Allahabad high court | Business Upturn

Allahabad High Court declines Jaya Prada’s appeal to withdraw non-bailable warrant issued against her- Read details here

Sheetal Choudhary — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:55:31 +0000

Actress and former MP Jaya Prada is absconding in two cases concerning violating the code of conduct. She has been announced as the “most wanted. The actress hasn’t made any appearance in court, despite many legal notices sent to her. Jaya Prada appealed for the Allahabad High Court to quash non-bailable warrants against her. However, her appeal was declined stating it to be baseless.

On Tuesday, the MP/MLA court of Rampur issued section 82 CrPC against her. The court even ordered the police to form a special team and present her in court in the next hearing.

Following that, an appeal was filed in the High Court by the actress’ lawyers, seeking to quash the order of the trial court. On Thursday, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh took note of the entire case. Jaya’s lawyers stated that they need to file a new application with new documents. The lawyers even sought for the court to withdraw the petitions filed against her. This plea was accepted by the court and the petitions have been withdrawn.

Jaya Prada was charged with the violation of the code of conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in Rampur. Because of her act, she was summoned by the Rampur District Court on several occasions. However, the actress never appeared in any of the court hearings. This led to the court declaring her as absconding.

Though several non-bailable warrants were issued against her, the actress never appeared in the court. Both cases were filed against her during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections when she was a member of the BJP party.

Allahabad HC rejects Gyanvapi mosque committee’s appeal, allows Hindu prayers; Owaisi criticizes decision

Matrika Shukla — Mon, 26 Feb 2024 05:31:53 +0000

On Monday, the Allahabad High Court rejected the appeal from the Gyanvapi Mosque committee contesting the Varanasi district court’s ruling permitting prayers in a cellar within the Gyanvapi mosque complex. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad HC delivered the verdict.

Justice Agarwal stated during the pronouncement of the verdict that, after thoroughly reviewing the entire case records and considering the arguments put forth by the concerned parties, the court did not discover any grounds to intervene in the judgment delivered by the district judge on January 17, 2024, appointing the DM, Varanasi, as the receiver of the property, as well as the order issued on January 31, 2024, permitting Puja in the Tehkhana.

Advocate Prabhash hailed the verdict, expressing it as a “big victory for Sanatana Dharma.” He remarked that the judge had rejected the appeals filed by the Muslim side against the District Judge’s order, signifying the continuation of the puja arrangements. Additionally, he noted that the District Magistrate would persist as the Receiver of the ‘Tehkhana.’ He added that the Muslim side retains the option to seek a review of the decision, emphasizing that the puja activities will persist uninterrupted. He conveyed this information to news agency ANI.

Another Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the Hindu side, remarked that the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the initial appeal from the orders of Anjuman Intezamia. This appeal was directed against the orders dated January 17th and 31st. He explained that the consequence of this decision is the continuation of the ongoing puja in the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ of the Gyanvapi complex. He added that if Anjuman Intezamia chooses to approach the Supreme Court, they would lodge their caveat with the top court.

On January 31, the Varanasi court issued a ruling permitting the Hindu side to conduct prayers in the southern cellar of the Gyanvapi mosque, known as the ‘Vyas Tehkhana.’ Additionally, the court instructed the district magistrate to facilitate arrangements for the ‘puja’ ceremony, including the appointment of a ‘pujari’ nominated by the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.

Subsequently, on February 1, the Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, responsible for the management of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, lodged a plea before the Allahabad High Court contesting the decision made by the Varanasi court. This action followed closely after the Supreme Court declined to promptly hear the plea submitted by the mosque committee.

The mosque comprises four ‘tahkhanas’ (cellars) located in the basement, with one of them still under the possession of the Vyas family, who historically resided there.

The mosque committee asserted that the ‘Vyas Tehkhana’ belonged to them as part of the mosque premises, emphasizing that neither the Vyas family nor any other entity had the right to perform worship inside the Tehkhana. In contrast, the Hindu side argued that the Vyas family conducted religious ceremonies in the basement until 1993. However, they ceased these activities in adherence to a directive issued by the state government.

