claiming it stands on Lord Krishna’s birthplace. Supreme Court to hear Shahi Idgah Masjid’s challenge to Allahabad High Court ruling on Sept 17. Disputed land’s history and legal battles between Hindu and Muslim parties continue with intricate details and ongoing hearings.
The Hindu petitioners on Monday in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute argue that the Places of Worship Act does not apply to a disputed structure. They challenge the 1968 compromise and maintain that the suit is maintainable and that evidence needs to be presented. The lawsuit also revisits historical claims about the mosque’s existence. The legal and historical complexities are becoming more evident as the court postpones further discussions.
