Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that a PIL seeking disclosure of the scientific archaeological survey of the Somnath Temple site was not maintainable where it was founded on unverified media reports, contained incorrect factual assertions, and failed to disclose the petitioner’s bona fides and credentials.
“The issue is not related to the ‘title of the property’ but for the claim of fundamental right of worship or prayer and if the ‘disputed area’ is held to be a ‘protected monument’ under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the bar under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply.”
“Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution, thus, the Ailan of 1935 was merely an executive or administrative arrangement and not a legislative enactment and the ASI report establishes a pre-existing temple structure, whose remains form the base of the present monument.”
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
“The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 was made by the legislature of the day expressing the solemn desire and wish of the people of the Country to preserve their heritage and historical ethos. The Tughlakabad Fort is one such ancient monument which is of national importance, and reflects our historical ethos and heritage and therefore, needs to be preserved.”
The plaintiff, Hindu Sena chief cited historical records of a Shiva Linga beneath the site and sought direction to the ASI to conduct a survey of the Dargah premises to confirm the existence of remnants of the Shiva temple.
The Court stated that until the Municipal Corporation resorted to appropriate procedure in law to acquire the disputed land, it should not disturb the peaceful possession of the Church in any manner whatsoever.
“Arulmigu Gangaikonda Cholisvarar temple is a protected monument under the Archaeological Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1958.”
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 75(c), Or. 26 Rr. 10-A, 9 and 10: Direction of trial court to Director of Archaeological
Madhya Pradesh High Court, vide order 11-03-2024, directed ASI survey of the complex stating that it is Constitutional and statutory obligation of the ASI to have a scientific survey.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on plea by Hindu Front for Justice, had directed for complete scientific investigation, survey and excavation of the Bhojshala complex.
Allahabad High Court: In pleas filed by Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee challenging suits concerning Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi Mosque dispute, Rohit Ranjan Agrawal, J.
“Primary aim of refresher course is to strengthen knowledge of old photographer in the light of advancement that has occurred in field of photography, equipment and related techniques, digital mode, etc. The refresher course is intended to upgrade all old school photographers and enhance their knowledge and skill, as digital technology has modified entire process of camera and photographs.”
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi District Court’s order directing the Director, Archaeological Survey of India to undertake scientific survey/ investigation/ excavation of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition against the Varanasi District Court’s Order wherein ASI was directed to undertake scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque to find out whether the same was constructed over a pre-existing structure of Hindu Temple.
Allahabad High Court observed that the technical and scientific report of the Archaeological Survey of India has opened ways for carrying out scientific investigation of the site / Shivlingam without causing any damage to the structure in question
Allahabad High Court said that things cannot be kept pending for long when the matter has an element of high publicity all over the country. This Court will not permit any authority to occasion delay on the pretext of the submission of the desired report of the Archaeological Survey of India.