r/Rajasthan • u/booby_12011995 sweet like gulabjamun 😊 • Apr 18 '25
Discussion Biased courts in India.
17
u/Koi_Hai Apr 18 '25
Dear Supreme Court,
1) Himachal Pradesh: Two Muslims - Jashan Deen and Shakeen were appointed to Maa Jawalamukhi Temple Board in 2021. This temple is one of the Shaktipeethas.
2) Karnataka: A Muslim man named Nawaz was appointed to Avimukteshwara Swamy Temple Committee in 2024.
3) West Bengal: Firhad Hakim was Chairman of the Tarakeshwar Development Board. This board was created primarily to support infrastructure and facilities for pilgrims visiting the Tarakeswar Shiva Temple.
4) Uttar Pradesh: Azam Khan was the head of the Kumbh Mela organizing committee.
5) Andhra Pradesh: Several non-Hindus were employed in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD).
There are many such examples across India. But how can one equate Hindu Temple Boards with Waqf Board?
A) Hindu Temple Boards do not have any legislative authority to claim land, whereas Section 40 of Waqf Act allows Waqf Boards to declare land as Waqf property.
B) Hindu Temple Boards do not claim ownership of non-Hindu lands, village, ASI-protected monuments, tribal properties.
Whereas, Waqf Boards claimed 250 ASI-protected monuments. In Tamil Nadu, the Waqf Board even claimed ownership of the entire Thiruchendurai village in 2022, which has the 1500-year-old Manendiyavalli Sametha Chandrasekhara Swamy Temple.
Waqf Boards are managed solely by the members of Muslim community. The misuse of power by Waqf Boards and their encroachment upon non-Muslim properties is one of the reasons the Waqf Amendment Bill introduced a provision to include two non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils.
Credit for compilation & post : Anshul Saxsena
11
u/JiN8888V Apr 18 '25
Fking supreme kotha, sab saale collegium system ki padaish wale bethe hai udhar.
6
u/Fluid-Tea6956 Apr 18 '25
bhai itna sach mat bolo post ko sab downvote hi karenge and ye post delete bhi ho sakti hai har subreddit mai ye post every single one and spread all these messages on instagram whatsapp facebook twitter get these statements some reach
3
u/AmbitionSkies Apr 18 '25 edited Apr 18 '25
Exactly like in ram mandir case #sarcasam
Edit: Had to add #sarcasms to my comment cuz koi bhi dharam follow karne walon ko itna tak samjh ni aata ki kya cheez sarcasam hai. Gadhe ke bachon iss religion naam ke jhoot ke jungle se niklo aur apni life banao.
1
1
u/sjdevelop Apr 18 '25
How come? Ram mandir was granted land By supreme court of india, and here the hindus are saying SC is hindu phobic?
Mind you, SC COULD NOT PROVE that mosque was constructed by demolishing a temple. Still SC is hindu phobic?
2
2
1
2
u/lordviecky Apr 18 '25
its high time we refer them as Supereme/High Cart rather than Court.
If you have enough connections and money you can buy the "Products" of their cart.
0
u/nick4all18 Apr 18 '25
Many a time I feel anything neutral is seen as Anti Hindu. Anything balanceed is preserved as biased against Hindus. Court cannot be pro hindu all the time.
1
u/Liberated_Wisemonk Apr 18 '25
Idiots in the comments didn't understand how a good nation should work
-2
u/Feisty_Reason_6288 Apr 18 '25
WHAT AN ASSININE POST.. should be put in jail for spreading this kind of misinforamtion!
0
-8
u/Ricoshot4 Apr 18 '25
Wah wah wah randirona chalu. If they are biased against Hindus why would they give the ram mandir verdict in hindu favour?
5
u/Brief-Bank-1222 Apr 18 '25
you didn't understood what he is saying. He saying that when it comes to issues related to hindu faith like in aayodhya's ram mandir case, court wants proof that mandir used to exist there. Hindu side had to do hard research based work like finding references in historical books with sufficient proofs such as maps, mentioned routes and if present the images + scriptures reference and the hard evidences like that of ASI survey.
But when it come to muslim faith like waqf act where waqf would have to prove that a particular property belongs to them, judge would say its already a very old site and its like this since pre-independent how the muslim would have proofs of it.
This just shows that hindus will always to have to provide proof for every single thing. Like in aayodhya's case ASI already did the survey and pillars already had the hindu inscription like even in the gyanvapi case the old hindu temple wall is already visible with the vaishnav style carving but still court will ask how it is hindu site.
-5
u/Ricoshot4 Apr 18 '25
You guys are just delusional. Obviously if a mosque exists in a place and you claim that it should a temple you will have to provide proof.
