#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.
Sonam Raghuvanshi case: Supreme Court to shortly hear State’s plea challenging Sonam’s bail by the Meghalaya High Court.
Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Shree Chandrashekhar
#SonamRaghuvanshi #SupremeCourt
Sonam is accused for the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon last year. She was granted bail by a trial court, which was upheld by the High Court.
SG Tushar Mehta: this is a very serious case. Bail was granted on the ground that grounds were not supplied but at the time of arrest there is record that they were supplied.
Court: so far as the supply of written grounds is concerned….
Mehta: it was supplied. Only objection was section 403 was written instead of section 103.
Court: we will consider this at length. We will also see if this requires to be referred to a larger bench or not. There is Bansal’s judgement and Mihir Rajesh. There’s a conflict which is arising between various coordinate bench judgements. This would require arguments.
Mehta: there is no question of conflict. Written grounds are also supplied. It is very clear. Just with one typographical error.
Delhi High Court orders the government's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to take a decision within 15 days on removing a YouTube video by Dhruv Rathee in which he allegedly said that Ram, Seeta and Krishna, consumed meat and alcohol.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma says any disregard of court's order will be taken seriously.
@dhruv_rathee @SachdevaAmita
The Court passed the order after advocate Amita Sachdeva filed a plea in the High Court. Sachdeva took offence to a video uploaded by Rathee on YouTube on March 21, 2026, titled 'Can Hindus Eat BEEF? | Kerala Story 2 EXPOSED'.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Central government today and argued that the intermediary (YouTube) should have exercised due diligence, which is to take down the content.
Sharma said that the content uploaded by Rathee is harmful and fissiparous.
"Either Google says they will do it [take down the video] now or my ladyship may pass a judgement based on what the Division Bench has said... He [Google's counsel] should take it down and say he will not permit the such fissiparious content that hurts the sentiments of the majority community," Sharma added.
Supreme Court to hear plea filed by the State of Meghalaya challenging a Meghalaya High Court order that upheld bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon in the state #SupremeCourt
SG Tushar Mehta: This is shocking. Shocking.
SG: I will just show four pages. Both of them go to Meghalaya for honeymoon. It's a pre determined murder. Wife takes husband to some hilly area.. participates in assault ..he was killed and then dead body was thrown into the gorge. Three assailants brought by the lady and she herself killed him. She was arrested from UP after she absconded. Magistrate says he was satisfied that grounds of arrest was communicated.
Delhi High Court will shortly hear a defamation case filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap against Khan Sir and several others for calling her and Aaj Tak “bikau patrakar,” “chatukar,” “dalli,” and accusing them of engaging in “dalaali” and operating a “fake news ki dukaan.”
[Arvind Malhotra vs High court of Himachal Pradesh]
Sr Adv Balbir Singh: My reply on 25.9.2025 was made and the recommendation was made on 23.9.2025. Collegium recommendation says two vacancies were there for promotee judges . 2 juniors were recommeded. I was interacted with on 19.9 and recommendation on 23.9 without having my reply.
Justice BV Nagarathna: These are matters where on judicial side we cannot say disclose this and disclose that. Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommeded. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecg involved also... There is no rejection of your candidature. We don't know what does your recommendation say. It is about subjectice satisfaction of HC collegium ..can supreme court on judicial side ask them look into this and look into that. If this happens then where are we heading ?
Justice Joymalya Bagchi: We would have understood if HC collegium went against sc order etc. but this decision of HC has gone further and has been accepted by the supreme court.
Justice Nagarathna: We cannot ask the collegium of HC to disclose any reasons etc.
Singh: But after my representation the supreme court had asked the HC to reconsider the petitioner
Justice Nagarathna: How can you say reconsideration is not done?
Justice Bagchi: Screening committee gives it to the recommendation body. Now you cannot challenge screening committee order.
Justice Nagarathna: There is no cause of action. In Karnataka, for 3 vacancies, 9 are called.. 3 are selected. So others cannot adopt this mode and manner..
Justice Nagarathna: There is no procedural flaw in this as of now. Even you don't know if the name is dropped, removed, etc.
Justice Bagchi: Supreme court collegium endorsed and accepted HC recommendation. Now we cannot open this in judicial review.
Justice Nagarathna: If it has been deferred.. there is a chance the name shall be reconsidered..
Supreme Court hears the plea concerning lack of ladies bar rooms across court buildings in India
CJI Surya Kant: I have constituted an All India Judicial Infrastructure committee.
Adv: In Mathura, the ladies bar room is locked. Same situation is in Ghaziabad. 60 percent of courts should have ladies bar room immediately.
CJI: the young lawyer corpus funds is also important.
CJI: the issues raised here touch upon larger questions of inclusiveness and long term sustainability of women lawyers in the legal profession. The petitioners have cited lack of ladies bar rooms and other facilities across High court , district court and other court buildings.
CJI: A young advocate corpus fund has been suggested to be formed with the aim that legal profession remains accessible to all. The petitioners have placed on report results of a survey undertaken by them in a structured format. The survey was circulated among women advocates across courts and information was collected from numerous district and taluka courts. The data reveals that in majority of court complexes, either no ladies bar room exists or facilities given is wholly inadequate and other facilities such as washrooms, nursing facilities, creches etc are not available.