English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court to fix Ayodhya case hearing date in Jan, BJP resents order

Published

on

Supreme Court to fix Ayodhya case hearing date in Jan, BJP resents order

As the Supreme Court today (Monday, October 29) posted for January first week a decision on date for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, leaders of BJP and other Sangh Parivar outfits voiced their resentment, some of them asking the Narendra Modi government to bring an Ordinance to facilitate construction of Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

The court said that the issue will come up before appropriate bench in January. No decision was taken on Monday on the date of hearing and the composition of the bench.

The government refrained from coming out with a statement. Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told a news channel that “a large number of people want the case to be decided soon”. However, he added, “We respect the Supreme Court decision. I have nothing more to say on this.”

Reacting to the rescheduled hearing, his colleague, Union minister Giriraj Singh remarked that “Hindus are running out of patience on the Ram temple issue.”

“The Congress has decided to make it a Hindu-Muslim issue. Shri Ram is the cornerstone of faith of the Hindus. Hindus are running out of patience. I fear what will happen if Hindus lose out of patience…,” he said.

Vinaya Katiyar, a Bajrang Dal leader and former BJP lawmaker closely associated with the temple movement, alleged “Congress pressure” behind the decision. Katiyar told News18, “It seems that everything is happening due to pressure by Congress and that these dates are because Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan do not want it to be heard daily.”

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SK Kaul and KM Joseph has directed to list the long-running Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in the first week of January for deciding the date of commencement of arguments in the matter.

“We have other priorities,” said Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, when the Uttar Pradesh government argued that it was a 100-year-old issue that should be taken up on priority by the government.

The chief justice also said that an “appropriate bench” would decide when to take up daily hearings, indicating that he may not even be one of the judges deciding on the decades-old dispute.

Last month, a top court bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had cleared the decks for resumption of proceedings in the title suit, also called the Ayodhya matter, and posted it to be heard on October 29.

On September 27, the bench had in a majority opinion of 2:1 declined to review a 1994 ruling that the government can acquire land that a mosque is built on as a mosque is not integral to Islam. Many believed that decision meant the temple-mosque dispute can be taken up without any delay.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Bhushan and supported by Justice Misra, had ordered the Ayodhya appeals “which are awaiting considerations by this Court for quite a long period, to be now listed in week commencing October 29, 2018 for hearing”.

Usually, this would entail the appeals returning to the Bench comprising Justices Bhushan, Nazeer and a new third judge, replacing Justice Misra, who retired on October 2.

However, the appeals which were posted on Monday before a Bench had neither Justice Bhushan nor Justice Nazeer.

The hearings had got deflected on the question of reference to a Constitution Bench.

Unhappy at the order, BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Keshav Prasad Maurya said, “I don’t want to comment since it’s the decision of Supreme Court. However, the adjournment of hearing doesn’t send a good message.”

Congress leader P Chidambaram accused the BJP of “polarising views” on Ayodhya issue before elections. “Congress party’s position is that the matter is before SC, everyone should wait until SC decides. I don’t think we should jump the gun,” he added. VHP working president Alok Kumar said the organisation will not wait “eternally” for the verdict and wants a law to build Ram Temple in Ayodhya

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