![[Gyanvapi Case] 'Utilize Non-Invasive Methodology': SC's 2023 Verdict Boosts Survey Orders for Disputed Sites](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-3-2.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in the Gyanvapi case legitimized surveys of disputed religious sites, providing a precedent for similar cases. The decision, permitting the Archaeological Survey of India to investigate the mosque complex, has incited claims over additional contested worship places, leading to escalating tensions and legal disputes across the country.
![[Krishna Janmabhumi-Shahi Idgah Dispute] 'Muslim Side Gets A Shock': Allahabad HC Dismisses A Recall Application Filed Against Its January 2024 Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-12-3.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 23rd October, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the Muslim side’s request for separate hearings in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah dispute, allowing all cases to be heard together. The decision streamlines the legal process, with key issues to be addressed in the next hearing on November 8.
The Gujarat government defended its demolition activities in Gir Somnath before the Supreme Court, asserting the need to remove illegal encroachments on public land. In response to a legal challenge, the government emphasized adherence to legal procedures, while the petitioner accused authorities of targeting Muslim sites unlawfully. The case was adjourned for further review.
The Karnataka High Court criticized BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal for his “half-Pakistani” remark about Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao due to his Muslim wife. Justice M. Nagaprasanna condemned such statements that label an entire community and emphasized the need for restraint while reviewing Yatnal’s petition against a defamation case.
Today, On 4th September, The Muslim community appealed to the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court ruling that upheld the maintainability of lawsuits concerning the Shahi Idgah mosque dispute. The case involves legal challenges over the ownership and status of the mosque, which shares proximity with the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura. The upcoming Supreme Court decision will shape the future legal proceedings and negotiations between the involved parties.
Madhya Pradesh CM Mohan Yadav defended ‘bulldozer justice’ as per Constitutional principles, stating no one is above the law. Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra criticized the practice, advocating for judicial determination of guilt. The controversy stems from alleged anti-Islamic remarks, leading to violent protests and the subsequent demolition of Shahzad Ali’s house.
A court in Ajmer has acquitted six individuals accused of raising provocative slogans against BJP leader Nupur Sharma. The slogans were in response to derogatory comments made by Sharma about the Prophet. This led to Chishti’s arrest as the main accused in July 2022. Following his acquittal, Chishti expressed gratitude, stating, “Justice has been served in my case.”
Today, On 18th June,The Bombay High Court ruled that the film ‘Hamare Baarah’ does not depict objectionable content against Muslims and promotes women’s empowerment. The court acknowledged concerns and directed the removal of controversial scenes. It also addressed the need for sensitivity towards religious sentiments and highlighted the film’s focus on critical thinking and domestic violence.
![[PM Modi Hate Speech Case] TN Congress Moves Madras HC Over ECI Inaction](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-12-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (8th May): The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee filed a petition in the Madras High Court, alleging that the Election Commission of India failed to address hate speeches by Prime Minister Modi. They claim Modi made inflammatory, disrespectful, and divisive remarks targeting specific communities, inciting communal tensions and aiming to manipulate votes in favor of the BJP.
The Madras High Court invalidated a Tamil Nadu amendment to the Wakf Act, ruling that the state government’s power infringed upon Wakf properties’ protection under the Constitution. The decision affects Wakf administration in Tamil Nadu and affirms the supremacy of central law over state amendments in religious trust property management, a win for autonomy advocates.