Supreme Court dismisses Delhi Wakf Board's claim over Shahdara Gurdwara
NEW DELHI: Bringing curtains over a 50-year-old dispute relating to Delhi Wakf Board's claim over a Delhi gurdwara as waqf property, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Sikh religious place has been in existence since 1947 and rejected the Board's claim that the property was 'wakf by user' since time immemorial.
Appearing for the Board, senior advocate Sanjay Ghosh told a partial working day bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma that the Delhi HC erred in reversing the concurrent findings of trial court and appellate court that it was a wakf by user. He said, 'some kind of gurdwara was built over the mosque'.
But the bench said the evidence shows that the gurdwara at Shahdara has been functioning at the suit property since 1947.
'Not some kind of gurdwara was constructed as you claim. It is a functional gurudwara. This has been admitted by the witness produced by the Board before the trial court. You should voluntarily relinquish any claim over gurdwara.'
The bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Board in 2011 against the Delhi HC's Sep 24, 2010, judgment. Interestingly, the matter was taken up for hearing by the SC after a gap of 12 years, the last hearing in chamber being before Justice A K Sikri.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Sanitize & Smooth Clothes Fast with Philips Steamer
Philips Garment Steamers
Shop Now
Undo
The HC judgment by Justice Indermeet Kaur had discussed in detail what 'wakf by user' meant by relying on several judgments including one by a division bench of the Lahore HC in 1937 and those of the Supreme Court.
The Lahore HC had ruled, "In the absence of any such intention or declaration, no wakf can be said to have been created. It is true that a wakf can be created by user, but that user too must be preceded by an intention on the part of the owner to create a wakf.
If no such intention is established, user alone will not be sufficient to divest the property of its private character." A stand which is similar to that of the Centre in defence of validity of the Wakf Amendment Act, 2025, before the Supreme Court.
In the Shahdra gurudwara case, the HC had said the oral and documentary evidence establishes that the disputed property was a private property. 'There is no evidence forthcoming to substantiate the Board's claim that there was a permanent dedication of this property by the owner as waqf; there is not a whisper of this either in the pleadings or in the oral version of the witnesses (produced by the Board).'
'A mere bald statement in the plaint that this property was being used since time immemorial as a wakf property was not sufficient to establish this plea… in fact there is a admission by a witness that the said property was used as a gurdwara since partition of the country,' the high court had said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The decision allows DOGE, once led by Elon Musk, full access to personal data in the Social Security database while the case moves forward on appeal Bloomberg By Greg Stohr and Zoe Tillman The US Supreme Court gave the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security information, lifting restrictions a judge said were needed to protect the privacy of millions of Americans. Over three dissents, the high court on Friday granted a Trump administration request to put US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander's order on hold. The decision lets DOGE, the office once led by Elon Musk, have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order, which didn't lay out the majority's reasoning. The court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In a separate decision, the high court said a different judge went too far by requiring DOGE officials to testify and produce records to a watchdog group. The order came in a case about whether the DOGE office is covered by US public records laws. The Supreme Court liberals dissented from that decision as well. The cases are the first Supreme Court clashes involving DOGE, the office set up by President Donald Trump to weed out what he says is wasteful spending across the federal government. Sensitive Data Musk recently left his formal government position within the administration and is now publicly feuding with Trump. In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. Hollander said two labor unions and an advocacy group for retired people were likely to succeed on their claims that unfettered access would violate the 1974 Privacy Act. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' the Baltimore-based judge wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander's order allowed DOGE team members access to anonymized data only after completing the type of training and background checks required for SSA employees. She said DOGE employees could get 'discrete, particularized and non-anonymized' information if they submitted a written statement explaining why the information was needed and why anonymous data was insufficient. Hollander also ordered people affiliated with DOGE to delete data they've already acquired. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals kept Hollander's order in place on a 9-6 vote. In her dissent, Jackson said the lower courts had crafted an order 'tailored to the needs of the moment.' She said the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings' by granting the government's request without requiring it to show that it was suffering any harm. 'The 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes,' she wrote. Democracy Forward, the legal-advocacy group that represented the challengers, said it was a 'sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people.' White House spokesperson Liz Huston hailed the decision. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law,' she said in an email. The case is Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 24A1063. DOGE Records The Supreme Court's action in the records case blocks a Washington federal judge's order for the administration to answer questions, produce documents and make DOGE administrator Amy Gleason available to testify at a deposition. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had authorized the group that brought the public records case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, to gather evidence about DOGE's activities as it fights with the Justice Department over the office's legal status. The Supreme Court majority faulted Cooper for requiring the government to disclose internal DOGE recommendations and to say whether those suggestions were followed. