English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Mixed response to CJI’s proposal on Ayodhya

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]A significant section of the political and religious leadership desires that the top court intervene to resolve the controversy

By an APN correspondent

The observations of the Chief Justice of India, JS Khehar, in the Ram Mandir case have generated a mixed response among the political leadership and the Hindu and Muslim communities, with a significant section desiring that the top court intervene to resolve the controversy.

The Supreme Court on March 21 extricated itself from initial wrangles by suggesting that the two parties sit and settle the issue, bringing the issue to court only if it is still essential at a later stage.

“Whoever you want we will ask him to mediate. If you want me I will come. If you want my sitting brother judges, you take them, but mediate. These kinds of issues should be mediated rather than we passing an order,” the CJI had said.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who had filed the appeal, however, had his reservations vis-à-vis this proposition. He told the media that the Ramjanambhoomi in Ayodhya should be used only for constructing the Ram Temple.

“Masjid can be built anywhere, Namaz can be read anywhere… it can be read on the street. The Ramjanambhoomi is for the Ram Mandir and it should be used for the Ram temple only,” Swamy said.

He said there’s a proposal to let the mosque be constructed across the Saryu river. He expected that the Supreme Court will appoint a judge from the top court itself to mediate between the rival parties.

Rakesh Sinha, an RSS ideologue, opined the Ram temple may be constructed in three different ways—by passing an Act in the parliament, through dialogue or through a court order.

But, senior advocate Zafaryab Jeelani, who has been associated with the matter right from the start, was against an out-of-court settlement. “We [Muslims] have faith on the CJI. He may mediate in the matter himself or nominate other judges for the purpose. He may even hear the case. But we can’t go for an out-of-court settlement. We will definitely consider any order passed by the CJI in this regard,” he said.

Iqbal Ansari, son of Hashim Ansari, the late main plaintiff in the case, told the media that a peaceful settlement should be arrived at. “A compromise is possible if both the communities agree to it,” he said.

Senior BJP leader Vinay Katiyar, who has been involved in the Ram Mandir agitation for years, however, said that the Supreme Court has taken a very positive stand. “We now have a BJP government in the state and we will work with a positive mindset towards a solution,” he said.

Rajeev Shukla from Congress said that both the parties in the dispute have expressed their readiness to accept the court’s opinion. “Now both should study the proposal and implement the same,” he said.

Meanwhile, All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahli said that he respects the CJI’s observations but still felt that the court should decide the matter. “The ulema will sit together and formulate a collective opinion. But similar efforts earlier were marred by political interference. Since the issue is related to property, we desire that the Supreme Court should decide the matter,” he said.

Maulana Yasoob Abbas, spokesperson of All India Shia Personal law Board, welcomed the CJI’s observations and said that all outstanding issues can be resolved through dialogue only. “Neither Hindus or Muslims want to be entangled in any controversy. Everybody wants to raise themselves above the religious divide and desire development and progress,” he said.

President of All India Imam Association Maulana Umair Ilyasi expressed that it would be nice if the issue is resolved through peaceful means. “It should be resolved through dialogue between imams and pujaris,” he said. 

Senior BJP leader LK Advani has welcomed the move and said that everyone involved should come to a consensus on the matter.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Supreme Court questions EC over missing records in Sringeri election dispute

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission over missing video footage of the 2023 counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri constituency. The case involves a revised result following a recount of postal ballots.

Published

on

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its inability to locate video recordings of the original vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency in 2023. The court said it would not accept what it described as “lame excuses” and directed the poll body to produce whatever records are available at the next hearing.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed displeasure after the Election Commission’s counsel informed it that the footage of the original counting could not be traced.

The bench also warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the required documents were not produced.

Questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it had conducted, the judges stressed that maintaining election documentation was central to its responsibilities.

“How can the Election Commission of India say that it has lost the records? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying we are trying to trace it?” the bench asked.

“We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” it added.

What is the Sringeri election dispute?

The case stems from the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election in Sringeri, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner.

The result was challenged by BJP candidate Jeevaraj before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court later ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the reverification of 279 rejected postal votes.

Following the recount, the Returning Officer declared a revised result in which Jeevaraj was declared the winner. Rajegowda then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the revised outcome.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rajegowda, directing that he continue as the Member of the Legislative Assembly while his plea remained pending.

Rajegowda seeks counting records and observer’s report

Rajegowda has sought access to the election observer’s report and video recordings of both the original counting conducted in 2023 and the recount held this year.

