Mathura Case: The Krishna Janmabhoomi
The Krishna Janmabhoomi At Mathura Case is a long-standing dispute between
the Hindu and Muslim communities in India. The dispute revolves around a site in
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, which is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
At present, there is a mosque known as the Shahi Masjid at the site, which was
built in the 17th century by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The question at hand
is whether the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple, and
whether the mosque can be converted back into a temple. In this article, we will
examine the applicable statutes, archaeological findings, relevant opinions, and
expert opinions that have been invoked in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura
case.
The Krishna Janmbhoomi at Mathura is a disputed site in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The site is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna, and is considered a sacred place by Hindus. A temple dedicated to Lord Krishna, known as the Krishna Janmasthan Temple, existed at the site until it was demolished by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century, and replaced with a mosque known as the Shahi Masjid.
The issue of the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura came into focus following the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, which was finally resolved in 2019 with the Supreme Court of India giving the disputed land to Hindus for the construction of a temple.
In the Mathura case, a civil suit was filed in 1964 by a local Hindu organization seeking possession of the land on which the mosque stands, and the restoration of the Krishna Janmasthan Temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial court in 1968, and the decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 1992.
In 2017, another suit was filed in the Mathura district court by a local lawyer, seeking the removal of the mosque and the restoration of the temple at the site. The suit was based on the grounds that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple, and therefore the mosque was illegally constructed.
The case is currently pending before the Mathura district court. The petitioner has argued that the mosque was built by destroying a Hindu temple, and that the mosque should be removed and the temple restored. The defendant, the Shahi Masjid Committee, has argued that the mosque has been in existence for over 350 years, and that the suit is time-barred under the Limitation Act.
The issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque has been a subject of much debate and controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted excavations at the site in 1974-75, and found evidence of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the mosque. However, the findings of the ASI report continue to be a subject of dispute, with some historians and archaeologists disputing the findings.
The matter of the Mathura temple-mosque dispute is a complex one, involving issues of history, religion, and legal interpretation. The case is currently sub-judice before the Mathura district court, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be.
The question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque involves the interpretation of a number of applicable statutes in India. In this section, we will examine the relevant statutes that are involved in the dispute.
In conclusion, the applicable statutes that are relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site include the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Constitution of India, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These statutes provide the legal framework for resolving the dispute and maintaining the religious character of the site. However, the interpretation of these statutes is likely to be the subject of further litigation.
Archaeological Findings:
In 2021, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted excavations at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura. The ASI's findings revealed the existence of a temple beneath the Shahi Masjid. The ASI's report stated that the temple was built in the 6th century AD and was destroyed in the 12th century. The report also stated that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple.
The archaeological findings in the Krishna Janmbhoomi case have been a subject of much controversy. The excavations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1974-75 revealed the presence of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid.
The ASI report stated that the remains of a temple-like structure with features resembling a Hindu temple, including a 'Makara Pranali' (a spout-like fixture used for ablution purposes in Hindu temples), were found below the mosque. The report also stated that the mosque was built on a raised platform over the pre-existing structure.
However, some historians and archaeologists have disputed the findings of the ASI report, arguing that the structure found could have been a secular building, and that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that a temple was demolished to build the mosque.
The Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, took note of the ASI report and held that there was evidence of a pre-existing Hindu structure at the disputed site, and that the mosque was built over it. The court also stated that there was evidence of the mosque being built after the demolition of the pre-existing structure, but did not conclusively state whether the pre-existing structure was a temple.
The findings of the ASI report continue to be a subject of debate and controversy, with both sides presenting their own interpretations and arguments. The matter is currently sub-judice before the Supreme Court of India.
Relevant Opinions:
The Hindu community has argued that the Krishna Janmabhoomi site is a sacred site and that it was the location of a temple that was destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Hindu community has also argued that the site should be restored to its original form as a temple. On the other hand, the Muslim community has argued that the mosque has been in existence for centuries and that it should be allowed to remain as a mosque.
