Qutub Minar Hearing: The verdict on the Qutub Minar case will come on June 9, know what happened in the court today?

Qutub Minar: Delhi's Saket Court has reserved its order on a petition seeking the right to worship the idols of Hindu deities kept in the Qutub Minar complex. Delhi's Saket court will pronounce its order on June 9, which will make it clear whether the matter will be heard once again before the civil judge or not as earlier the civil judge had initially rejected the petition seeking the right to worship. Huh.

During the hearing in the Saket court on Tuesday, the counsel for the Hindu side argued that the complex was built by demolishing 27 temples. This thing is clear and it is also mentioned that there is a campus. This was also told in the lower court (civil judge) but he dismissed the case.

The Hindu side gave this argument

The Hindu side argued that we have demanded in the petition that all the idols of Gods and Goddesses there should be given the right to worship. Also demanded the formation of trust from the central government which would take care of these temples and idols. Because there is no doubt that this complex has been erected by demolishing the temples and when it has been proven then it should be restored.

The court asked this question

During the hearing, the court asked the Hindu side if they want a monument to be converted into a place of worship? On what basis can this be done? Responding to the questions asked by the court, the counsel for the Hindu side said that there are many Monuments under the Archaeological Survey of India, where the right of worship is found. On which the court once again asked the question and said that you want it to be converted into a place of worship? On the question asked by the court, the lawyer for the Hindu side said yes, it can be done. If it is a temple then why can't we get the right to worship? Because God never ends, it is the belief of Hindus.

Ram Mandir's decision mentioned

The court asked the question to the lawyer of the Hindu side that this matter did not come up suddenly in the Qutub Minar complex, it has already changed over the last 800 years. Responding to the court's question, the counsel for the Hindu side, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in the Ayodhya Ram temple case, said that the presence of God has been considered important even in the Ayodhya verdict, so even after the destruction of the temple, the existence of God It does not end here, even today the idols are kept and the Iron Pillar which is also called Vishnu Pillar is more than 1600 years old.

The court asked- 800 years without worship, then why do you want to change now?

After listening to the arguments of the Hindu side, the court once again asked the question if 800 years remained without worship, then why do you want to change it now? Also, how did you get the right of worship that you are demanding? Is this a fundamental right or a constitutional right? The court said that there is no dispute if the idols of God are there, but how have you got the right to worship, tell me?

The Hindu side's lawyer replied

Responding to the question asked by the court, the counsel for the Hindu side said that this is a violation of section 25 (right to practice religion) of the constitutional right. Along with this, by mentioning the Right to Worship, he also called it Fundamental Right. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the Hindu side raised the question and asked whether it is proper to call the site built after demolishing the temples a mosque? There is no prayer at that site and there are many religious places in India that are protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. Not only this, but the Places of Worship Act also does not apply here because it comes under ASI and an exception has been given in the Ancient Monument Act. Any Monument which comes under the Monument Act of 1958 will be considered outside the purview of the Places of Worship Act. Whereas the Civil Judge had dismissed the case only by talking about the Worship Act.

The lawyer of the Archaeological Survey of India made this demand

The lawyer for the Hindu side, furthering his argument, said that the origin of that place was a Hindu temple and it does not change with time. Temple is always temple and God is always God, its origin can never change. After hearing the arguments of the Hindu side, the counsel for the Archaeological Survey of India argued that I would just say that the order of the lower court was correct and there is no need to change it. We have to see that when the building came to the Archaeological Survey of India, what was its character and on this basis, this petition should be dismissed.

The counsel for the Archaeological Survey of India argued that the Hindu side, which is talking about worshiping in the buildings of historical heritage, is also done under the rules. There are many Monuments in the country where worship is done, they are Living Monuments, where they are not, they are non-living. Explaining this, he said that Living Monuments are those that when they came to ASI, there was worship/religious activity. Whereas Non-Living Monuments are those which when they came to ASI, there were no worship/religious activities in them.

ASI opposes the demand for the worship of the Hindu side

The ASI opposed the demand for the worship of the Hindu side, saying that even though the Hindu side is telling the Fundamental Rights, the Fundamental Rights do not apply equally in every case. The counsel for the Archaeological Survey of India argued that the material in the premises itself has been said to have been taken from the debris from the demolition of 27 temples, but it is nowhere said from whom the mosque was built, that material from there. taken or came from outside. Also, it is not known whether the mosque was built by demolishing the temples or was built using the debris already broken there. As far as the Iron Pillar is concerned, it cannot be said that where this pillar is, it was always there.

After completion of the arguments of both sides, the court has reserved its decision for June 9. According to lawyers associated with the case, on June 9, he is hoping that the court will decide whether the lower court had dismissed the plea seeking worship, and whether that order was correct or not. If the court finds the order to be correct, then the Hindu side will have the option of appealing to the High Court. On the other hand, if the order is held wrong, then once again all the more information related to the Qutub Minar complex will be presented before the civil judge. Based on which the hearing will proceed.

Also Read: Hearing on Qutub Minar: ASI opposes construction of Hindu-Jain temple; Said- The identity of the heritage cannot be changed