Latest allahabad high court News | Top allahabad high court News Headlines Today | Today India news | Breaking allahabad high court News Today | English allahabad high court News Headlines - TheDailyGuardian

Allahabad HC Rules Second Marriage for Muslims ‘Legal’ if

May 15, 2025, 12:44 pm

The Allahabad High Court held that a Muslim man can lawfully have more than one marriage if the same is carried out in terms of Mohammedan law. However, provisions of bigamy will operate if the earlier marriage was void or was contracted according to some other personal law like the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage Act, or Foreign Marriage Act, with a subsequent conversion to Islam prior to re-marriage.

Furkan’s Plea Against Bigamy Charges

The ruling came during the hearing of a plea by Furkan, who was arrested on charges of bigamy and rape after his wife complained that he hid his first marriage while they got married. Furkan contended that Muslim law allows four marriages, an assertion at the core of his defence.

After due proceedings, the court held that charges of bigamy and rape were not invoked in his case, holding the marriage valid. But the court also observed that the issue calls for further judicial scrutiny.

The Bench noted that according to Section 7 of the Family Court Act, family courts have the authority to determine the validity of a Muslim marriage performed under personal law. This means that such conflicts are within the domain of family courts and not of criminal courts only.

Asserting that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees religious freedom, the court clarified that this right is not absolute.

This court would also like to note that Article 25 of the Constitution of India grants religious freedom to profess, practice and propagate. but this right is subject to public order, morality and health and other provisions of Part-III of the Constitution. Thus, religious liberty under Article 25 is not absolute and can be regulated by the State,” the court added.

Contextualising Polygamy in Islamic Law

Justice Deshwal clarified that polygamy is allowed in the Quran during exceptional historical conditions, not a general right.

“There was once a historical situation when a vast number of women were left widowed and children were orphaned in uncivilized tribal battles in Arab. The Quran provided for conditional polygamy to save orphans and their mothers from exploitation,” he added.

Conditional Nature of Polygamy in the Quran

The judge further stated that the Quran imposes strict requirements for polygamy.

“It is evident that the Quran instructs men to first take care of the orphans and only when they believe they cannot do justice to the orphans’ interests. should they contemplate marrying their widowed mothers, provided that the new family would be treated justly on par with the current one,” the court noted.

Emphasizing the abuse of polygamy, the court then concluded by appealing to the legislature to make a Uniform Civil Code, asserting that such freedom has been utilized for selfish motives in numerous cases.

Who is Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra? SC Condemns His ‘Insensitive’ Ruling on Attempt to Rape

March 26, 2025, 5:04 pm

The Supreme Court has severely indicted controversial judgment by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on March 17 on the definition of attempting to rape, terming it “insensitive” and “inhuman”. Not only did the apex court stay the ruling, but the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has also been directed to take adequate action against him.

The judgment had ruled that actions like cupping breasts or snapping the string of a pyjama were not tantamount to attempts at rape, a ruling that had outraged the entire country and was put under legal scanner.

Supreme Court Condemns the Judgment

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih strongly indicted Justice Mishra’s reasoning as a flagrant disregard of judicial norms. “It’s very serious and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity on the part of the judge… We are sorry to use such harsh words against a constitutional court judge, but this is one of those cases,” the bench noted.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the judgment was not a hasty order but was delivered four months after being reserved in November 2023, showing careful consideration by the judge.

“We take strong exception to paragraphs 21, 22, and 26 of the judgment, which depict a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment. It is also not that the judgment was delivered on the spur of the moment—it was reserved in November and delivered four months later. It is thus clear that the judge applied his mind and authored this judgment,” the court explained.

The case landed in the Supreme Court after ‘We the Women of India,’ a rights group, moved the top court against the high court ruling.

What Was the Decison of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra?

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra delivered the verdict while granting the accused’s criminal revision appeal. The high court had first ordered the trial of the accused under Section 354-B of the IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).

The case goes as far back as November 10, 2021, when an 11-year-old girl was home on a motorcycle by the accused. Her father, trusting them, let her go. But on their way, the three accused stopped and sexually assaulted her.

The accused, the prosecution alleged, touched her breasts, tore the string of her pyjamas, and tried to push her under a culvert in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasganj. They ran away when onlookers came between them, leaving the girl behind.

Despite these allegations, Justice Mishra decided that the incident “hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape.”

“The allegations levelled against the accused, Pawan and Akash, and facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape in the case. To bring out a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation,” said the judgment.

The judge also rationalized his position, contending that the accused did not take further steps that would have established an intent to rape.

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra: Background and Career

Justice Mishra has been a part of the judiciary for a long time. He acquired a law degree in 1985 and a post-graduation in 1987. He entered the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service as a Munsif in 1990 and subsequently got promoted to the higher judicial service in 2005.

Over the years, he served as district and sessions judge in Baghpat and Aligarh, held key positions such as director of the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), and later served as district and sessions judge, Lucknow.

