#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: CS Vaidyanathan citing precedents on adverse possession and ownership.
"There has never been any adverse possession in this case. Hindus have always expressed their desire to worship at this place", Vaidyanathan.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Discussion now happening on how question of adverse possession will arise only if the property is alienable.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: The property itself being birthplace of Ram and a deity, it is res extra commercium. Thus, there is no question of anyone putting up a mosque there and claiming adverse possession, CS Vaidyanathan argues.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: There cannot be a destruction of an idol or temple. Even if there is no temple, the place itself has sanctity which will always remain, CS Vaidyanathan.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: The property is res extra commercium and cannot be transferred, sold, alienated or dealt with in any manner, argues Vaidyanathan.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: In Hindu law unlike in Mohammaden law, a person in the capacity of trustee or Shabait cannot alienate the property, submits Vaidyanathan.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Discussion happening now on whether property can be alienated and when the same can be done.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Their suits having been dismissed as time barred, how can they grant relief to them in my suit when most of the findings are in my favour, Vaidyanathan asks.
"I am. I am defendant no. 20 in suit 4", replies PN Mishra.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: I will argue that based on our doctrine, tenets and beliefs, it is a temple. I will start with Atharva Veda, submits PN Mishra.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: It is our case that Babur never built a mosque there and Hindus have been worshipping at that place all along, submits PN Mishra.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: PN Mishra relying on Skanda Purana, Valmiki Ramayana to argue on exact location of Ram Janmasthan.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Hindu texts as the basis for faith is not disputed; what we really need are objective parameters, documentary evidence for temple, Bench tells PN Mishra.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Bench is more interested in objective evidence than references to scriptures.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Justice Chandrachud asks what is the relevance of who built the mosque - be it Babur or somebody else?
Was there a mosque? Thats what is relevant, Justice Chandrachud to PN Mishra.
Once territory of Awadh was annexed to British empire, all structures raised on the soil also got annexed to Britain, Sinha says.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Bench objects, says territory annexed means sovereignty is lost; Does not mean all structures in the territory is vested with the empire.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Sinha says he did not think his turn to argue would come today.
"I thought I would be asked to argue at the very end", says Sinha.
"Is anybody in suit no. 5 ready to argue", asks CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Now Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar making arguments for plaintiff Gopal Singh who died in 1986 and his son has been substituted.
He is plaintiff in suit no. 1, defendant no. 1 in suit no. 4 and defendant no. 1 in suit 5.
MK Stalin case: Supreme Court hears plea by AIADMK leader SA Duraiswamy challenging TN CM Stalin’s 2011 assembly election win from Kolathur constituency.
The plea alleges that Stalin and his party representatives indulged in corrupt practices, particularly by providing money and gifts to secure votes.
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi.
Sr. Adv. DS Naidu, appearing for Duraiswamy refers to a prosecution witness statement:
Naidu: the witness is the editor of a magazine called “kumudam snehidi”.
Court: what’s the meaning of that?
Another counsel: kumudum means lotus. Snehidi means friend.
Naidu: a friend of lotus. May be figurative meaning.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Stalin): most inappropriate definition.
Court bursts into laughter.
Naidu: kumudam was once India’s largest selling family magazine. It’s basically a women’s magazine. Like women’s era. It’s the women’s wing of kumudam publications. Perhaps, the lotus is being compared with women and Snehidi is the friend of the woman, or the fairer sex.
Justice Maheshwari: (in jest): we can’t say anything…
Plea concerning seizure of electronic devices during criminal investigations
Sr Adv A Sundaram: some sort of information is being looked at. No predicate offence against me and my phone is being looked to find a link with predicate offence. There needs to be some guidelines to stop such fishing and roving inquiry. Where is my privacy I ask ? If my phone contain something.. then how it affects them.. there is nothing.
CJI: tell us why your mobile has been taken away ? There are people siphoning off thousands of crores and phones cannot be looked into? If they rely on something which is not related to this then we can intervene. We can look at it from case to case also. But not like this. Let them see first.
Sundaram: Then my plea becomes infructuous!
CJI: why did they come to you.
Sundaram: please see the summons, nothing against me.
Justice Bagchi: This is a fallacious argument by you Mr Sundaram. ECIR is in respect of an offence and not an individual. There is no notice needed for seizing a device.
CJI: you are behaving as if you have nothing to do. ED just raided your place early morning as if you called them for tea.
Supreme Court to resume hearing its suo motu case on stray dogs at 2pm today.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
Follow this thread for live updates.
#straydogs #SupremeCourt
On the last hearing, the Court had lamented that many lawyers argued on behalf of dog lovers in the case but nobody was arguing or putting forth the views on behalf of human beings.
Supreme Court hears a batch of pleas seeking steps to be taken against hate speech incidents.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
#hatespeech #SupremeCourt
State agencies were enabled to take suo motu action on hate speeches without waiting for complaints.
Adv. Nizam Pasha: there are 5 points why this matter was entertained. The problem was not the inadequacy of laws. The problem was the reluctance of state agencies in taking action particularly when the perpetrators were associated with the ruling establishment.