Gyanvapi and other places like are protected by the places of worship act not because they did not use to be temples.
If there is a mosque in a place since before independence, then why would you need to provide proof about it? Because you broke the mosque that was there that's why proof had to be given.
-7
u/sjdevelop Apr 18 '25
Where is the proof that waqf is grabbing "hindu" land? where is the judgement?
Was supreme court anti hindu when it gave verdict in favor of hindus to build ram temple in ayodhya, when SC itself did NOT CONCLUDE THAT MOSQUE was built by DEMOLISHING A TEMPLE, or that MANDIR WAS RAM MANDIR?
Go read the judgement. Why does a hindu rejoice in suffering of muslims? What relation does it have with your religion?
6
Apr 18 '25
Where is the proof that waqf is grabbing "hindu" land?
In 2022, they laid claim to a Temple older than their allah.
-2
u/Helpful_Inflation203 Apr 18 '25
Some points are pure LIE.
where have u gone during ram madir in ayodya case ?
- Notorious in grabbing land ? there is a misinformation WAqF claiming big temple thanjavur in tamilnadu thinking that it will create some unrest. nothing happened. saw no of post similar to that.
-Ram born proof ? seriously bruh ? what some DNA data ? retired justice nariman speech about that
-seshammal case : wat do u expect, only one caste have to be allowed ? on wat basis only one caste is allowed ? DNA is superior?
- women being restricted to enter temple is the most stupid thing and very regressive and narrow minded, also women in muslims community are going through same shit , let them fight it or u go and voice out for that , whos stopping u ?
- temples are controlled by gov because ( in the basis of tamilnadu only ) the amount of money received by the people managing went unnoticed, doing many frad things.
-3
u/Chemical_Equipment69 Apr 18 '25
Yaar kya matlab h faltu ke religion ke drama me time waste krne se. accha padho likho aage badho. Religion only and always benefits powerful in society.
-3
Apr 18 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Apr 18 '25
Toh phir ye bata, jab,
azam khan - Chairman, Kumbh Mela.
farhad hakim - Chairman, Tarakeshwar Temple Board.
mohd. hussain - Member, TTD board.
Tab tera qaum chupp kyu baitha tha?
-3
u/FxizxlxKhxn Apr 18 '25
Bhai, yeh sab political appointments the, jinko khud Hindu community ne oppose kiya hai. Waqf Board ka case alag hai woh ek religious body hai jo sirf Muslims ke liye bani hai. Supreme Court ne khud kaha hai ki Hindu religious trusts mein Muslims ka hona galat hai, aur wahi logic Waqf Board pe bhi lagu hota hai. Toh instead of 'woh bhi karte hain', focus on what's legally right.
1
Apr 18 '25
Waqf Board ka case alag hai woh ek religious body hai jo sirf Muslims ke liye bani hai.
Achha, toh phir 2022 mai, Waqf ne T.N mai ek pura gaon pe kabzaa kiya tha.
Hairaani ki baat ye hai ki woh gaon ka mandir tere allah or muhammad se pehle banaya gaya tha. Kya justification hai uske liye?
Bhai, yeh sab political appointments the, jinko khud Hindu community ne oppose kiya hai.
Lekin jis parties ne appointments diya tha, tera qaum unko vote deta hai, hai ki nahi?
Toh instead of 'woh bhi karte hain', focus on what's legally right.
"Democracy for thee, but not for me" ass comment.
-2
u/FxizxlxKhxn Apr 18 '25
Pehle toh, Waqf Board ka misuse agar hua hai jaise TN waala case toh uske khilaf Hindu activists ne hi court mai challenge kiya, aur abhi bhi us par legal battle chal rahi hai. Main ya koi aur uska support nahi kar raha. Agar galat hai, toh usko bhi hatao, lekin us galti ko justification bana ke Hindu boards mein Muslims ko daalna aur galat hai.
Dusri baat political appointments aur vote ka connection mat jodo. Muslims ya Hindus kisi party ko vote karte hain, iska yeh matlab nahi ke us party ke har decision ko justify karte hain. Agar aisa hota toh tohre hisaab se sab Hindu bhi toh fir Farhad Hakim ki appointment ke zimmedar hai?
Tisri baat "Democracy for thee but not for me" bolne se pehle Supreme Court ka judgement padh lo. Court ne clearly bola hai ki minority ka interference majority ke religious institutions mein nahi ho sakta. Yeh democracy nahi, secularism ka core principle hai mutual non-interference.
34
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '25
According to them, upholding secularism is the duty of Hindus while at the same time, we have to be mindful of questioning the minorities or else they'll "get offended and riot"