Posts

Showing posts with the label Article 25

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Demolition of 400-Year-Old Mancha Masjid for Road Widening: Balancing Heritage, Religion, and Public Interest

Image
Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision The Supreme Court of India upheld the Gujarat High Court’s decision permitting the partial demolition of the 400-year-old Mancha Masjid in Ahmedabad to facilitate a road-widening project . The Court emphasized that the move was driven by public interest and not a violation of religious freedom under the Constitution. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the main mosque structure will remain intact , with only a portion of the vacant land and platform being affected. The Court further noted that the development plan included similar demolitions of a temple , a commercial building , and a residential house , indicating that the action was not discriminatory or targeted . Religious Rights vs. Property Rights The Supreme Court categorically stated that Article 25 of the Constitution — which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion — does not apply in this case. Instead, the dispute...

Himachal High Court Bans Use of Temple Funds for Government Welfare Schemes

Image
In a significant ruling reinforcing the separation of religion and state finances, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has prohibited the state government from utilising temple donations for public welfare or non-religious schemes. The decision, delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla , marks an important precedent for protecting religious endowments and ensuring accountability in temple administration. The Case: Petition for Transparency and Religious Autonomy The order came while disposing of a petition filed by Kashmir Chand Shadyal , who sought strict compliance with the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 . The petitioner raised concerns that donations made by devotees to temples were being diverted toward general government welfare schemes — a move that, he argued, violated both the intent of the Act and constitutional principles protecting religious freedom. The court agreed, ru...