English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ayodhya case hearing put off till February 8, 2018

Published

on

Ayodhya

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The much-awaited final hearing in Supreme Court on the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on Tuesday, Dec 5, ended on expected lines with the next hearing put off till Feb 8, 2018.

Sunni Waqf Board counsel senior advocate Kapil Sibal had wanted it posted to July 15, 2019, after the Lok Sabha elections. Sibal told the apex court that there are serious repercussions outside the court whenever the matter is heard. He requested the court to take up the matter on July 15, 2019 once all the pleadings are complete. The plea was rejected.

The case was being heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench is hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The order was challenged before the Supreme Court on May 9, 2011, which in its verdict stayed the operation of the decree and ordered status quo of the land and other adjoining areas acquired by the Centre in 1993.

On August 11, 2017, the parties were given three months to translate all oral evidence and exhibited documents in various languages.

In the hearing on Tuesday, the court was to hear arguments and examine exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon. In pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government had submitted English translation of exhibits and documents which were in eight different languages.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, reading out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants before the Allahabad High Court, told the three-judge SC bench that all these exhibits had not been filed before the court.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, rebutted Kapil Sibal’s claim and said that all the related documents and requisite translation copies were on record.

Sibal, questioning ASG Mehta’s claim, asked how could more than 19000 pages of documents be filed in such short time. Sibal also told the SC that he and other petitioners have not been provided with all relevant documents.

The SC bench asked the Advocates on Record of appeals to sit together and ensure that all the requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry. In case of any problem, the counsel were directed to consult the Registry.

Earlier, Kapil Sibal argued for deferment of the hearing on the ground that building a Ram temple at the disputed site is a part of the ruling BJP’s manifesto. “BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy had gone on record saying that Ram temple would be built before 2019 through legal means. They want to make it as an election manifesto and the court should not fall into the trap. These appeals are not ordinary property disputes as they go to the heart of secular fabric of the country,” Sibal said. He also said he needed time as there are 90,000 pages of documents to go through.

Senior lawyers Harish Salve and CS Vaidyanathan, representing Hindu organisations, objected, saying the court must treat the Ayodhya case like any other.

“We are shocked and surprised,” said Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, adding that the judges were “not bothered about what’s happening outside.” He said that in August this year “all of you wanted the hearing in January and we posted today to hear the statement of facts. Now you want it to be postponed.”

On Sunday, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had said that the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya will start soon and devotees will be able to celebrate the next Diwali there. Earlier, , RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat had declared that only a mandir would come up at the disputed site and nothing else. “We will construct it. It is not a populist declaration but a matter of our faith. It will not change,” he had said.

On Tuesday, Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas chief Mahant Nritya Gopal Das said that in case the Supreme court order is not in their favour, the temple would still be built via Parliament, under Modi Narendra and Yogi Adityanath government.

“If the temple isn’t built during Modi, Yogi government then when it will be built,” said Mahant Nritya Gopal Das.

“Entire land belongs to Lord Ram,” he said.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), extreme Hindu wing of RSS, has declared that the construction will start from October 18, 2018. Assembly poll campaigns would be at peak at the time in BJP ruled Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. It would also be only six months away from Lok Sabha polls.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com