New Delhi: SC agreed to investigate opposite arguments on Friday Hindu and Muslim side On the purpose of Place of worship1991, which was present for Mathura on August 15, 1947, gives the religious character of the structures Royal idgah-srikrishna JansthanProtected under ASI Act.
The Muslim side said that the Allahabad HC’s decision to club all 15 suits filed by the Hindu sides claimed the right to worship on the entire disputed land, wrong and went against the provisions of the POW (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
SC: HC Call to Bunch Suit that has been filed by Hindu sides is correct
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan said that the decision to bow down the suits filed by HC’s Hindu sides, “Prima Feshi seems to be correct”, a re -evaluation of the scene was done during the hearing on January 10.
The Muslim side was represented by Advocate Tasnim Ahmadi. Ahmadi said that the POW (Special Provision) Act, 1991 stopped the High Court from entertaining any trial, which aims to convert the religious character of the structure into each other on August 15, 1947. For the Hindu side, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said that the IDGAH would not come as a protected monument under the ASI Act. When Ahmadi opposed Jain’s stand, the bench said, “If you protect under the 1991 Act, they are entitled to fight this act and compete with it, not applied to the structure.”
The bench said that on December 12, it prevents any interim order in a suit related to the temple-psych disputes and asked the courts not to entertain any fresh suits for the recurrence of temples that were converted into mosques during Islamic rule, including the controversies with Shaisaha and Shaisaha of Varanasi. On December 12, the bench also directed, “In pending suits, trial courts will not pass any effective and final order, including the survey order until the next date of hearing.”
Allahabad HC ruled on 1 August last year that the suit was not stopped by any provision of the Waqf Act, the POW Act, the Boundary Act, the Border Act or the Civil Procedure Code. On October 23 last year, HC rejected the Muslim side’s petition to recall on January 11, 2024, directing the consolidation of all the suits on the order royal Idgah-Shrikrishna Janata dispute.
The SC agreed to list the appeal by the Muslim side, challenging the orders -the ability to consolidate and non -long for IDGAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAMs. Some of these petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Pow Act, while others seek for its implementation in letters and spirit. The hearing on these petitions is scheduled for 8 April.
