Dr Kafeel's family say 'Will file contempt plea in High Court If he is not released from jail'
Lucknow: Family members of Dr Kafeel Khan said they will file a contempt plea in the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday if he was not released as per its orders.
The court on Tuesday morning had ordered the release of the Gorakhpur doctor and quashed his detention under the stringent National Security Act (NSA). The doctor was arrested in January for an alleged provocative speech during an anti-CAA protest at Aligarh Muslim University in December last year.
Mathura jail Senior Superintendent Shailendra Kumar Maitreya on Tuesday evening said he is yet to receive the court orders.
Khan's brother Adeel claimed that the jail administration told them that they will go by the order of the Mathura district magistrate and until the DM says, Kafeel will not be released.
Adeel claimed that after the High Court gave the order, an e-mail informing about the release of Khan was sent to the jail administration and the DMs of Mathura and Aligarh, but the authorities are making an excuse of not getting the order.
If Kafeel is not released from the jail, then we will file a contempt appeal in the High Court on Wednesday, he said.
Meanwhile, District Magistrate Mathura Sarvagya Ram Mishra said orders of the court will be complied with.
"Since, the NSA was imposed on Kafeel by the Aligarh district magistrate, he should be contacted," Mishra said.
Irfan Ghazi, advocate of Kafeel, alleged that the Aligarh DM is not meeting him on the pretext of attending a meeting or other, despite hours of efforts made by him.
Despite repeated efforts by the PTI, Aligarh DM Chandra Bhushan Singh could not be contacted for comments.
Khan was earlier granted bail in February. However, he was not released and the National Security Act (NSA) was invoked against him.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
