The Supreme Court would on January 15 hear a plea of the mosque management committee against an order rejecting its petition in the Shahi Eidgah- Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute in Mathura, UP.

A single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court on August 1, last year, rejected the plea of the Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah, challenging the maintainability of 15 cases related to the temple-mosque dispute in Mathura, and ruled the “religious character” of Shahi Eidgah needed to be determined.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, on December 9, last year commenced the final hearing in the case and the matter is set to come up before the bench on January 15, according to the SC website.

One of the Hindu parties, represented by advocate Barun Sinha, had argued the mosque committee could have moved the Allahabad High Court against the single judge’s order over the dispute.

He said the plea of the mosque committee was not maintainable in the top court at the present stage.

The lawyer referred to the Allahabad High Court rules and argued, “In view of Chapter 8 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, a special appeal before the division bench of the high court would be maintainable.”

He said an appeal in the Supreme Court was not “maintainable against the order of a single judge bench of the high court” and an intra-court appeal in the high court should have been filed. The lawyer therefore sought the plea to be dismissed.

On November 29, last year, the CJI-led bench agreed to hear the plea.

“This we will hear at length. We will take it up on December 9, at 2 pm… We have to decide what is the legal position,” the CJI said.

Speaking for the bench, the CJI prima facie felt that an intra-court appeal would lie against the single judge bench’s August 1 order of the high court.

“We will certainly give you an opportunity to argue,” the bench said.

The mosque committee said the suits filed by Hindu litigants over the dispute over the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, and the adjoining mosque, violated the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, and were therefore not maintainable.

The 1991 Act prohibits changing the religious character of any shrine from what existed on the day of the country’s Independence. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute was however kept outside it purview.

The cases filed by the Hindu party side seek the “removal” of the Aurangzeb-era mosque, claiming it was built after the demolition a temple that once stood there.

The high court said the 1991 Act did not define the term “religious character” and the “disputed” place couldn’t have a dual religious character — of a temple and a mosque, which are “adverse to each other” — at the same time.

“Either the place is a temple or a mosque. Thus, I find that the religious character of the disputed place as it existed on August 15, 1947, is to be determined by documentary as well as oral evidence led by both the parties,” the high court said.

The high court concluded the cases did “not appear to be barred by any provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Limitation Act, 1963 and Order XIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908”.

Hindu side’s advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain had said his client would move the Supreme Court for vacating its stay on a previous Allahabad High Court order allowing the mosque’s survey.

The mosque management committee and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board argued the suits were barred under Places of Worship Act and other laws.

On May 31, 2024, the Allahabad High Court reserved its judgment on the maintainability plea after hearing both sides.

But the court reopened the hearing at the request of Shahi Eidgah counsel Mehmood Pracha.

The Mathura dispute mirrors the legal tussle in Varanasi, where the Gyanvapi mosque and the Kashi Vishwanath temple are located next to each other.

Actress Anushka Sharma and her husband, cricketer were spotted at the Gateway of India in Mumbai on Sunday as they jetted off to Alibaug by ferry. They were unaccompanied by their children, Vamika and Akaay. Several videos of the couple went viral on social media, showing them getting into the ferry ride. However, the duo did not wear life jackets, which was noticed by a user on X.

A user on X (formerly Twitter) reacted to the video and wrote, “No life jackets? People seem to have forgotten the recent accident at Gateway of India where 13 lives were lost!” This comes after, in December 2024, authorities made life jackets mandatory for all passengers taking boat rides from the Gateway of India, following a ferry-Navy craft collision that claimed 13 lives off the Mumbai coast.

Anushka Sharma and Virat Kohli’s visit to Shri Premanand Govind Sharan Ji Maharaj in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh, along with their children, Vamika and Akaay, caught widespread attention on social media. The video from Shri Premanand Govind Sharan Ji Maharaj’s ashram went viral, where Guru was seen getting emotional upon seeing their devotion and faith.

Pathanamthitta, Jan 11:The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the repeated sexual assault of a teenage girl in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district has registered 29 cases across five police stations in the state and arrested 43 individuals in connection with the case so far.

The victim, reportedly assaulted by around 62 people, has disclosed shocking details that have led to significant progress in the investigation. On Sunday alone, 13 new cases were registered, and six more arrests were made as the SIT analyzed the victim’s diary and her father’s mobile phone, which she had been using.

The arrested individuals include three minors and four students preparing for their Class 12 final examinations next month. The SIT has also identified several accused currently residing abroad. Most of the arrested are aged between 17 and 28.

According to the victim’s statement, she was exploited at various locations, including secluded rubber plantations, vehicles, and other spots within the district. The assaults reportedly began when she was 13 years old and were perpetrated by acquaintances, coaches, senior sportsmen, and others, exploiting her role as a sportswoman. She was taken to various locations in vehicles and subjected to abuse.

The case came to light during a counseling session organized by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) after her teachers reported behavioural changes in her. During the session, she disclosed the extent of her abuse. The CWC then referred the case to the Pathanamthitta district police chief.

In her initial statement, the victim, who is now 18 years old, provided names of 40 suspects, whose contact details were saved on her father’s mobile phone. FIRs have been registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The case has drawn widespread attention, reminiscent of other high-profile sexual assault cases in Kerala, including the Suryanelli, Vithura, and Kozhikode incidents.