Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
“It is settled that a special law prevails over a general law, and a non obstante clause in a later enactment cannot obliterate the legislative intent of a prior special statute, particularly one governing a unique and constitutionally protected religious institution like the Guruvayoor Devaswom.”
The Court stated that the petitioner fails to clarify how Mahadevi elephant was injured, but the likely cause is the placement of a heavy howdrah, which is used to carry people and loudspeakers during processions. This continued treatment is callous and brutal, and elephants do not deserve to be used to ferry weight humans and equipment.