The Hindu side Today (April 30th) countered the argument presented by the Muslim side in the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute at Mathura in the Allahabad High Court. They asserted that the provisions of the Waqf Act would not be applicable as the disputed property is not categorized as waqf property.
The dispute at Krishna Koop in Mathura has intensified as Hindu worshipers seek permission for the ‘Basoda puja’, met with objections from the Muslim community. The Allahabad High Court is considering the plea, emphasizing the historical and religious significance of the site. The next hearing is scheduled for April 1.
The Supreme Court Today disposed of a plea challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order on Mathura’s Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute. It allowed the Shahi Masjid Idgah to pursue a recall application. The Supreme Court also upheld the interim stay on the implementation of the high court’s order for a court-monitored survey of the Shahi Idgah Mosque complex.
The counsel for the Shahi Idgah managing committee argued in the Allahabad High Court today that the suit seeking the removal of the mosque is constrained by the statute of limitations. The Muslim side cited a compromise dating back to 1968, stating the suit filed in 2020 is beyond the three-year limit to challenge a compromise. The High Court set March 13 as the next hearing date. The case involves a dispute over Waqf property. The Waqf Act allows the Waqf Boards in India to claim unlimited powers over properties without recourse to legal challenge, raising questions in the context of a secular country. Waqf Board holds over 8,54,509 properties encompassing more than eight lakh acres of land, with powers to acquire and declare ownership without need for proof. The controversy surrounding the Waqf Act and the dispute over the mosque illustrates the complexities of religious property laws in India, provoking debate about the Act’s constitutionality.
The Supreme Court of India has extended the suspension of the Commission for the Shahi Eidgah Mosque in the Gyanvapi case, with the hearing postponed until April. The decision underscores the complex legal battle concerning the historical and religious site in Mathura, India, reflecting the interplay of history, religion, and law. The outcome is anticipated to set a precedent for similar disputes.
The Supreme Court of India has temporarily halted the survey of the Shahi Idgah land in Mathura, following a plea by the mosque committee. This comes after the Allahabad High Court’s decision to allow the survey, which was contested by the mosque committee. The case continues to be a complex legal and religious battle with far-reaching implications.
The Allahabad High Court has decided to consolidate fifteen of the eighteen suits related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute to save time, reduce expenses, and avoid conflicting judgments. This move aims to bring coherence and efficiency to the legal process surrounding this historically and religiously significant case.
The Supreme Court of India, in a recent hearing, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah Mosque adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura. The apex court, led by Justice Khanna, emphasized the complexity of the matter, citing the presence of disputed facts and ongoing litigation. Also read-ASI Requests […]
The Supreme Court has declined the plea by the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Mukti Nirman Trust, which sought a scientific survey of the Shahi Eidgah Masjid premises in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The Trust alleges that the mosque was built over the Krishna Janmabhoomi, the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul […]
Supreme Court Deliberates on Krishna Janmabhoomi Demolition: A Deep Dive into the Mathura Controversy The Supreme Court of India is gearing up to address a significant plea related to the ongoing demolition activities near the revered Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The plea specifically challenges the removal of what are described as illegal constructions […]