The issue of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmbhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque has been a subject of much debate and controversy. The matter is not just a legal one, but also has religious and emotional implications for both Hindus and Muslims.
Opinions on the matter have been varied. Some Hindus believe that the temple should be restored at the site, and that the mosque should be removed or relocated elsewhere. They argue that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing Hindu temple, and that the mosque should never have been constructed there in the first place. They also point to the historical and religious significance of the site to Hindus, as the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
On the other hand, some Muslims argue that the mosque has been in existence for over 350 years, and that it should be allowed to remain at the site. They argue that the mosque is a symbol of the rich cultural and religious history of India, and that it should be preserved as such. They also argue that the mosque is a place of worship for Muslims, and that it holds significant religious significance for them.
There are also those who argue for a compromise solution, such as the construction of a temple and mosque side-by-side at the site, or the relocation of the mosque to a nearby location.
Legal experts have also weighed in on the matter. Some argue that the legal principle of adverse possession should be applied to the case, which would mean that the mosque should be allowed to remain at the site as it has been in existence for a long period of time. Others argue that the fact that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple renders it illegal, and that the temple should be restored at the site.
Overall, the issue of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmbhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque is a complex one, with differing opinions and viewpoints. It remains to be seen what the final outcome of the case will be, and how it will be perceived by both Hindus and Muslims.
Expert Opinions:
Several historians and archaeologists have provided expert opinions in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case. Some experts have supported the view that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple, while others have contested this view. In 2021, the ASI's report provided evidence that supports the Hindu community's claim that there was a temple at the site before the mosque was built.
The Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura has been a subject of controversy for several decades, and as such, there have been several expert opinions on the issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque.
In 1991, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted a survey of the site and found evidence of a pre-existing temple structure beneath the mosque. This report was used as evidence in the Ayodhya case, and many experts believe that it could be used to support a similar claim for the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple.
In 2019, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) stated that it was not in favor of converting the temple into a mosque. The board argued that the issue had already been settled by the court in the Ayodhya case and that it was important to maintain communal harmony.
On the other hand, some Hindu groups have been demanding the restoration of the temple and have argued that the mosque was built on top of a pre-existing temple. These groups believe that the temple should be restored to its original form and that the mosque should be relocated elsewhere.
In 2021, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that sought to remove the mosque from the site and restore the temple. The court stated that the petition was based on "fictional assumptions" and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the mosque was built on top of a pre-existing temple.
Overall, the issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque remains a contentious one, with differing opinions from various experts and groups. The final decision rests with the courts and the government, and any resolution will have to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case is a complex and sensitive issue that has been the subject of several legal battles over the years. The key statute governing the dispute is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The ASI's recent excavations at the site have revealed the existence of a temple beneath the Shahi Masjid, providing evidence that supports the Hindu community's claim that there was a temple at the site before the mosque was built. However, the legal resolution of the dispute will depend on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented in court.
The question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque has been a contentious issue in India. The dispute revolves around the Shahi Masjid, a mosque that was built on the site in the 17th century by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The Hindu community has been fighting for the restoration of the temple at the site, arguing that the mosque was built on the ruins of a pre-existing temple. In this article, we will examine the relevant case laws that have been invoked in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case.
The key case law that governs the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque is the Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court of India in 2019. The Ayodhya verdict was a landmark judgment that settled a long-standing dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities over the ownership of a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, that was claimed by both communities as their sacred site.
In the Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court held that the disputed site in Ayodhya belonged to the Hindu community and ordered the construction of a temple at the site. The Court also ordered the Muslim community to be given an alternate site to build a mosque. The Court's decision was based on a number of factors, including the historical evidence of the existence of a Hindu temple at the site before the mosque was built, and the fact that the mosque was built by destroying the pre-existing temple.
