Kolkata: The West Bengal government has appealed to the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench against the trial court’s life imprisonment verdict convicting Sanjay Roy in the RG Kar case. The next hearing in the case will be held on 27th January.

Advocate General Kishore Dutta has approached the division bench of Justice Debangshu Basak, seeking the death penalty for Sanjay Roy. The matter has been allowed to be filed.

The Sealdah Civil and Criminal Court announced life imprisonment for the accused Sanjay Roy in the RG Kar rape and murder case. Along with this, the court has also fined Rs 50,000 to the accused.

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee Expresses Dissatisfaction

Earlier, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday expressed dissatisfaction over the court giving life imprisonment to the convict in the RG Kar hospital rape-murder case and said if the case had been with Kolkata Police, they would have ensured a death penalty.

“I learned about the sentencing from the media. We have always demanded capital punishment and we continue to stand by it. However, this is the court’s decision and I can’t say much about this. For three other cases, Kolkata police ensured capital punishment through thorough investigations concluded within 54-60 days. This was a serious case. Had it been under our purview, we would have ensured the death penalty long back,” CM Mamata said while addressing the media at Malda.

Victim’s Father Rejects Compensation

On Monday, RG Kar’s rape and murder case victim’s father rejected the Rs 17 lakh compensation and said that he will move to a higher court seeking the death penalty for the accused.

Speaking to Media, the victim’s father said “What the Court thinks as a good judgement based on the evidence produced by the CBI, the Court has given that verdict. We have a lot of questions on the investigation done by CBI. We did not go to the court for compensation. We want justice, not compensation. Kolkata police did wrong and the CBI will have to do something. The Kolkata police have given us more pain than the passing away of my daughter.”

New Delhi, Jan 22: The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on a clutch of petitions pertaining to the Shahi Masjid-Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute.

A Bench presided over by CJI Sanjiv Khanna decided to post the matter for further hearing in the week commencing April 1, 2025.

In the meantime, CJI Khanna-led Bench extended the operation of the interim order passed on January 16, 2024, whereby the top court had stayed the execution of the commission on a plea filed by the Shahi Idgah Masjid Management Committee against the Allahabad High Court allowing the application filed by Hindu devotees for appointment of a commissioner to inspect the disputed premises.

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had asked parties to complete the pleadings in the matter and directed the filing of written submissions not exceeding three pages along with the judgments being relied on by them. However, it had clarified that the trial proceedings pending before the Allahabad High Court could continue.

The top court is also seized of a plea filed by the mosque committee challenging the transfer of suits by the Allahabad HC to itself.

Recently, it remarked that the decision of the Allahabad High Court to consolidate all suits pertaining to the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah dispute of Mathura should benefit both sides.

“Why should we intervene in the issue of consolidation of suits? It doesn’t make a difference. It is to the benefit of both sides, so multiple proceedings are avoided,” remarked a bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The court said this while hearing a plea filed by the management committee of the Shahi Masjid Eidgah against an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in January last year “in the interest of justice” directing that all 15 suits filed by the Hindu side be consolidated. Multiple suits were originally filed before different courts of Mathura, with a common claim that the Eidgah complex was built on the land believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna and where a temple had existed.

New Delhi, Jan 21: In a fresh application filed before the Supreme Court, the Committee of Management of Mathura’s Shahi Masjid Eidgah has pleaded that the right of the Centre to file its reply to the petitions challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991 should be closed.

The plea said that in an order passed on December 12, 2024, the apex court noticed that the Union government had not filed its reply to the petitions challenging the 1991 Act for over three years and directed that a common counter affidavit be filed by the Centre within four weeks.

The mosque committee said that the Union of India is “deliberately” not filing its counter affidavit with the intention to delay the hearing, and thereby, obstructing those who are opposing the challenge to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 in filing their respective written submissions, as the stand of the Centre would have a bearing on the same.

The Shahi Masjid Eidgah’s application contended that since the Supreme Court has fixed the date of hearing of the batch of petition as February 17, “it would be in the interest of justice if the right of the Union of India to file its counter affidavit/ reply/pleadings/submissions is closed”.

In March 2021, a Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde sought the Centre’s response to the plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the validity of certain provisions of the law, prohibiting the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.

The plea said, “The 1991 Act was enacted in the garb of ‘Public order’, which is a State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-1) and ‘places of pilgrimages within India’ is also State subject (Schedule-7, List-II, Entry-7). So, the Centre can’t enact the Law.

“Moreover, Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making a law to take away fundamental rights but the 1991 Act takes away the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs, to restore their ‘places of worship and pilgrimages’, destroyed by barbaric invaders.”

It further added, “The Act excludes the birthplace of Lord Rama but includes the birthplace of Lord Krishna, though both are incarnations of Lord Vishnu, the creator and equally worshipped throughout the world, hence it is arbitrary.”

In an interim order passed on December 12, 2024, the CJI Sanjiv Khanna-led Special Bench had ordered that no fresh suits would be registered under the Places of Worship Act in the country, and in the pending cases, no final or effective orders would be passed till further orders.

The Special Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, had asked the Union government to file within four weeks its reply to the batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions), 1991.

In an intervention application filed earlier on December 11, the Committee of Management of Mathura’s Shahi Masjid Eidgah, had said that the 1991 law, prohibiting the alteration of religious places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1945, was enacted by Parliament in the interest of the country’s progress, which has stood the test of time for more than 33 years.

It added that Parliament had enacted the 1991 Act, which has stood the test of time for more than 33 years and the petitioners have chosen to challenge the enactment belatedly, after 29 years.

The application said that the mosque committee is party to 17 different suits being tried by the Allahabad High Court, where the plaintiffs have staked a claim over the entire parcel of land over which the Shahi Masjid Eidgah has been built, and have further sought the removal of the mosque structure from the said land, claiming the same to have been built over Krishna Janam Sthan.

“It would be in the interest of justice if the applicant (mosque committee) is allowed to intervene and assist this Hon’ble Court in the adjudication of the issues (relating to the validity of Places of Worship Act, 1991),” the application had said.