Previously, AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi characterized the Varanasi court’s decision to permit Hindu devotees to offer prayers within the mosque complex as a “violation of the Places of Worship Act.”

He said, “The judge who gave the decision was his last day before retirement. The judge appointed the District Magistrate as receiver on January 17 and finally, he has directly given the verdict. He said that no prayers had been offered since 1993. It has been 30 years. How does he know there is an idol inside? This is a violation of the Places of Worship Act…He has ordered to open the grills within 7 days. 30 days should have been given to make an appeal. This is a wrong decision,”

CBI to challenge Nithari Killings acquittal amidst criticism of investigation process

Matrika Shukla — Wed, 21 Feb 2024 10:46:39 +0000

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is set to contest the Allahabad High Court’s decision to acquit Surendra Koli and his former employer Moninder Singh Pandher in the 2006 Nithari killings case. It is reported that the CBI has acquired all pertinent documents from the Ghaziabad court for this purpose.

Last year on October 17, the Allahabad High Court acquitted Koli and his former employer Pandher, stating that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving their guilt. This decision came nearly 17 years after the discovery of human skulls, skeletal remains, and fragments of clothing belonging to missing girls, found stuffed in gunny bags in a drain outside businessman Pandher’s residence in Nithari village near Delhi.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) assumed control of the investigation from the Uttar Pradesh Police in January 2007.

Sources indicate that after thoroughly reviewing the case documents and seeking legal opinions, the CBI has opted to contest two cases where Koli is implicated as the accused and Pandher as the co-accused, along with the ten cases where Koli stands as the sole accused. Procuring certified copies from the Ghaziabad Court has been an extensive undertaking. Given that the documents are in Hindi, an agency has been enlisted to translate them into English. The CBI intends to initiate the challenge against their acquittal in the Supreme Court in the forthcoming days, as stated by the source.

Koli, who resided and worked as domestic help at Pandher’s residence, was acquitted in 12 cases pertaining to the 2006 killings. Meanwhile, Pandher was acquitted in two cases filed against him.

Both Koli and Pandher had been sentenced to death in these cases involving charges of rape, murder, and destruction of evidence, among others, by a CBI court in Ghaziabad in 2009. Out of these cases, Koli was the sole accused in 10 instances, while in two others, he was accused alongside Pandher.

In a case where both Koli and Pandher had been sentenced to death, a bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi rebuked the investigators in 2023 while acquitting them. The bench stated, “Upon evaluation of the evidence… on the touchstone of fair trial guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused… beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The bench further stated that the investigation, in other aspects, is marred by serious flaws, with fundamental protocols for evidence collection being flagrantly disregarded. It seems evident to them that the investigation chose the convenient route of implicating a vulnerable household servant by vilifying him, without adequately exploring more substantial aspects, such as the potential involvement of organized activities like organ trafficking.

Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Case: Allahabad HC orders for ASI survey of Shahi Idgah of Mathura

Uddeshya Thakur — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 20:28:08 +0000

Allahabad High Court’s decision has come in the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple case of Mathura. On the dispute between Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Temple and Shahi Idgah Mosque located in Mathura, the court has approved the survey at the disputed site of Shahi Idgah Mosque. The court has also approved the demand to get the survey of the disputed land done through the Advocate Commissioner.

Allahabad High Court, while giving its verdict on Thursday, has approved the petition of the Hindu side. In this case, the single bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain has given its verdict at around 2 pm. In its decision, on the lines of Gyanvapi dispute, the court has also ordered a survey of the disputed premises of Mathura to be conducted through the Advocate Commissioner.

The petition was filed by Lord Shri Krishna Virajman and seven others through advocates Harishankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Devaki Nandan. In which it has been claimed that the birthplace of Lord Krishna is present below that mosque and there are many signs which prove that that mosque is a Hindu temple.

This claim was made in the petition

According to Hindu side’s lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain, the petition claimed that there is a lotus-shaped pillar which is a feature of Hindu temples and a replica of Sheshnag, one of the Hindu deities who appeared on the night of Lord Shiva’s birth. Had protected Krishna.

