A UP MP-MLA court has postponed the Rahul Gandhi defamation case to November 26 after a key witness failed to appear. The case concerns alleged remarks Gandhi made about Amit Shah during the 2018 Karnataka election campaign.
A Bareilly court sentenced Manoj to life imprisonment for starving his wife, Mamta, to death in 2021 after a domestic quarrel. He locked her in a room without food or water for a week. The ruling emphasizes the severity of domestic violence and aims to protect women’s rights, providing justice for Mamta’s family.
The Supreme Court Today (Jan 2) came down heavily upon a man for making an attempt to “sensationalise” observations made by a Bareilly court, purportedly against the Muslim community, in a case related to ‘love jihad’. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti sought to know the locus standi of the petitioner Anas in the matter, while making it clear that observations made on the basis of evidence can’t be expunged in a petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution. “Who are you and how are you concerned with the matter?,” the bench asked the petitioner.
![[2018 Defamation Case]| Hearing Against Rahul Gandhi, Set for May 27: UP Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-22-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, 14th May, Rahul Gandhi faces a pivotal hearing on May 27 in a 2018 defamation case in Uttar Pradesh. The case stems from his remarks linking the RSS to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. A new judge has been appointed for the special court. This legal battle is seen as politically motivated to undermine Gandhi’s influence.
In Uttar Pradesh, a 53-year-old lawsuit over the Badruddin Shah Dargah was dismissed, with the court ruling in favor of the Hindu party. The dispute, dating back to 1970, involved a contested site in Barnawa village, Baghpat, and highlighted the complex interplay of history, religion, and law in India. Civil judge Shivam Dwivedi directed the transfer of the site to the Hindu-defendants, citing the failure of the plaintiff to prove the case. The legal battle, involving claims related to religious significance and historical artifacts, ended with the court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit.