Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar arguing today on behalf of plaintiff in suit no. 1, Gopal Singh.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Ranjit Kumar relying on certain exhibits which had been produced by him in trial court in Section 145 CrPC proceedings.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Ranjit Kumar placing reliance on am affidavit filed by one Abdul Gani as per which Mosque was erected by demolishing Ram temple but in spite of erection of said mosque the Hindus did not give up possession and were all along worshipping idol there.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Ranjit Kumar placing reliance on more such affidavits by Muslims in Section 145 proceedings.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Bench asking him whether those Muslim persons were cross examined to determine the veracity of contents of affidavits.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Ranjit Kumar admits they were not cross examined but those persons had come forward and made these statement, so an inference can be drawn
"I am not saying what they said should be taken as gospel truth. But nobody has objected to what they have said"
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Ranjit Kumar citing judgments to explain the scope of concept of 'Hindu'.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Idol worship or rituals or ceremonies may not be practised by all persons though they may be professing Hindu religion, Ranjit Kumar reading out excerpts of judgments dealing with scope of Hindu and Hinduism.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: My right to worship is an unfettered right which arise due to centuries of worship that has been happening at the site, Ranjit Kumar concludes his submissions.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Senior Advocate VN Sinha resumes, reiterates that the disputed land had become part of British crown on annexation by British.
Unless the land was leased out, the land was vested with the British crown
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain now begins his second round of arguments. He had not completed his arguments earlier.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Sushil Kumat Jain reiterates on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara that it had Shebaitship.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Suit no. 4 by Muslim parties is barred by limitation since the limitation ran from 1934 and not 1949 as claimed, Sushil Kumar Jain.
#RamMandir - #BabriMasjid: Discussion now on Nirmohi Akhara's stance on whether they are claiming title or not.
Is there a contradiction in the stance taken by them earlier in HC and now?
CJI Gogoi asks Sushil Kumar Jain to respond on the same.
Delhi High Court to hear today a PIL seeking an inquiry against the DGCA for the Indigo fiasco and fourfold compensation to passengers who were left stranded at airports due to the cancellation of flights.
#IndiGoCrisis @IndiGo6E
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela to hear the case.
Supreme Court hears the case where it had examined growing pendency of gangster-related trials in Delhi and considered whether dedicated special courts are needed to ensure their timely completion
CJI Surya Kant: Suppose UAPA and NIA.. there can be one special court. These courts should be like emergency ward in a hospital. Suppose there is NIA trial then only that case goes on. When no Nia Or UAPA then ordinary civil and criminal cases can go on there.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: In our status report we have furnished minutes of meeting approved by the Home secretary.
CJI: we do not appreciate the home secretary asking states to take it up with the High courts
ASG: we have identified states where there are 10 Nia trials. lot of PFI trials in Kerala. In Bihar as well. Our letters and draft norms are also attached. We can file an action taken report as well..
Sr Adv Siddharth Dave: Please see the observations made by the HC judge
CJI Surya Kant on alleging bias against Judges: There are hypothetical situations in court. We make observations. But I am not someone who will take browbeating. Not so easy with me. As soon as the judge makes an observation there are allegations made against him.#SupremeCourt
CJI Surya Kant: Sometimes we make errors but we rectify it. I just did it. We deal with such large volume of cases and evidence.
Sr Adv Sidharth Luthra: Please see what the trial court observed that the accused was taken aback by framing of charge. The court has proceeded...
Sr Adv Dave: the judge holds that I should be proceeded against misconduct.
CJI: court was correct because counsels were being changed so often.
CJI: we will help you rebuild trust and faith in the system.
[Order]
CJI: Instant appeal is against September 2025 order passed by Karnataka HC declining petitioner prayer for transfer of trial pending before the learned presiding judge of 81st city civil (MP MLA court). Prayer was to transfer case to to any other MP MLA court.
Supreme Court hears a euthanasia application by the parents of a child:
Court: this is very very unfortunate. The boy seems to be in a pathetic condition. The bedsores are extremely painful. And when a patient in vegetative state suffers from bedsores means he’s not been looked after well. His hygiene is poor. Bedsores are the end of everything. Now we have waterbeds etc to prevent formation of bedsores. They are extremely painful. Doctors have said in so many words that there is no question of recovery. So he is to remain like this till he is destined to leave.
Court: how do we now move to the next stage?
Counsel: as per the judgement in common cause the next step to be followed by the reference of a secondary board formed by the CMO. But in this case the primary board already had 5 experts constituted by the CMO so it does not require the secondary board reference. The next step is to admit him to a neuro palliative facility where life support will be withdrawn.
Court: to pass over the secondary board reference they (members of the primary board) will need to have people with 5 years experience.
Counsel: yes. Your lordships can even have a committee of experts as per the judgement.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision as conducted by the election commission of India in Bihar
Sr Adv Shadan Farasat begins
Farasat: Your Lordships in multiple judgments have said that Articles 324 to 329 constitute one scheme. Your Lordships will recall that the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 were passed by the Constituent Assembly sitting as the Provisional Parliament.
Recall that the 1950 and 1951 Acts were enacted by the provisional Parliament. The first general election in India took place from October 1951 to February 1952 after these Acts were enacted. Although the composition was the same as the Constituent Assembly, my submission is that Articles 324 to 329 read with the 1950 and 1951 Acts form one constitutional code.
This code gives a very clear indication of the powers of the Election Commission.
Farasat: The question I am addressing is the scope and power of the Election Commission regarding the determination of citizenship while preparing electoral rolls. Do they have a role. What is the extent of that role. Because my respectful submission is on this issue.
Please have Article 324. Article 324 contains the general power of superintendence.
Next, Article 325:
“There shall be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State and no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in any such roll or claim to be included in any special electoral roll for any such constituency on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them.”
This is a non discrimination provision. Article 325 mirrors the language of Article 15. The same grounds. Religion, race, caste, sex.