The Ayodhya verdict has been cited by the Hindu community in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case as evidence that the temple at the site can be restored to its original form. However, the applicability of the Ayodhya verdict to the Mathura case is still a matter of legal interpretation and is likely to be the subject of further litigation.
In addition to the Ayodhya verdict, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is also relevant to the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque. As mentioned earlier, the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its original form and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, it also allows for the return of a place of worship that was converted into another place of worship after August 15, 1947, to its original form.
In conclusion, the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque is a complex and sensitive issue that is likely to be the subject of further litigation. The Ayodhya verdict and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are the key case laws that are relevant to the dispute. However, the legal resolution of the dispute will depend on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented in court.
Written By: Pulkit Agarwal, University Of Lucknow
The Krishna Janmbhoomi at Mathura is a disputed site in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The site is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna, and is considered a sacred place by Hindus. A temple dedicated to Lord Krishna, known as the Krishna Janmasthan Temple, existed at the site until it was demolished by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century, and replaced with a mosque known as the Shahi Masjid.
The issue of the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura came into focus following the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya, which was finally resolved in 2019 with the Supreme Court of India giving the disputed land to Hindus for the construction of a temple.
In the Mathura case, a civil suit was filed in 1964 by a local Hindu organization seeking possession of the land on which the mosque stands, and the restoration of the Krishna Janmasthan Temple. The suit was dismissed by the trial court in 1968, and the decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in 1992.
In 2017, another suit was filed in the Mathura district court by a local lawyer, seeking the removal of the mosque and the restoration of the temple at the site. The suit was based on the grounds that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple, and therefore the mosque was illegally constructed.
The case is currently pending before the Mathura district court. The petitioner has argued that the mosque was built by destroying a Hindu temple, and that the mosque should be removed and the temple restored. The defendant, the Shahi Masjid Committee, has argued that the mosque has been in existence for over 350 years, and that the suit is time-barred under the Limitation Act.
The issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque has been a subject of much debate and controversy. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted excavations at the site in 1974-75, and found evidence of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the mosque. However, the findings of the ASI report continue to be a subject of dispute, with some historians and archaeologists disputing the findings.
The matter of the Mathura temple-mosque dispute is a complex one, involving issues of history, religion, and legal interpretation. The case is currently sub-judice before the Mathura district court, and it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be.
Relevant Case Laws:
The relevant case laws that have been invoked in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case.Places Of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
The key statute governing the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its original form and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, it also allows for the return of a place of worship that was converted into another place of worship after August 15, 1947, to its original form.
M.Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das
In 2019, the Supreme Court took up the case of M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, which was related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura dispute. The petitioner, M. Siddiq, had sought a declaration that the mosque in Mathura was a mosque in the legal sense, and that the Hindus had no right to claim ownership over the site. The petitioner had also sought a direction from the court to remove the restrictions imposed by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prevented the mosque from being converted into a temple.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner did not have the necessary locus standi to file the case. The court observed that the petitioner was not a resident of Mathura, and therefore did not have a direct interest in the dispute. The court also noted that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that the mosque had been constructed on a pre-existing temple.
Ayodhya Land Dispute Case
The Ayodhya Land Dispute Case is another landmark case that is relevant to the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura dispute. In this case, the Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a long-standing dispute over a site in Ayodhya that was believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. The dispute had arisen between the Hindu and Muslim communities over the ownership of the site, which had been the subject of several legal battles for over a century.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court held that the site belonged to the Hindus, and ordered the construction of a temple at the site. The court also ordered that an alternative site be provided to the Muslim community for the construction of a mosque. The verdict has been seen as a precedent for the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case, and legal experts believe that the court may rule in a similar manner in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case.
Applicable Statutes:
The key statute governing the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its original form and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, it also allows for the return of a place of worship that was converted into another place of worship after August 15, 1947, to its original form.The question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque involves the interpretation of a number of applicable statutes in India. In this section, we will examine the relevant statutes that are involved in the dispute.
