The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea filed by Muslim parties challenging a Varanasi court order allowing Hindu prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi Mosque. This decision is part of a civil court case disputing the religious nature of the Gyanvapi compound, with conflicting claims about historical possession and the demolition of an ancient temple.
The Delhi High Court rejected a PIL challenging the Sunehri Bagh Mosque demolition, citing pending similar petitions. The court noted the Delhi Waqf Board’s actions to protect waqf properties and closed the petition. The petitioner’s request to quash a public notice seeking mosque removal due to traffic congestion was also mentioned as the proceedings continue before a single judge.
On 17 Feb 2024, Delhi’s Karkardooma Courts rejected bail for Sharjeel Imam, a prominent figure in the Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Despite serving four years, the court refused his plea due to the cumulative nature of his charges, marking a pivotal moment in legal interpretation and setting a precedent for similar cases. This decision fuels the ongoing debate on national security versus individual rights.
The Haldwani Municipal Corporation in Uttarakhand demolished a madrasa and a mosque in Banbhoolpura, sparking clashes. The structures’ owners claimed legal rights, but the corporation proceeded, citing absence of a stay order. The demolition raised concerns about procedural irregularities and motives behind the action, with political implications in the upcoming elections.
The Allahabad High Court is currently hearing the Gyanvapi mosque dispute, with the Muslim side challenged to prove their possession of the mosque’s southern cellar in 1993. The court’s directive against media engagement highlights its commitment to integrity. The case is of national interest and could set significant legal precedents for religious and cultural disputes in India.
A Hindu party seeks an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque’s cellars to establish its religious significance, highlighting the ongoing dispute with the Muslim community. The petitioner advocates for modern methods to access blocked cellars without damaging the mosque’s structure, reflecting the broader quest for historical truth and religious reconciliation in India.
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.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the case of Sheikh Arif vs. The State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the importance of clear consent in relationships. The court instructed Arif to pay Rs5 lakh to the woman without impacting her right to seek maintenance, recognizing her as his wife and the mother of his child. This ruling sets a crucial precedent for understanding consent and legal implications in relationships.
The Centre emphasized to the Supreme Court the need for national reflection in institutions of national significance like Aligarh Muslim University. Solicitor General highlighted the absence of reservation and the institution’s importance. The case revolves around AMU’s minority status, with ongoing deliberation by a seven-judge constitution bench. The hearing continues on Wednesday.