The missing original counting footage became a point of concern during Wednesday’s hearing, with the bench questioning the Election Commission’s inability to trace the recording.

The court directed the Commission to submit whatever records it possesses at the next hearing. Its warning about a possible adverse inference underscores the importance the bench attached to the production of the requested documents.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 15, 2027.

Continue Reading

India News

Rahul Gandhi joins India Gate protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents

Rahul Gandhi joined the protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents at India Gate in New Delhi on October 14. The demonstration has brought renewed attention to the 2022 murder case and the family’s concerns following Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor.

Published

on

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi joined a protest by the parents of Ankita Bhandari at India Gate in New Delhi on Wednesday, October 14, bringing renewed attention to the 2022 murder case from Uttarakhand.

The family’s demonstration follows the appointment of Dushyant Gautam, a former BJP leader associated with the party’s Uttarakhand organisation, as Governor of Sikkim. The appointment has prompted objections from Ankita’s family and political leaders, who have raised concerns about the case and the demand for justice.

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also met the family, according to reports.

Why Ankita Bhandari’s family is protesting

Ankita Bhandari, 19, worked as a receptionist at a resort in Uttarakhand. She was murdered in September 2022, and the case triggered widespread public anger and demands for accountability.

The protest has returned to the spotlight amid questions raised by the family and activists over the alleged role of a VIP in the case. These allegations and demands should be distinguished from findings established through the criminal proceedings.

Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor has become a fresh point of contention because his name has been linked to allegations surrounding the alleged VIP connection. Such allegations should not be treated as proof of involvement in the crime.

Political reactions and demand for justice

Rahul Gandhi’s participation brought the Congress leadership into the family’s latest protest in the national capital. The demonstration reflects continuing demands for accountability and further clarity over the concerns raised by the family.

The case has remained a subject of public and political debate, including questions about the investigation and the alleged VIP connection. The family’s concerns and the political reactions have renewed attention on the demand for justice for Ankita Bhandari.

Continue Reading

India News

Meerut murder: Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla get death sentence

A Meerut court has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death in the blue drum murder case involving the killing of merchant navy officer Saurabh Rajput in March 2025.

Published

on

A court in Meerut has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death for the murder of Saurabh Rajput, Muskaan’s husband and a former Merchant Navy officer. The sentencing was pronounced on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, after the court convicted the two in the case widely known as the Meerut blue drum murder.

The case involved the killing of Rajput in March 2025 and the concealment of his dismembered remains inside a blue plastic drum sealed with cement and sand.

The two were convicted on September 30. The prosecution had sought the death penalty, arguing for the maximum punishment in the case.

Court verdict follows 126 hearings

The trial involved 126 hearings and statements from 22 prosecution witnesses. District Judge Arvind Kumar Mishra delivered the sentence after the court considered the evidence presented during the proceedings.

The investigation and prosecution relied on a combination of circumstantial, technical and physical evidence. This included forensic findings, witness testimony and material recovered during the investigation.

The case drew attention after police discovered Rajput’s remains inside the cement-filled drum at the couple’s residence in Meerut.

How Saurabh Rajput was killed

According to the prosecution’s account of the case, Rajput was killed in March 2025 after he returned to Meerut from London. Investigators alleged that Muskaan and Sahil had planned the murder.

The prosecution said Rajput was given food laced with sleeping medication before he was attacked. His body was subsequently dismembered, and the remains were placed inside a blue plastic drum.

The drum was filled with a mixture containing cement and sand and sealed. Investigators later recovered the remains from inside it.

Evidence presented during the investigation

Investigators built the case using several strands of evidence. Shopkeepers provided testimony about the purchase of materials, including a blue drum, cement, sand and cutting implements, before the murder.

Call detail records and mobile tower information were also cited to establish Sahil’s presence at the residence around the time of the crime. The prosecution further relied on post-mortem findings that confirmed Rajput had died from stab injuries.

The investigation also traced the movements of Muskaan and Sahil during their trip to Himachal Pradesh following the killing. Investigators said photographs and activity linked to Rajput’s phone were used to create the impression that he was still alive.

The case came to light in March 2025

The murder came to light after questions arose over Rajput’s whereabouts. According to the investigation, the couple’s attempt to move the heavy drum eventually raised suspicion.

Rajput’s family approached the police, leading to an investigation that uncovered the remains. Muskaan and Sahil were arrested in March 2025.

The sentencing on October 14 marks a major development in the case, which had proceeded from the discovery of Rajput’s remains to a trial involving dozens of witness statements and more than a hundred hearings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com