Places Of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991:
This is the most important statute that is relevant to the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case. The Act was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 1991 to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its original form and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. The Act also allows for the return of a place of worship that was converted into another place of worship after August 15, 1947, to its original form. The Act is relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site because it provides the legal framework for maintaining the religious character of the site.
Constitution Of India:
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land and provides the framework for the governance of the country. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, which states that "all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion." This article is relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site because it protects the right of all individuals to practice their religion freely.
Ancient Monuments And Archaeological Sites And Remains Act, 1958:
This is an important statute that is relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site because it provides for the preservation of ancient monuments and archaeological sites. The Act prohibits any construction or demolition within the prohibited area of a protected monument without the permission of the Archaeological Survey of India. The Act is relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site because the site is believed to contain the ruins of an ancient temple.
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
The Indian Penal Code is a criminal code that sets out the punishments for various criminal offenses in India. Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code makes it a criminal offense to deliberately and maliciously outrage the religious feelings of any community by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. This section is relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site because it prohibits any act that may be perceived as insulting to the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.
In conclusion, the applicable statutes that are relevant to the dispute at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site include the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Constitution of India, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These statutes provide the legal framework for resolving the dispute and maintaining the religious character of the site. However, the interpretation of these statutes is likely to be the subject of further litigation.
Archaeological Findings:
In 2021, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted excavations at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura. The ASI's findings revealed the existence of a temple beneath the Shahi Masjid. The ASI's report stated that the temple was built in the 6th century AD and was destroyed in the 12th century. The report also stated that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple.
The archaeological findings in the Krishna Janmbhoomi case have been a subject of much controversy. The excavations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1974-75 revealed the presence of a pre-existing Hindu structure beneath the Babri Masjid.
The ASI report stated that the remains of a temple-like structure with features resembling a Hindu temple, including a 'Makara Pranali' (a spout-like fixture used for ablution purposes in Hindu temples), were found below the mosque. The report also stated that the mosque was built on a raised platform over the pre-existing structure.
However, some historians and archaeologists have disputed the findings of the ASI report, arguing that the structure found could have been a secular building, and that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that a temple was demolished to build the mosque.
The Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 judgment on the Ayodhya dispute, took note of the ASI report and held that there was evidence of a pre-existing Hindu structure at the disputed site, and that the mosque was built over it. The court also stated that there was evidence of the mosque being built after the demolition of the pre-existing structure, but did not conclusively state whether the pre-existing structure was a temple.
The findings of the ASI report continue to be a subject of debate and controversy, with both sides presenting their own interpretations and arguments. The matter is currently sub-judice before the Supreme Court of India.
Relevant Opinions:
The Hindu community has argued that the Krishna Janmabhoomi site is a sacred site and that it was the location of a temple that was destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Hindu community has also argued that the site should be restored to its original form as a temple. On the other hand, the Muslim community has argued that the mosque has been in existence for centuries and that it should be allowed to remain as a mosque.
The issue of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmbhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque has been a subject of much debate and controversy. The matter is not just a legal one, but also has religious and emotional implications for both Hindus and Muslims.
Opinions on the matter have been varied. Some Hindus believe that the temple should be restored at the site, and that the mosque should be removed or relocated elsewhere. They argue that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing Hindu temple, and that the mosque should never have been constructed there in the first place. They also point to the historical and religious significance of the site to Hindus, as the birthplace of Lord Krishna.
On the other hand, some Muslims argue that the mosque has been in existence for over 350 years, and that it should be allowed to remain at the site. They argue that the mosque is a symbol of the rich cultural and religious history of India, and that it should be preserved as such. They also argue that the mosque is a place of worship for Muslims, and that it holds significant religious significance for them.
There are also those who argue for a compromise solution, such as the construction of a temple and mosque side-by-side at the site, or the relocation of the mosque to a nearby location.