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications,' the Supreme Court said in its two-page order. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson didn't explain their reasons for dissenting. CREW has argued that the DOGE Service should be considered an agency under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which empowers the public to see a wide range of government records. The Trump administration disagrees, arguing that DOGE plays a purely advisory role within the White House and is exempt from the law. Musk served as the public face of DOGE, but government lawyers stressed in court that Gleason is the formal head of the DOGE office. CREW's underlying public records request seeks to pry loose new information about the Tesla Inc. chief executive's role in dramatic cuts to federal spending and the workforce. The lawsuit also aims to reveal more broadly what DOGE-affiliated staff have been doing and the structure of that effort across US agencies. The case is US DOGE Service v. CREW, 24A1122.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two victories on Friday (June 6, 2025) in cases involving the Department of Government Efficiency, including giving it access to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. Also Read | Federal judge blocks DOGE from accessing Social Security personal information for now The justices also separately reined in orders seeking transparency at DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The court's conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in the first Supreme Court appeals involving DOGE. The three liberal justices dissented in both cases. The DOGE victories come amid a messy breakup between the president and the world's richest man that started shortly after Mr. Musk departed from the White House and has included threats to cut government contracts and a call for the President to be impeached. The future of DOGE's work isn't clear without Musk at the helm, but both men have previously said that it will continue its efforts. In one case, the High Court halted an order from a judge in Maryland that restricted the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in an unsigned order. Conservative lower-court judges have said there's no evidence at this point of DOGE mishandling personal information. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court's action creates 'grave privacy risks' for millions of Americans by giving 'unfettered data access to DOGE regardless — despite its failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards, and all before we know for sure whether federal law countenances such access.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson's opinion and Justice Elena Kagan said she also would have ruled against the administration. The Trump administration says DOGE needs the access to carry out its mission of targeting waste in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The entrepreneur has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The plaintiffs called the high court's order 'a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people." The White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. In the other DOGE order handed down Friday, the justices extended a pause on orders that would require the team to publicly disclose information about its operations, as part of a lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues that DOGE, which has been central to Trump's push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. But the Trump administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body aimed at government cost-cutting, which would make it exempt from requests for documents under FOIA. The justices did not decide that issue Friday, but the conservative majority held that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents be turned over to CREW. (AP) NSD NSD
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
UP CM adviser holds talks with Goswami community over Banke Bihari Corridor
Agra: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath's adviser Awanish Kumar Awasthi on Friday, chaired a meeting at the tourist facilitation centre in Vrindavan, to discuss issues related to the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor with members of the Goswami community involved in the management of the temple, local shopkeepers and residents. Speaking to media persons after the meeting, Awasthi said the proposed project aims to enhance facilities for pilgrims, and efficiently manage the increasing pilgrim footfall in the Mathura-Vrindavan area. "The number of pilgrims visiting the area is rising exponentially. Today's meeting focused on how to effectively cater to this surge while ensuring public confidence and participation in the planning process. This was the first round of discussions, and it was very productive," he said. On concerns raised by the Goswami community regarding the project, Awasthi said several suggestions had been put forth during the meeting. "The district magistrate and other officials will carefully evaluate these inputs. The state govt aims to proceed with the most inclusive and best possible option to take the project forward," Awasthi said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Established in 1862 in the heart of Vrindavan, the Shri Banke Bihari temple is administered by Shebaits — a hereditary priesthood responsible for daily rituals and temple management. It remains one of North India's most visited pilgrimage sites. The Supreme Court's May 15 verdict came amid ongoing protests by members of the Goswami community and local residents, who have opposed both the corridor project and the formation of Banke Bihari Temple Trust. The court's decision, delivered by a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma, cleared the way for the govt to move ahead with its Rs 500 crore redevelopment plan, which includes acquiring nearly five acres of land near the shrine, using temple funds. Calls for redevelopment intensified after a stampede-like incident during Janmashtami celebrations in 2022, left two dead. In Sept 2023, the Allahabad high court directed the state govt to implement a corridor plan for improved crowd management and safety. While officials claim stakeholders were consulted, Shebaits and local residents have alleged they were excluded from the planning process. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