The petitioners have requested that a commission be constituted with specific instructions to submit its report after the survey within the stipulated time limit. A request has also been made to conduct photography and videography of this entire proceeding. In May this year, the Allahabad High Court had transferred to itself all the cases related to the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute pending in the Mathura court.

Check out the timeline of the Masjid that claimed property on the grounds of the Allahabad High Court

Sakshi Vats — Tue, 14 Mar 2023 17:34:37 +0000

On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s 2017 decision to remove the “Masjid High Court” mosque from its grounds.

A bench made up of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar dismissed the special leave applications brought by the Waqf Masjid High Court and the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, but gave the petitioners three months to demolish the mosque. The bench said that if the construction is not taken down within three months of today, it will be possible for authorities, including the High Court, to order its removal or demolition.

The petitioners are now permitted by the bench to approach the Uttar Pradesh government to request the allocation of substitute land in the neighbourhood. The State may take into account the representation in line with the law and on its own merits, taking into account whether or not such lands are needed for any other current or future public use.

The bench upheld the decision, noting that the mosque was located on government-leased property and that the grant had been revoked in 2002. After the lease was terminated, the property was reclaimed in 2004 for the Supreme Court’s enlargement.

The bench noted that because the Supreme Court had upheld the resumption of land in 2012, the petitioners could not have any legal claim to the property. In light of this, the bench declined to overturn the High Court’s decision that was reached in a PIL submitted by an attorney by the name of Abhishek Shukla.

2000:An illegal Masjid claimed property of Allahabad High Court.

2004:Allahabad High Court won the case against it before Supreme Court.

2004:Illegal Masjid became Waqf to fight Allahabad High Court.

2023:Allahabad High Court won case against Waqf before Supreme Court.

1/23 pic.twitter.com/c6rkrnupGc

— Shashank Shekhar Jha (@shashank_ssj) March 13, 2023

Claims in court

Mr. Kapil Sibal, a senior attorney for the Waqf Masjid High Court, gave a brief history of the Masjid in order to set the scene for the conflict. According to him, the Allahabad High Court’s current structure was built in 1861. Since then, Friday namaz has been offered on the northern corner by Muslim clients, Muslim clerks, and Muslim advocates. There is also a plan for wazu. Subsequently, a building housing the courtrooms was built close to the verandah where namaz was being offered. The High Court Registrar supplied a second location for namaz at the southern end at the request of a delegation of Muslim attorneys.

At the time, they were given permission to hold namaz at a private mosque on the property by a person who was having a government grant land. The private mosque was changed into a public mosque as a result. The lease for the property where the mosque is located was extended in the late 1980s for an additional 30 years, with an expiration date of 2017. The lease was terminated on December 15, 2000, however namaz is being offered at the mosque today. He claimed that it was incorrect to claim that the mosque was located inside the High Court’s grounds and that it was actually across the street from the building.

“Govt changes in 2017. The Government changed, and everything changed. PIL is filed ten days after the new government was formed”, he stated.

The Waqf, it was argued, wouldn’t have an issue if the mosque were moved to a different location. He did, however, argue before the Bench that the High Court built a 9-story structure despite only having permission to erect a 6-story structure, and that land belonging to the mosque is being sought in order to meet the higher set-back requirements for the additional floors.

“Now they say they have built 9 storeys, so they need a set back of 11 meters. So, they say we have to go…They don’t have 11 meters on all sides. And they want 11 meters on our side.”

He continued –

“We are still willing to move, if we are given another space. That they are not willing.”

Justice Shah enquired, “What is the area of namaz sthal?”

Mr. Sibal responded, “450 square meters. And this has been going on since 1960. It is not even near the High Court.”

Justice Shah stated, “This land belongs to the government which was given to lease to a private person. And now the lease has been terminated.”

According to Mr. Sibal, the mosque has been serving the general public as a mosque for many years. He highlighted that the Waqf is open to a different solution, such as a different site, because they don’t want to endanger fire safety.

He further added -“The entire impression in the HC judgment is that the mosque is in the premises of the High Court. That is not correct.”

Ms. Indira Jaising, senior advocate appearing for UP Sunni Waqf Board stated-“This was a renewable lease. It was a private mosque to begin with and thereafter, it was dedicated to the public and registered with the Waqf board. So it is today a Waqf mosque. The land belongs to the Govt. There are documents showing we are in possession. We are willing to be given to an alternate site. We are not insisting that namaz should be offered on the present site.”

She added, “Also, the original set back was assigned on the basis that the HC building will have 6 meters. If your lordships are satisfied that safety regulations are sufficiently complied, please allow us to continue or offer alternate space, considering it is a worship place.”

Supreme Court’s Opinion

At the threshold, senior attorney Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi representing the Allahabad High Court stated, “This is a case of complete fraud.

Dwivedi walked the Court through the status of the lease’s history going back to 1861. He emphasized that the lease document had a provision prohibiting the construction of buildings without prior approval. To divide or transfer the plot, therefore, required prior government approval. The lease has been renewed twice since it was given, but no mention of the mosque’s construction or its status as a public mosque was made, he continued. The renewal request was made known to the Bench along with documentation of its requirement for residential purposes.

Mr. Dwivedi emphasized that there was no mention of the mosque or the dedication even when the Lessees filed a writ suit in opposition to the collector’s notice of lease cancellation. It was maintained that one needed to own the entire parcel of property in order to dedicate it. The High Court had supported the restart after taking these circumstances into account. A Special Leave Petition was submitted to the Apex Court in opposition to the aforementioned order. Regarding dispossession, a status quo order was obtained. The land was registered as waqf the same day that the lessee submitted an application to the Waqf Board, shortly after the status quo order was issued. Subsequently, the Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling and gave them time to leave the property. In 2004, the High Court acquired possession.

When Mr. Dwivedi stated, “The first legal point is on a private lease land, you cannot create a waqf. You have only limited rights as a lessee. There are restrictions. And now they try to give a religious color. They have no right…It was a nazul land and as per patta conditions, there was no permission to raise a mosque there. The tin sheet building was raised there without authorization.”

He continued -“Mere fact that they are offering namaz will not make it a mosque. If in the Supreme Court verandah or HC verandah namaz is allowed for convenience, it will not become a mosque. These activities will not make it a mosque. Mosque is a serious affair. It should be dedicated in a proper way. Sometimes we see namaz in roads outside small mosques. That will not make the roads mosque.”

He claimed that the petitioners are unnecessarily giving the issue a religious spin while the Waqf is clearly the victim of fraud.

“This is a case of complete fraud and religious colours are given. In 2002, they managed to get it registered as a waqf to stall eviction and they managed for 20 years. Then they say it is because of the Govt change. They are making religious colours in the HC direction too.”

Regarding the 11m setback, “On all four sides it will be 11 meters. And in any case, it is not their business to say what should be set back, ”Mr Dwivedi stated.

Justice Shah asked, “Is there no other land nearby which can be given?”

“Anyway, the question of alternate land need not be linked with this. They have to vacate first. They cannot make a bargain that they will vacate only if they are given alternate land. The High Court has dealt with all these issues. And compensation has also been granted,” Mr Dwivedi stated.

Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati for State of Uttar Pradesh replied, “There is another mosque existing within 500 meters of the High Court. And there is no vacant plot in the tehsil. This is the second round of litigation. In 2004, the land was resumed for the HC. And we are in 2023 now. They are not raising any other ground except that the government has changed.”

After the lease was cancelled and the land was resumed and confirmed by the Supreme Court, Judge Shah informed Adv. MR Shamshad, speaking on behalf of the Mosque, that they could not assert a claim to the lease property.

“Try to understand one thing. You have no right. It was a lease property. Lease was terminated and land was resumed and confirmed by this Court. Immediately, it was registered as waqf. You can’t claim as a matter of right to continue”

The mosque, which is said to have been built illegally on encroached land and is located on the grounds of the Allahabad High Court, is at the centre of the controversy. The registrar-general was given a directive by the high court in 2017 to make sure that no area of its locations in Allahabad or Lucknow could be exploited, “for practicing religion or offering prayers or to worship or to carry on any religious activity by any group of persons”. “While a citizen has complete freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion of his choice, he cannot claim right to erect structure in the name of religion in an unauthorized manner over public land or over land of others,” a jury presided over by Dilip B. Bhosale, the chief justice at the time. The High Court claimed that the lessees, who had initially only built a “tin shed,” lost in the Supreme Court and were ordered to turn over possession of the encroached land. It was only then that the waqf was registered.

[Case Title: Waqf Masjid High Court v. High Court of Judicature Allahabad Registrar General And Ors. SLP(C) No. 3085/2018]

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear a petition challenging a 2018 decision by Allahabad HC to remove a mosque called Waqf Masjid High Court from its premises, on the ground that "no part of its premises was permitted to be used to carry on any religious activity".#SupremeCourtofIndia pic.twitter.com/TXsKDbWgMT

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 13, 2023

Mosque loudspeakers not a fundamental right: Allahabad High Court

United News of India (UNI) — Fri, 06 May 2022 09:32:25 +0000

Prayagraj, May 6: The Allahabad High Court on Friday ruled that installation of loudspeakers in mosques is not a fundamental right. This followed a petition on behalf of Irfan challenging the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Badaun district. On December 3, 2021 refusing to grant permission to install a loudspeaker at Noori Masjid in Dhoranpur village for Azaan. The petitioner told the court that the direction was illegal and violated his fundamental rights. A High Court Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla. And Justice Vikas dismissed the petition. Saying that the present petition is patently misconceived.

(Except for the headline. This story has not been edited by Business Upturn staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

CEC Sushil Chandra to decide on postponement of UP polls next week

News Desk — Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:20:03 +0000

A day after the Allahabad High Court suggested postponing the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections and raised concern overspreading of Omicron.

A single bench of Justice Shekhar Yadav on Thursday urged the central government to stop political rallies from being held in the election-bound states amid rising cases of the new Omicron variant of COVID-19 and postponing the UP assembly elections for a month or two.

Justice Yadav also added, “Today again elections to the Vidhan Sabha in UP are near, for which political parties are holding massive rallies and meetings and gatherings which attracts lakhs of the crowd. It is not possible to follow the Covid protocol in these programmes. If this is not stopped in time, then the outcome will be more frightening than the second wave.”

The Chief Election Commissioner Sushil Chandra was asked in a press briefing whether the postponing of UP polls is possible as the Allahabad High Court has expressed its concerns over the rising cases of the new covid variant. The CEC said, ‘I will be visiting Uttar Pradesh next week. A decision will be taken after accessing the whole ground situation.’

UP govt challenges order of Allahabad HC, directing week-long lockdown in 5 major cities of state

News Desk — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:00:00 +0000

The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to impose a lockdown in 5 cities till April 26 to break the chain of COVID-19 infection. The division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ajit Kumar contended that the stricter novel coronavirus curbs would also ensure that the frontline healthcare workers get respite and can pay more attention to the patients who are already admitted.

Blaming the government for not planning in advance for the second COVID-19 wave, the HC observed, “If popular government has its own political compulsions in not checking public movements during this pandemic, we can not remain mere passive spectators. Public health is the top most priority and call of the moment and any complacency of any degree today will cause havoc to people. We can’t shirk away from our constitutional duty to save innocent people from the pandemic which is spreading due to the negligence of a few.”

Allahabad HC had taken suo motu cognisance of the spread of Covid and passed a string of directions to the UP government. The Uttar Pradesh government had refused to go for a lockdown on Monday, saying it was necessary to protect livelihoods of people, after the Allahabad High Court directed the state government to enforce closure of government and private establishments in five cities — Lucknow, Varanasi, Prayagraj, Kanpur and Gorakhpur — till April 26 to break the lethal Covid chain.

Hours after the high court directive, the UP government issued a statement, saying a “full lockdown would not be implemented in cities right now. People are voluntarily shutting establishments.”

“In light of high court order, it is to be said coronavirus cases have gone up in the state and there is need for strictness in controlling spread of the virus. The government has taken several steps and in future will also take more severe steps,” a government spokesperson said.