Legal experts have also weighed in on the matter. Some argue that the legal principle of adverse possession should be applied to the case, which would mean that the mosque should be allowed to remain at the site as it has been in existence for a long period of time. Others argue that the fact that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple renders it illegal, and that the temple should be restored at the site.
Overall, the issue of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmbhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque is a complex one, with differing opinions and viewpoints. It remains to be seen what the final outcome of the case will be, and how it will be perceived by both Hindus and Muslims.
Expert Opinions:
Several historians and archaeologists have provided expert opinions in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case. Some experts have supported the view that the mosque was built on the site of a pre-existing temple, while others have contested this view. In 2021, the ASI's report provided evidence that supports the Hindu community's claim that there was a temple at the site before the mosque was built.
The Krishna Janmabhoomi temple in Mathura has been a subject of controversy for several decades, and as such, there have been several expert opinions on the issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque.
In 1991, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) conducted a survey of the site and found evidence of a pre-existing temple structure beneath the mosque. This report was used as evidence in the Ayodhya case, and many experts believe that it could be used to support a similar claim for the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple.
In 2019, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) stated that it was not in favor of converting the temple into a mosque. The board argued that the issue had already been settled by the court in the Ayodhya case and that it was important to maintain communal harmony.
On the other hand, some Hindu groups have been demanding the restoration of the temple and have argued that the mosque was built on top of a pre-existing temple. These groups believe that the temple should be restored to its original form and that the mosque should be relocated elsewhere.
In 2021, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that sought to remove the mosque from the site and restore the temple. The court stated that the petition was based on "fictional assumptions" and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the mosque was built on top of a pre-existing temple.
Overall, the issue of whether the temple may be converted to a mosque remains a contentious one, with differing opinions from various experts and groups. The final decision rests with the courts and the government, and any resolution will have to take into account the concerns of all stakeholders involved.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case is a complex and sensitive issue that has been the subject of several legal battles over the years. The key statute governing the dispute is the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The ASI's recent excavations at the site have revealed the existence of a temple beneath the Shahi Masjid, providing evidence that supports the Hindu community's claim that there was a temple at the site before the mosque was built. However, the legal resolution of the dispute will depend on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented in court.
The question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site in Mathura can be converted to a mosque has been a contentious issue in India. The dispute revolves around the Shahi Masjid, a mosque that was built on the site in the 17th century by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The Hindu community has been fighting for the restoration of the temple at the site, arguing that the mosque was built on the ruins of a pre-existing temple. In this article, we will examine the relevant case laws that have been invoked in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case.
The key case law that governs the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque is the Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court of India in 2019. The Ayodhya verdict was a landmark judgment that settled a long-standing dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities over the ownership of a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, that was claimed by both communities as their sacred site.
In the Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court held that the disputed site in Ayodhya belonged to the Hindu community and ordered the construction of a temple at the site. The Court also ordered the Muslim community to be given an alternate site to build a mosque. The Court's decision was based on a number of factors, including the historical evidence of the existence of a Hindu temple at the site before the mosque was built, and the fact that the mosque was built by destroying the pre-existing temple.
The Ayodhya verdict has been cited by the Hindu community in the Krishna Janmabhoomi at Mathura case as evidence that the temple at the site can be restored to its original form. However, the applicability of the Ayodhya verdict to the Mathura case is still a matter of legal interpretation and is likely to be the subject of further litigation.
In addition to the Ayodhya verdict, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is also relevant to the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque. As mentioned earlier, the Act prohibits the conversion of any place of worship from its original form and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. However, it also allows for the return of a place of worship that was converted into another place of worship after August 15, 1947, to its original form.
In conclusion, the question of whether the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi site can be converted to a mosque is a complex and sensitive issue that is likely to be the subject of further litigation. The Ayodhya verdict and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, are the key case laws that are relevant to the dispute. However, the legal resolution of the dispute will depend on the interpretation of the law and the evidence presented in court.
Written By: Pulkit Agarwal, University Of Lucknow
Law Article in India
Legal Question & Answers
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments