#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.
Court: the court has had detailed interaction with the parties. Today it considered what would be the immediate next step in the exercise undertaken in the present proceedings so as to take some real, effective steps on the ground.
Stray dogs case: Supreme Court to shortly pronounce verdict in its suo motu case to manage stray dog population across the country.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
The Court had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing the final leg of submissions made by various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
Court: we have divided the judgement into theee parts. We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of Nov 7 judgement. We have dismissed all the applications.
Court: In para 85 we have concluded- this courts finds no reason to interfere with the Nov SOP by AWBI. The challenge does not merit acceptance in the light of conclusions herein above. All IAs challenging the SoPs stands dismissed.
BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra requests CJI led bench to constitute another
High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee similar to the one headed by former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to oversee bar council election disputes
#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv Kumud Lata Das: Let BCI not be a member of this committee.
Mishra: this is very very bad
Das: Don't raise your voice against me. You only want to make the women members subservient to you. Please don't shout at me. You are virtually a permanent chairman..from 2010 to 2026 you are the only one who can become the BCI Chairman
Mishra: these are absurd allegations.
CJI: We are constituting two more election tribunals.
Supreme Court today to pronounce judgment in a narco-terror case from J&K, where the accused has spent nearly five years in custody despite no contraband being recovered directly from him
#SupremeCourt
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: this case raises an important question concerning the interface between Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.
Then, after narrating the facts and the submissions, and also referring to two judgments in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and gumfisha Fatima v. State, we have said in para 26:
There are two judgments of this Court which we need to deal with before proceeding ahead. These two judgments, Gurwinder Singh and gulfisha Fatima, have taken a somewhat divergent view from the clear, distinctive trajectory taken by this Court for grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA, UAPA, and NDPS.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: A decision made by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such binding precedent must either be followed in full, or in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger bench.
The position of law emerging from Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal is therefore clear. Watali cannot be invoked to justify indefinite incarceration of the accused under the UAPA.
For the aforesaid reasons, the attempt in gurminder to read Watali as laying down a general rule of denial of bail notwithstanding the period of incarceration is difficult to reconcile with this Court’s own subsequent clarification of what the ratio in Watali actually meant.
We also note that the bench in Gurwinder formulated the so-called twin-prong test governing grant of bail under the UAPA. It held that inquiry under Section 43D(5) must proceed in two sequential stages. First, whether the accusation is prima facie true, and second, only if the first question is answered in favour of the accused, whether ordinary bail considerations such as flight risk, etc. would justify the relief. If the first stage of the twin-prong test is satisfied against the accused, bail becomes absolutely impermissible.
With respect, this test flows neither from the text of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, nor from Najeeb. In fact, on the contrary, it is in the case of Najeeb where it is categorically stated that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act provides no more than another possible ground, namely, that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like possibility of tampering with evidence, etc.
SG Tushar Mehta: CBI appeal is listed before the Delhi High Court
Sr Adv N Hariharan: I am in the position to show that the prosecutrix is not a minor. The AIIMS board says she was not a minor. All reports are in his favour still he is in jail.
SG: The main conviction is under 376(1) IPC for remainder of his life
CJI: Prayer was only to suspend the sentence. There are issues which require consideration.
SG: it has to be seen whether MLA is a public servant for the POCSO
Justice Bagchi: we do not endorse the hyper technical conclusion of the high court. This is a penal legislation which protects children from sexual exploitation.. section 21 of IPC and prevention of corruption of act..
SG: MLA is in a dominant position.
CJI: HC has suspended the sentence. We have stayed by it. Now there is suspense whether order is illegal, erroneous etc. Now in this area..HC will be reluctant to hear the main appeal.
CJI: we can set aside the order. HC can decide the appeal or if it's taking time .HC can decide the application for suspension of sentence.
Supreme Court to resume hearing today petitions challenging a 2023 law which excluded the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel to appoint the CEC and other election commissioners.
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma
Retd. IAS SN Shukla argues on behalf of Lok Prahari: we have challenged not only section 6,7,8 and also the appointments made there under. The basis is not just the judgement in Anoop Baranwal but proven legal infirmities based on governments own records that I have obtained through RTI.
Court: have you received a copy of the counter?
Shukla: only union of India has filed counter yesterday.
Court: have you received the copy? Please address us on merits.
Shukla: the impugned provisions are ultra vires articles 14 and 324.