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.”
The Court stated that the Monuments Act, 1960 makes a distinction between a “protected area” and a “protected monument”, and as per the Notification dated 27-01-1999, the “protected monument” is the Vishalgad Fort and not the entire area.
“The Managing Committee of the Waqf Board contended that the Mughal Mosque situated near Qutub Minar did not fall within the protected monuments as notified by the Archaeological Survey of India in a notification dated 24-1-2014.”