Advertisement

  • News
  • Columns
  • Interviews
  • BW Communities
  • BW TV
  • Subscribe to Print
BW Businessworld

Qutub Minar Case Verdict Over Right To Worship Will Be Pronounced On June 9

The Saket court has asked all the parties to file a reply in this case within a week. The court has reserved its decision in the matter

Photo Credit :

1607571472_OeEpHL_qutub_minar_1024x612_1_50.jpg

Qutub Minar, Delhi Court, BW Legal World

The hearing in the Qutub Minar case has been completed in Delhi's Saket Court. In the court, Hindu side lawyer Harishankar Jain has argued that there is a 1600-year-old pillar. On the Hindu side, the court has demanded the right of worship in the Qutub Minar complex. The Hindu side has said that there has been a demand to form a temple trust in Qutub Minar. The court will pronounce the verdict in this matter on June 9.

The Saket court has asked all the parties to file a reply in this case within a week. The court has reserved its decision in the matter.

During the hearing, Harishankar Jain, counsel for the Hindu side, argued in the court that the Places of Worship Act does not apply here. He further said that the National Monuments Act states that the religious nature of a protected monument cannot be changed. We have to say that the gods have always been present here, their presence is always there. His right to worship is also maintained.

ASI's counsel said that the religious nature of a monument at the time of acquisition cannot be changed. This is our stand here as well. The nature of a monument will remain the same as it was at the time of acquisition. The lawyer of ASI argued that for this reason worship is allowed in some monuments and not in some. This is determined by the situation at the time of acquisition. If anyone has any objection, he can file a protest within 60 days, not after that.

ASI's lawyer said that whether there are religious rituals or not, living or non-living monuments are decided on this basis. After this article 25 was cited on behalf of the Hindu side. On which the counsel for ASI said that as far as the right to religious freedom under Article 25 is concerned. This is not an absolute right. That is, there is no unlimited right. In this sense, the order of the Civil Court not to give the right of worship here is correct.


Tags assigned to this article:
Qutub Minar Controversy saket court