He was elevated to the Allahabad High Court as an additional judge on August 15, 2022, and was sworn in as a permanent judge on September 25, 2023.

Public Outrage and Legal Ramifications

The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights growing concerns over judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases. Legal experts and activists have called for stricter judicial accountability, ensuring judgments align with established legal precedents and victims’ rights.

As the drama plays out, all eyes are fixed on the Allahabad High Court’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s order for Justice Mishra. The case is a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s task of ensuring justice, particularly in women and children’s crimes.

Allahabad High Court To Hear Gyanvapi Survey Plea On December 10

December 2, 2024, 9:11 pm

The Allahabad High Court is set to hear a petition on December 10, requesting an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey of the Wazukhana area of the Gyanvapi mosque in Uttar Pradesh. The petition, filed by plaintiff Rakhi Singh on October 22, seeks the ASI’s intervention to conduct a survey of the Wazukhana located within the mosque premises.

The case is being heard by a single bench comprising Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. The Wazukhana was sealed by the Supreme Court following a dispute over a structure within the mosque premises. The Hindu side claims that a Shivling was discovered in 2022 at the site, while the Muslim side contends that it is a water fountain.

Earlier this year, the Hindu side approached the Supreme Court to seek the de-sealing of the Wazukhana area in the Gyanvapi complex. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, filed a plea in January requesting the court to allow the ASI to conduct another comprehensive survey of the Wazukhana without causing any harm to the Shivling.

Must Read: Lucknow Police File Case Against Man Posing as IAS Officer, Threatening Woman if She Refuses to Marry Him

On November 28, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) expressed its concern over the growing number of claims in courts regarding mosques and dargahs. In a statement, the AIMPLB described these claims as a “blatant mockery of the law and the Constitution.”

“It is deeply unfortunate and shameful that, after the claims on Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, Shahi Eidgah in Mathura, Bhojshala Mosque in Madhya Pradesh, Teele Wali Masjid in Lucknow, and Sambhal’s Jama Masjid, a claim has now been made on the historic Ajmer Dargah. Despite the provisions of the law, the court has accepted Vishnu Gupta’s petition for hearing and issued notices to the parties,” said SQR Ilyas, the National Spokesperson for the Board.

The AIMPLB also pointed out that a civil court in Ajmer has “unfortunately” accepted a petition alleging that the Ajmer Dargah is the Sankat Mochan Mahadev Temple.

Also Read: CM Siddaramaiah Kicks Off International Cricket Stadium Project in Tumakuru

Supreme Court to Hear Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Dispute in November

September 17, 2024, 10:13 pm

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for November on the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah’s plea, which challenges an Allahabad High Court order. The High Court had rejected the mosque committee’s challenge to the maintainability of several lawsuits initiated by Hindu devotees.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar questioned the counsel for the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah about the possibility of filing an appeal against the High Court’s single-judge order dated August 1 before a division bench. The court directed the lawyer to seek instructions on this matter and set the next hearing for November 1.

During the session, one of the counsel representing the Hindu devotees raised a preliminary objection regarding the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal. They suggested that the mosque committee could move to the High Court’s division bench instead. Initially inclined to issue a notice on the plea, the Supreme Court later postponed the matter due to this issue.

Advocate Tasneem Ahmadi represented the mosque committee, while Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan and Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared for the Hindu parties. The legal firm Karanjawala and Company, through senior partner Meghna Mishra and associate Shreyansh Rathi, represented Rajendra Maheshwari, one of the respondents before the Supreme Court. Maheshwari had previously filed a civil suit in 2020 in the Mathura District Court.

The Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Allahabad High Court’s August 1 order, which dismissed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These applications were filed by the mosque committee seeking rejection of plaints in 15 different suits initiated by Hindu devotees.

The mosque committee filed the plea through Advocates Mehmood Pracha and RHA Sikander and requested interim relief to stay the High Court’s order. Over 15 suits by various plaintiffs have been filed, claiming rights over the Shahi Masjid Eidgah, alleging it as the birthplace of Lord Shri Krishna (Krishna Janmabhoomi).

In the plea, the mosque committee argued that they had been included as defendants in the suits and had filed individual applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaints. They claimed the plaints were barred by laws such as the Limitation Act, the Places of Worship Act, the Specific Relief Act, the Waqf Act, and Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC.

The plea contended that the High Court had issued a flawed judgment by combining selective pleadings from the different suits filed by various plaintiffs into a composite suit. The High Court then dismissed all applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by issuing a single judgment. The mosque committee criticized this approach, arguing that the High Court failed to consider the specific pleadings of each case to determine whether a particular plaintiff was legally barred based on their pleadings.

On August 1, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition filed by the mosque committee challenging the maintainability of the lawsuits initiated by Hindu devotees. Various aspects of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute are currently being dealt with in different legal forums. Previously, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court order that transferred all petitions related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi land dispute from the District Court in Mathura to itself. This challenge pertains to the High Court’s May 26 order.

Also read: Supreme Court Reviews Siddique Kappan’s Bail Conditions in Hathras Case

Ranjana Agnihotri, a resident of Lucknow, had earlier filed a suit in the Mathura court seeking ownership of 13.37 acres of land belonging to Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi. Her legal suit demands the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque, which is alleged to have been built in 1669-70 on the orders of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb on the premises of the Katra Keshav Dev temple, near the birthplace of Lord Krishna.

Allahabad High Court Rules Hindu Marriage Requires Valid Consent For Divorce, Not A Contract

September 14, 2024, 10:26 pm

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Hindu marriage cannot be considered a contract and cannot be annulled without valid consent. The court clarified that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament and can only be legally dissolved on specific grounds and with evidence from both parties.

The Case

In a matter concerning a wife’s appeal against the dissolution of her marriage, Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh determined that a divorce can only be granted on mutual consent if that consent remains valid at the time of the final order, as reported by PTI.

The court stated, “If one of them has already withdrawn the consent before the final decision, divorce cannot be granted based on such earlier consent.”

“Once the appellant claimed to have withdrawn her consent, and that fact was on record, it never became open to the learned court below to force the appellant to abide by the original consent given by her, that too almost three years later,” the court remarked.

“To do that would be a travesty of justice,” the bench added.

Divorce Petition Granted Based on Earlier Statements

The appeal contested a 2011 judgment by the additional district judge in Bulandshahar, who granted the divorce based on a petition from the husband. The couple, married in 2006, faced marital issues, leading the wife to live separately from 2007. The husband filed for divorce in 2008, which the wife initially agreed to.

However, she later opposed the divorce, resulting in failed mediation attempts. Despite reconciling and having two children, the court granted the divorce based on earlier statements.

The high court overturned the decision, emphasizing that for a divorce to be valid, the consent must be effective at the time of the final order.

Foreigners Doing Business in India Must Be Accountable Under Indian Law: Allahabad High Court

July 31, 2024, 7:54 pm

The Allahabad High Court ruled on Wednesday that foreign nationals engaged in business in India must be held accountable under Indian laws and must submit to the jurisdiction of Indian courts if facing criminal charges. This decision was made in the case of [Ryen @ Ren Chao vs State of UP].

The court emphasized that failing to enforce these requirements would allow foreigners to act with impunity, disregarding Indian laws. Justice Ajay Bhanot stated, “The perception of foreign nationals having immunity from Indian courts will encourage them to act with impunity against Indian laws. Such a state of affairs will undermine the Indian Constitution and laws, and have grave consequences for national sovereignty.”

This ruling was made while reviewing the bail plea of a Chinese national, Ryen @ Ren Chao, who is involved in a case related to the unlawful export of chips to a neighboring country by HTZN, a company allegedly lacking legal documentation in India. Chao is also accused of staying in India beyond the expiry of his visa.

According to the prosecution, HTZN was a front for illegal activities, including operating fraudulent gaming apps and laundering money to foreign countries through bitcoins. The court noted that there is no credible legal framework or efficient system to ensure the presence of foreign nationals who may flee India while facing criminal trials.

The court pointed out that the Central government’s affidavit mentioned that the Ministry of Home Affairs had entered into treaties on Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal cases with many foreign countries. However, the case at hand is not covered by these treaties. India does not have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with the People’s Republic of China. The affidavit also stated that for bringing back fugitives or foreign accused who flee after committing crimes in India, the process of extradition is used. However, India and the People’s Republic of China do not have an extradition treaty or arrangement.

The court also noted that the Central government has acknowledged that extradition is a lengthy process and can become complicated, especially if it involves the surrender of a national from their own country.

In this case, the court observed that the accused appeared to be part of a well-organized international crime network involving Chinese nationals and local accomplices in India. “International criminal networks managed by Chinese nationals with Indian accomplices significantly impact national security. Such syndicates create fifth columnists in host countries. The situation is aggravated by the fact that many beneficiaries of the crime proceeds are foreigners living abroad who are not subject to Indian law and whose identities are effectively concealed,” the court stated.

Earlier this year, the court had asked the Union government to consider initiating a process to create an international treaty to address issues related to the prosecution of foreign nationals. Justice Bhanot reiterated the need for an international legal framework to handle these cases in a fair, transparent, and just manner.

“For now, this issue is beyond the scope of this Court. However, it is a problem that the Government of India and other nations must address,” he said.

The court had previously highlighted issues faced by foreign accused, including difficulties in providing surety for bail and the lack of interpreters to understand legal proceedings.

Today, the court reaffirmed that foreign nationals facing trials in India are entitled to certain rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, including:

A. The right to a translator to interpret court proceedings in their native language.

B. The right to legal aid if they require it.

C. The right to communicate with their families as arranged by jail authorities.

D. The right to consular or embassy access.

E. The right to a speedy trial.

Advocates Abhas Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Mishra, and Rajesh Kumar Sharma represented the accused.

Allahabad HC: Live-In-Relationship Against Islamic Values

May 9, 2024, 5:23 pm

While hearing a writ petition of couple Sneha Devi and Mohd Shadab Khan under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), the two-judge bench in Lucknow’s Allahabad High Court has declared, that married Muslims cannot claim their rights under live-in relationship citing it as against Islamic values on Wednesday.

Especially if the spouse is still alive. However, the presiding judges, Justices AR Masoodi and AK Srivastava also agreed, that the position might have been different if both of them were single. And the “parties being major chose to lead their lives in a way of their own”.

Further, the court also declined to pass an order on protection of Life and liberty.

What’s the Case All About

Meanwhile, the couple Sneha Devi and Mohd Shadab Khan approached the court, seeking protection from the police following the complaint filed by woman’s family.

The petitioners sought protection under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) claiming that as adults, they are free to stay together in live-in relationship setup as cited by the directions laid by Supreme court.

But upon further enquiry by the bench, it was learnt that khan is already married since 2020 with a wife and a kid.

This where the court made their observation and said “Islamic tenets do not permit live-in relationships during an existing marriage. The position may be different if the two people are unmarried and the parties being majors chose to lead their lives in a way of their own.” said the court.

Later, emphasizing constitutional morality, the court stated that in a different case, such a couple might have been rescued by constitutional morality. However, the matter before us is different.

“The constitutional morality may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause. The case before us is, however, different” it said.

Thus, concluding their observations, they declared that it won’t lend such support to such a right.

“The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not lend un-canalized support to such a right, because the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between two individuals of different faiths.”

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition; Allows Hindu prayers in Gyanvapi Cellar

February 26, 2024, 10:56 am

Dismissing a petition challenging a Varanasi court order allowing Hindu parties to conduct puja in the ‘vyas tehkhana’ of the Gyanvapi complex, the Allahabad High Court on Monday allowed the puja to continue. The Varanasi district court had on January 31 ruled that a priest, Shailendra Kumar Pathak, has the right to offer prayers in the southern cellar of the mosque.

Pathak, a hereditary pujari, sought permission to enter the tahkhana and resume pooja, following his grandfather’s prayers until December 1993. One of the cellars in the mosque’s basement still belongs to the Vyas family.

The Varanasi district court’s decision came a day after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) released a report on the mosque complex. The ASI survey, ordered by the same court, suggested the mosque’s construction during Aurangzeb’s rule over the remains of a Hindu temple.

The mosque committee disputed the petitioner’s version, claiming no idols existed in the cellar, refuting the possibility of prayers there until 1993. On February 2, shortly after the Supreme Court rejected their plea against the district court’s order, the committee approached the Allahabad High Court, which reserved its decision after hearing both parties on February 15.

Gyanvapi mosque: Allahabad HC rejects to grant stay on Varanasi court verdict

February 2, 2024, 3:26 pm

The Allahabad High Court, on Friday, declined to grant a stay on the Varanasi Court’s decision allowing Hindu prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque. The court provided time until February 6 for the Masjid Intezamia Committee to amend its pleadings to challenge the January 17 order, leading to the January 31 decision.

The court emphasized that the mosque side should first challenge the January 17 order, appointing the District Magistrate as the receiver. The next hearing is scheduled for February 6. The Varanasi district court had earlier permitted Hindu prayers in the mosque’s southern cellar on January 31, prompting the present legal proceedings.

The court had questioned SFA Naqvi, the attorney for the Masjid Intezamia Committee, about why the fundamental order of January 17, 2024 had not been contested.

The committee’s attorney stated, “He had to come right away because of the January 31 directive. Will contest it as well (the fundamental arrangement). Since the district magistrate began the puja within nine hours after receiving the order and made preparations during the night.”

The lawyer for the Hindu side, Vishnu Shankar Jain, raised concerns about the appeal’s ability to be maintained. He stated that no one has contested the initial order. The plaintiff has not received remedy from the lower court. The temple trust now has the authority.

Early on Thursday morning, the Masjid Intezamia Committee had also appeared before the Supreme Court; however, the Supreme Court recommended that the matter be taken to the High Court.

On January 31, however, the district court in Varanasi granted permission for the Hindu side to pray in the Gyanvapi mosque’s southern cellar. The Varanasi district magistrate was instructed by the court to arrange, within seven days, for the Hindu side and a pujari (priest) designated by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust to do “puja.” “Puja” and “aarti” were conducted in the wee hours of Thursday following the court’s ruling.

Allahabad High Court dismisses gangster Anil Bhati’s second bail plea

January 30, 2024, 10:33 am

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the second bail application of Anil Bhati, also known as Sonu, a member associated with the Sundar Bhati gang, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 on Monday night.

Initially, the high court granted bail to Anil Bhati, but the state government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The apex court intervened, preventing the release of the gangster based on the high court’s order. Following this, a second bail plea was swiftly filed on behalf of Anil Bhati in the high court, only to be promptly rejected.

The bail petition argued that the high court had previously stayed the trial against the gangster, underscoring that, owing to his prolonged detention without a trial, he should be granted bail. However, countering the bail plea, additional government counsel Vikas Sahay highlighted that the argument concerning the high court’s stay on the gangster’s trial had already been presented to the Supreme Court, resulting in the rejection of the initial bail plea.

The advocate contended that the petitioner failed to furnish any new facts or evidence supporting the gangster’s plea for bail. Stressing that Anil Bhati is an active member of the Sundar Bhati gang and a noted history-sheeter in Gautam Buddh Nagar, the advocate further emphasized that the gangster is wanted in multiple cases, including murder, robbery, dacoity, and extortion.

Journey of Lord Ram Janmbhoomi case

January 19, 2024, 1:50 pm

The disputed site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, where the Babri Masjid stood for centuries until its demolition in 1992, is at the centre of the historical and contentious legal controversy known as the Ram Janmabhoomi case. Muslims and Hindus are battling it out for control of the property; the Hindus claim it is the birthplace of Lord Ram and want to build a temple dedicated to him. It remained one of the longest-running battles in India’s legal history has just concluded. The Ayodhya title dispute began with the filing of its first case 134 years ago.

Background:

General Mir Baqi, who served in the army of Mughal emperor Babur, built the Babri Masjid during the 16th century. Tension between communities and religions has long resulted from the contested location. The mosque’s grounds were locked in 1949 when Lord Ram idols were secretly brought within. There were several court cases that followed.

Legal Proceedings:

The legal struggle gained prominence in the 1980s as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other Hindu organizations intensified their call for constructing a Ram temple at the contested site. The earliest documented legal episode in the Ayodhya dispute traces back to 1858. On November 30, 1858, Mohd Salim filed an FIR against Nihang Sikhs who had placed their nishan and inscribed “Ram” inside the Babri mosque, conducting havan and puja. The thanedar of Avadh, Sheetal Dubey, verified the complaint on December 1, 1858, confirming the construction of a chabutra (platform) by the Sikhs. This marked the initial documentary evidence of Hindus being present not just in the outer courtyard but also within the inner courtyard.

The legal saga resumed in 1885 when Faizabad Deputy Commissioner denied Mahant Raghubar Das permission to construct a temple adjacent to the mosque. Das subsequently filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking approval to build a temple on the Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid. In 1986, a district judge ordered the unlocking of the mosque, permitting Hindus to worship the idols inside. The year 1992 witnessed the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a Hindu mob, leading to widespread communal violence in India. Subsequent to the demolition, multiple cases were filed in various courts, including the Supreme Court. The legal dispute over the title has endured for over a century.

‘Shri Ram Janmbhoomi ka Romanchkari Itihas’ is 90 years old booklet which gives such fascinating account of the grit and valour of Hindus to protect and take back the Ram Mandir. In one battle at RamJanmBhoomi 1,76,000 Hindus gave their life to protect Ram Mandir from Babur army. pic.twitter.com/XsbFhsPKcT

— योगी अरविन्द ?? (@yogi_arwind) February 7, 2020

Booklet refers to Tujuk Babri where Babar says that Pandit Devideen Pandey showed great valour protecting RamJanmBhoomi and alone killed 700 Mugal soldiers!

Hindus shall be always indebted to such great heroes whose names we don’t even know but have laid their life for Dharma! pic.twitter.com/Ktx3maREjK

— योगी अरविन्द ?? (@yogi_arwind) February 7, 2020

Land Title Dispute:

Identifying the true owner of the contested land was the main legal question. A decision on the land title issue was made by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. The court awarded the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and the group representing the god Ram Lalla Virajman (young Lord Ram) three equal portions of the contested territory.

Supreme Court Verdict (2019):

The Allahabad High Court ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by the parties who were unhappy with it. On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a major decision, unanimously approving the construction of a Ram temple at the contentious location. The government was instructed to give the Sunni Waqf Board an alternate five-acre plot for the construction of a mosque after the court recognised the importance of the contested land to the Hindu faith.

Legal analysis of historical, archaeological, and theological data served as the foundation for the Supreme Court’s ruling. It highlighted the value of preserving social harmony while attempting to put an end to a protracted disagreement.

Aftermath:

The Ram temple in Ayodhya started to take shape after the Supreme Court’s decision. In August 2020, the foundation stone of the temple was placed by the government, which established the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust to supervise the built work.

A complex historical and religious disagreement was attempted to be resolved through the legal system, and the Ram Janmabhoomi case resolution is regarded as a major legal milestone in India.

January 22, 2024 is the day that the consecration ceremony for the Lord Ram idol’s placement in the garbhagriha is planned for. Today, the eagerly anticipated temple will be officially opened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi very soon.

Allahabad High Court Registered Suo Moto Case, Issued Directions To Special Courts Across State | Early Disposal Of Cases Against MPs/MLAs

December 26, 2023, 5:02 am

The Allahabad High Court in the case In Re Designated Courts For Mps/Mlas vs. State of U.P observed and has registered the suo moto case, in compliance with the recent direction of Supreme Court’s in order to expedite the disposal of criminal cases pending against the Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies across the state.
The Supreme Court in its order dated November 09, 2023, wherein it is directed to the High Court Chief Justices to register the ‘In Re Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs’ to monitor early disposal of pending criminal cases against MPs/MLAs.

The bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Samit Gopal while complying with the order of the Supreme Court. The bench issued the following directions to the special courts in the state:

1. The Advocate General or the Government Advocate will assist the Court in the instant matter.
2. The court is informed that there are separate courts, both at Sessions level and at the level of Magistrate, which deals with criminal cases, exclusively against MPs and MLAs. The special courts will send reports at intervals of one month regarding (i) the progress of the cases pending before them; (ii) the case in which proceedings are lying stayed and details of the cases in which proceedings were stayed.
3. The special courts dealing with such kind of cases shall give priority (i) first to criminal cases against MPs and MLAs which is punishable with death or life imprisonment then to (ii) cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more, and then hear (iii) other cases.
4. The special courts shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and the compelling reasons.
5. The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall ensure sufficient infrastructure facility for the special courts and also enable it to adopt such technology as is being expedient for effective functioning. In the said regard, if any approval is required from this Court, the same be obtained on the administrative side.
6. If any appeal or revision is pending before the Sessions court against any order of the Magistrate who has tried the case, the details of such cases shall also be included in the monthly return and the same shall also be displayed on the website of this Court.
7. The Sessions courts where such appeals or revisions are pending and it will ensure that the same are decided expeditiously.
Further, it has been directed by the court that the Registrar General to issue directions to the concerned officer of the Registry for ensuring that the cases in which a trial is stayed are listed immediately before the appropriate Bench for extension or vacation of the stay orders.

Therefore, the Registrar General has also been asked in order to ensure that an independent tab on the website of this Court is activated so that district-wise information about the details of the year of filing, the number of subject cases pending and stage of proceedings is clearly reflected.
The court in its order stated to issue necessary directions be issued on the administrative side to the special courts that the aforesaid information shall also have to be updated on a monthly basis.
Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further consideration on January 04, 2024.

Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Supreme Court rejects to stay HC order appointing Commissioner to inspect Mosque

December 15, 2023, 4:30 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the December 14 order of the Allahabad High Court, permitting a court-monitored team of advocate commissioners to conduct a primary survey of the Shahi Idgah complex next to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. In the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah Mosque case, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti noted that the High Court’s ruling had not been formally contested. Huzefa Ahmadi, senior counsel for the Mosque Committee, informed the bench that certain interlocutory orders issued by the High Court have an effect on the result.

He said yesterday the High Court allowed a survey of the premises.
Justice Khanna expressed disinciination to interfere with the order which has not been challenged before it saying, “How can I stay the order without it being before me?”
The bench said the mosque committee can approach the Supreme Court if it has any grievances.
“The special leave petition is listed for January 9. Let it come up on the said date. All issues and contentions will be considered. In case the petitioner has any grievance, it will be open to the petitioner to file a challenge in accordance with the law,” the bench added.
The top court was hearing a special leave petition challenging a May 2023 order of the High Court transferring to itself a clutch of suits over the land dispute.
On Thursday, the High Court, while allowing a survey of the mosque, fixed December 18 as the next date of hearing for finalising the modalities.

Shri Krishna Janambhoomi Case: Allahabad High Court permits survey of Shahi Idgah Masjid complex

December 14, 2023, 3:58 pm

The Allahabad High Court has approved the scientific survey on the Shahi Idgah complex in Mathura, which is a significant decision in the ongoing Shri Krishna Janambhoomi case. Similar to how it was carried out at the Gyanvapi Temple in Varanasi, the survey will be conducted. On Thursday, the court granted preliminary approval for the surveying of the Shahi Idgah complex and appointed an advocate commissioner. December 18 will see the decision of the survey’s advocacy commission’s procedures.

“Allahabad HC has allowed our application where we had demanded a survey of (Shahi Idgah Masjid) by the advocate commissioner. The modalities will be decided on Dec 18. The court has rejected the arguments of Shahi Idgah Masjid. My demand was that in Shahi Idgah Masjid there are a lot of signs & symbols of the Hindu temple, and to know the actual position, an advocate commissioner is required. It’s a landmark judgement by the court.” said Vishnu Shankar Jain, the lawyer for the Hindu side.

The Allahbad High Court had earlier on November 16 reserved its decision regarding the Hindu side’s application for the appointment of a commissioner for court-appointed advocates. The petitioners had requested the suvey of the mosque, arguing that the land was a Hindu place of worship because it was a part of the Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi. There is also a claim that during the reign of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, Shahi Eidgah Mosque was constructed on temple land. Prior to this, on May 26, the Allahabad High Court moved all of the cases that were pending before the Mathura Court to itself. In these cases, the court asked for a variety of relief related to the dispute between the Shahi Eidgah Mosque and Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi.

ASI likely to submit the Gyanvapi survey report in Varanasi court today

December 11, 2023, 10:53 am

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is expected to submit the findings of its scientific survey of the Gyanvapi mosque to the Varanasi court on Monday. The ASI was given 10 days to file the report within the “provided time” by the court on November 30. Earlier, the Court had requested that it turn in its survey report by November 17. Subsequently, ASI was given until November 28 to submit its report. Throughout the survey’s 100 days, the ASI has requested multiple extensions. The survey had ended over a month ago, and the ASI had requested an extension to submit its report.

The last extension was on November 18, when the ASI asked for another 15 days. The court had allowed it 10 days. The ASI had been conducting the survey since August 4 on the mosque premises. It leaves out the Wuzukhana area, which has been sealed by the orders of the Supreme Court.
On November 2, the ASI told the court it had “completed” the survey but would need some more time to compile the report, along with the details of the equipment used in the survey.
The court had granted additional time till November 17 for submitting the document. The survey was ordered by a Varanasi court on July 21, following a petition by four women who sought permission to pray at the Shringar Gauri Shrine which is behind the western wall of the temple.
Earlier, in August this year, the Allahabad High Court allowed the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi.

Krishna Janambhoomi:Supreme Court has scheduled October 3 for hearing petitions challenging Allahabad HC order

September 26, 2023, 1:24 pm

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court fixed October 3 for the hearing of the case challenging a decision by the Allahabad High Court that transferred to that court all appeals pertaining to the Krishna Janambhoomi property dispute in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain requested an early hearing on the ongoing petition brought by the opposing side, the Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah, while speaking on behalf of Bhagwan Shri Kishna Virajman.
After the court’s ruling on July 21, attorney Vishnu Jain informed the court that the matter had not been scheduled for hearing.

A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul sought to know the urgency in the matter. Replying to court’s query, Jain said that various civil suits are pending and due to the matter is pending before the top court, no bench was constituted yet by the Allahabad High Court.

The top court also noted that it has not passed any stay order on the High Court decision and said that it will be the matter on October 3.
Committee of Management Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah has filed in appeal in the top court challenging Allahabad High Court order which transfer to itself all the petitions relating to Mathura’s Krishna Janambhoomi land dispute from District Court Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court requested information about the lawsuits being heard in the Allahabad High Court regarding the dispute over the ownership of Krishna Janambhoomi in Mathura at the early hearing.
After three weeks, the case was listed by a justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia panel.

Allahabad High Court Slams The Makers Of Adipurush

June 28, 2023, 12:11 pm

Adipurush was released on June 16 and since then it has been facing legal issues and protests across the country. On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court slammed the makers over its ‘questionable and distasteful’ dialogues. It also issued a notice to writer Manoj Muntashir, demanding an explanation within a week’s time.

According to Free Press Journal, the Allahabad High Court said, “Ramayana is a paragon for us. People read Ramcharitmanas before leaving home.” It also observed that the makers of Adipurush believed that the audience will be convinced by the narrative of the film. The court asked, “Hindus are tolerant but why they are tested every time? When Hindus are civilised, is it correct to suppress them?”

Further, the court said, “It’s good that people did not harm the law and order situation after watching the film. Lord Hanuman and Sita have been shown like they are nothing. These things should have been removed from the very beginning. Some scenes seem to be of A (adult) category. It’s very difficult to watch such films.”

The defense on the other hand pointed out that the Adipurush makers put a disclaimer was added in the beginning to rule out any concerns. The Allahabad High Court dismissed and stated, “Do the people who put the disclaimer consider the countrymen and youth, to be brainless? You show Lord Rama, Lord Laxman, Lord Hanuman, Ravana, Lanka and then say it is not Ramayana? We saw it on the news that people went to the theatres and got the film shut down. Be thankful nobody vandalised it.”

Gyanvapi mosque: SC agrees to hear tomorrow plea of Muslim side against HC’s order on determining age of ‘Shivling’

May 18, 2023, 3:50 pm

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for 19 May to consider an appeal challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had directed a “scientific survey,” which includes carbon dating, of a “Shivling” reportedly discovered at the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi during a videographic survey conducted last year.

A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said it would hear on Friday the appeal filed by Gyanvapi mosque management committee against the High Court’s recent order for scientific investigation by ASI to determine the age of “Shivling”. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the Gyanvapi mosque management committee, mentioned the matter for urgent hearing saying the Allahabad High Court has passed an order when the appeal is pending.

During the survey, a structure — claimed to be a “Shivling” by the Hindu side and a “fountain” by the Muslim side — was found in the mosque premises on May 16 last year during a court-mandated survey of the mosque located next to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.The High Court on May 12 set aside the Varanasi District judge’s order which had rejected the application for a scientific survey and carbon dating of the “Shivling” on October 14, 2022.

The High Court directed the Varanasi District judge to proceed, in accordance with the law, on the application by the Hindu worshippers for conducting a scientific probe of the “Shivling”.Petitioners Laxmi Devi and three others had filed a plea in the High Court, challenging the order lower court order.

Lakhimpur Kheri violence case : Ashish Mishra’s interim bail extented till July 11

April 24, 2023, 1:32 pm

In the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, the Supreme Court on Monday increased Ashish Mishra’s provisional bail and extended it through July 11.When the case was postponed, a panel of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari stated that the interim decision will remain in effect until July 11. In this case, the victim’s family’s attorney, Prashant Bhushan, pleaded for the high court to oversee daily proceedings in the trial court.

The trial court might be handling other similar matters, the court stated, therefore it might not be possible.But the Bhushan insisted by saying that such cases go on for twenty years and till that many witnesses related to the case died.The top court said that this is the reason they have kept the matter pending.On January 25, the top court granted interim bail for eight weeks to Ashish Mishra and imposed various conditions.

The Supreme Court directed Ashish Mishra that during the period of his interim bail of eight weeks, he shall not stay in the State of Uttar Pradesh or in the NCT of Delhi.
The top court also directed Ashish Mishra to inform to concerned court about his location.

The Supreme Court also clarified that any attempt by Ashish Mishra or his family to influence witnesses and try to delay the trial may lead to the cancellation of his bail. The court has also directed Mishra to mark his attendance at the concerned police station of his location.The court also extended the benefit of interim bail to the other four co-accused in the case by using his suo motu power.

Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, moved Supreme Court challenging Allahabad High Court which denied bail to him in connection with the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.On July 26, 2022, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in connection with the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.The bail was rejected by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court.
The said order is challenged by Ashish Mishra in the Supreme Court filed through advocate on record T Mahipal.

Yogi government to move SC on HC’s civic poll order

December 27, 2022, 5:20 pm

On the issue of OBC reservation in the urban local body elections, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath said that the state government will set up a commission.

Earlier the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court rejected the state government’s draft notification. Allahabad HC asked the state government to hold civic polls without reservation for the OBCs.

Meanwhile, against the high court order, the government may also approach the Supreme Court.

Taking to Twitter deputy chief minister Keshav Prasad Maurya tweeted, “The government will take a final decision on urban local body polls after consulting legal experts on all aspects of the court order.”

In the 200 municipal councils, 54 chairpersons’ seats are reserved for OBCs, of which 18 are also reserved for OBC women. 147 seats were reserved for OBC candidates, including 49 for OBC women reserved for the chairpersons’ seats in 545 nagar panchayats.

Moreover Apna Dal (S), an OBC party said the OBC reservation wasn’t justified in their view of holding civic polls sans.

“We will study the HC order in detail before taking a final decision but if required, we will even approach the Supreme Court on the issue,” the party tweeted

However, after this Samajwadi Party and other opposition parties are concerned that the ruling government is trying to end the OBC quota. “We won’t tolerate this injustice,” SP chief Akhilesh Yadav said.

UP: Mukhtar Ansari’s kin’s properties attached by the police

December 17, 2022, 1:50 pm

The properties of jailed gangster Mukhtar Ansari has been sealed by the Ghazipur Police on Saturday. Meanwhile, in the name of the kin the properties were registered. “Two plots valued at Rs 4.5 crore and Rs 3.5 crore, registered in the name of Mukhtar’s mother Abiya Khatun, and brother-in-law Aizaz are being attached under the District Magistrate’s order,” SB Singh, Circle Officer, Ghazipur said. However, Ansari is convicted by the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court and sentenced for threatening then-jailer SK Awasthi for putting a pistol.

UP : former MLA Mukhtar Ansari receives two-year sentence for threatening jailer

September 21, 2022, 4:21 pm

Mukhtar Ansari, a former MLA, was convicted on Wednesday and given a two-year prison term for threatening a jailer and pointing a gun at him by the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench.

The order was issued by Justice DK Singh after the Uttar Pradesh government’s appeal was accepted.

The case had begun in 2003 when jailer SK Awasthi of Lucknow District Prison filed a FIR with the Alambagh police, stating that he had been threatened for directing a search of visitors who had come to visit Ansari in custody.

In addition, Awasthi claimed that Ansari had abused him and pointed a gun at him.

Ansari was cleared in this matter by a trial court, but the government filed an appeal.

Ansari is presently lodged in Banda prison.