• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, March 20, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

In the Gyanvapi case before the Supreme Court, a petitioner challenging the Places of Worship Act seeks impleadment

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
May 23, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 3 mins read
0
0
In the Gyanvapi case before the Supreme Court, a petitioner challenging the Places of Worship Act seeks impleadment.

In the Gyanvapi case before the Supreme Court, a petitioner challenging the Places of Worship Act seeks impleadment.

0
SHARES
3
VIEWS

In March 2021, the Supreme Court gave notice to the Central government in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s petition challenging the Act’s legitimacy.

BJP politician and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the Gyanvapi mosque controversy after filing a public interest litigation petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act).

According to the motion, Upadhyay is seeking impleadment for a proper understanding of the facts and circumstances of the case.

READ ALSO

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

The 1991 Act, which was passed during the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, aims to maintain the status of all religious structures as they were on the date of independence by prohibiting courts from hearing cases that raise questions about their character.

The statute also states that such matters that are currently ongoing in the courts would be dismissed.

However, the Act made an exception for the Ram-Janambhoomi site, which served as the foundation for courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, hearing the case.

The Supreme Court invoked this law in 2019 when granting the disputed site at Ayodhya to child deity Ram Lalla, notwithstanding the fact that Ayodhya land had been exempted. However, in light of the Act, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that comparable cases involving additional locations cannot be heard.

In March 2021, in response to Upadhyay’s petition challenging the Act’s constitutionality, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central government.

Only those places of worship that were erected or constructed in accordance with the personal law of the person who erected/constructed them should be protected, according to the current application seeking impleadment in the Gyanvapi case. Places erected or constructed in defiance of the personal law cannot be called “places of worship.”

The 1991 Act, on the other hand, preserved August 1947 as the cut-off date for legalising the illegal crimes of barbaric invaders.

“It is submitted that Hindus Jains Buddhists Sikhs have right to profess, practice propagate religion as provided in their religious scriptures and Article 13 prohibits from making law which takes away their rights. Moreover, the status of mosque can be given only to such structures which have been constructed according to tenets of Islam and mosques constructed against the provisions contained in Islamic law cannot be termed as Mosque,”.

the application said

Muslims cannot claim any right to any piece of ground claiming to be a mosque unless it is built on lawfully owned and occupied virgin land, according to the plea.

“The mosque constructed at temple land cannot be a mosque, not only for the reason that such construction is against Islamic law, but also on grounds that the property once vested in the deity continues to be deity’s property and right of deity and devotees are never lost, howsoever long illegal encroachment continues on such property,”.

the plea submitted
Tags: Ashwini Kumar UpadhayayGyanvapi Mosquepilplace of worship actpublic interest litigationsupreme court
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

February 13, 2023
Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.
News

Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.

February 13, 2023
Central Government notifies appointment of Justice Sonia G Gokani as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court
News

The appointment of Justice Sonia G. Gokani as the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court has been announced by the central government.

February 13, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

by By Justuce Bench
February 13, 2023
0
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt, wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Allahabad HC rules Daughter has the right to demand maintenance from father

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • [Gyanvapi Mosque] Plea to quash FIR Lucknow University professor refused – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • On custody of a surrogate child born before Surrogacy Act of 2021 the Allahabad High Court has sought a response from Centre

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In