Badaun Court To Hear Temple-Mosque Case On March 10

A court in Badaun has scheduled the next hearing in the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple v. Jama Masjid Intazamia Committee case for March 10, following the adjournment of proceedings on Wednesday due to an ongoing lawyers’ strike.

The case, which centers on a disputed religious site, is being heard in a fast-track court under Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amit Kumar.

Legal Proceedings and Adjournments

The adjournment occurred amid an indefinite strike by the legal fraternity, preventing the scheduled arguments from proceeding. Advocate Vivek Rainder, representing the Hindu petitioners, stated that the delay was unavoidable given the prevailing circumstances.

However, he affirmed that his side remains fully prepared to present its arguments once the opposing counsel has made their submissions.

This case has encountered multiple procedural hurdles. On February 11, the court repeatedly summoned the legal representative of the Jama Masjid Intazamia Committee to appear before the bench.

However, no advocate was present to respond to the summons, prompting the court to issue a final opportunity for the Muslim side to present its arguments. The hearing was initially rescheduled for February 19. Despite this extension, the strike again disrupted the proceedings, leading to the latest postponement to March 10.

Legal and Social Implications of the Case

The dispute over the Neelkanth Mahadev Temple and Jama Masjid carries significant legal and societal implications, given the historical and religious sensitivities involved. Similar cases across India have frequently drawn widespread public attention and often lead to prolonged legal battles.

The adjudication of such matters requires a nuanced interpretation of historical records, property rights, and constitutional guarantees concerning religious freedom.

The court’s decision to grant additional time underscores the need for procedural fairness, ensuring that both parties have the opportunity to present their cases comprehensively. However, persistent delays may impact the timely resolution of the matter.

As the March 10 hearing approaches, legal experts and stakeholders will closely observe the proceedings, which could set a precedent for similar religious disputes across the country.

Meera Verma