Today, On 5th May, CJI Sanjiv Khanna referred the Waqf Amendment Act case to a Bench led by Justice Gavai ahead of his retirement on May 13. The case requires a lengthy hearing, prompting the shift in proceedings.
The Uttarakhand Waqf Board has requested the Supreme Court to join a case challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, supporting the law’s constitutional validity. The Board sees itself as a vital participant due to its role in managing Waqf properties, addressing concerns about property genuineness and illegal encroachments while seeking to assist the court.
KOLKATA: The case related to the murder of a young doctor from RG Kar Medical College is currently being heard in the single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh in the Calcutta High Court. However, the victim’s parents have now written a letter to the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, requesting permission to continue the case in the High Court.
The Congress party Today(16th Jan) has petitioned the Supreme Court to defend the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, amid challenges questioning its constitutional validity by BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The Act aims to preserve the religious status of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, promoting India’s secular fabric.
RJD Member Manoj Kumar Jha filed an intervention petition in the Supreme Court, asserting that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not violate constitutional rights and is essential for preserving India’s secular values. The Act protects places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, amidst increasing sectarian tensions.
The Allahabad High Court initiated a suo motu PIL to investigate encroachment allegations on Indian Army land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting defense land and scheduled the next hearing after three weeks to allow all parties to present their arguments. The Ministry of Defence is expected to respond to the allegations.
The Supreme Court fined an intervention applicant Rs.10,000 for attempting to join a case against Patanjali Ayurved with misleading claims. The applicant alleged a quack doctor’s role in their mother’s death, but the court dismissed the application, warning against manipulating the legal process. Patanjali faced criticism for misleading advertisements and offered an unconditional apology.