Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 30, 2022 at 22:21 IST
The Supreme Court will hear an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order allowing the State government to consider applications for the use of Bengaluru’s Idgah Maidan for religious and cultural events.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, speaking on behalf of the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf, said that if the appeal was not heard on August 30, it will cause needless religious tension.
The petition directed to be listed for August 30, according to the Bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat.
In response to the State’s appeal of an interim order issued by a single judge, the division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Savanur Vishwajith Shetty issued the challenged order on August 27.
As an interim measure, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar had permitted the Idgah Maidan to be used only for Independence Day and Republic Day celebrations, as a public playground, and for Muslim community prayers on the days of Ramzan and Bakr-Eid festivals.
The Division Bench, however, modified this order by asking that the government take into account applications for all religious and cultural activities while the land dispute was ongoing.
“The Constitution of India itself fosters brotherhood amongst various sections of the Society. The principle of religious toleration is the characteristic of Indian civilization,“ while modification of the order, the Court said.
The Karnataka State Board of Auqaf’s original petition was filed in an effort to challenge an order made by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which refused to computerise the land in the Board’s name while saying that it belonged to the State’s Revenue Department.
The petitioners argued that a notification from the Mysore State Board of Wakfs, issued in 1965, designating the land as Auqaf property, made the property belong to the Board. It was stressed that the same was binding on the State till the Wakf tribunal set it aside.
The State, on the other hand, asserted that the notification was not legally binding and that since the land did not belong to any specific person, it belonged to the State.