Today, On 29th December, The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging demolition of a structure a madarsa on Mehrauli–Badarpur Road. CJI Surya Kant said, “If it were a historical structure, we could have examined it, but this concerns an illegal slum-area structure.”
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two men, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, who were accused of insulting religious beliefs by shouting “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque. The court ruled that this act did not “outrage the religious feelings of any class.” The two men, from Dakshin Kannada district, had been charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 295A, 447, and 506, following a complaint lodged in connection with the incident that occurred in September last year. As per the complaint, the two had entered a local mosque one night in September last year and shouted “Jai Shri Ram.”
Today, 6th May, The Delhi High Court demanded an explanation from the Delhi government regarding the non-functioning Waqf Tribunal, highlighting the need for tribunals to resolve waqf property disputes under the Waqf Act. The absence of proper notification has hindered the tribunal’s ability to fulfill its mandate, leading to a rise in pending disputes and burdening the High Court.
![[SHOCKING] Judge Who Ordered Gyanvapi Videography Survey Reports Receiving Calls from International Numbers](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/18_05_2022-varanasi_gyanvapi_case_22722392.webp?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (1 March) has agreed to hear an appeal from the Gyanvapi Management Committee challenging an Allahabad High Court decision deeming lawsuits for the “restoration” of a temple, where a mosque currently stands in Varanasi, as maintainable. Both sides have filed petitions and the legal battle continues.
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.
A civil suit involving a Hindu temple near the Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow has advanced following the dismissal of a revision plea. The suit seeks the right of worship at Laxman Teela and addresses the historical damage to the site during Aurangzeb’s reign. The ruling allows the suit to proceed, determining the plaintiffs’ right to uninterrupted worship.
The Allahabad High Court rejected the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee’s plea, allowing Hindu prayers in the Gyanvapi mosque’s southern cellar. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board expressed astonishment and announced plans to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. They criticized the court for not affording the Muslim side an opportunity to present their perspective. The AIMPLB plans to seek an audience with President Droupadi Murmu. Additionally, they alleged a separate law for the majority in courts and questioned the fairness of the judicial system. The Gyanvapi case has sparked controversy and raised concerns about religious rights and judicial equality.
The Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee has taken the dispute over Hindu worship within the Gyanvapi mosque to the Supreme Court, challenging a district judge’s ruling. The conflict stems from differing historical claims, with the outcome expected to impact broader religious and heritage discourse in India. This legal battle reflects complex intersections of history, religion, and law.