The World Opinion

Tag: allahabad high court

  • Allahabad HC Rules Maintaining A List Of Gifts Received At Wedding, Know-Why? |

    The Allahabad High Court ruled that keeping a list of gifts received by the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage, as required by Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, is critical to preventing false allegations of dowry in subsequent disputes. “Maintaining the list is also important so that both parties to the marriage and their family members do not later make false allegations about taking or giving dowry in a marriage. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also help in subsequent litigation between the parties to determine whether the allegations regarding the taking or giving of dowry are covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,” Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said.

    Section 3 of the Act imposes penalties for giving or receiving dowry, including imprisonment for not less than 5 years and a fine of not less than Rs 50,000 or the value of the dowry, whichever is higher. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that presents given to the bride or bridegroom at the time of marriage and not demanded are not considered ‘dowry’, provided that a list of such gifts received by either person is kept in accordance with the rules.

    Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 specifies how the list of gifts under Section 3(2) is to be maintained.

    “The Central government framed the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 in this regard, as gifts and presents serve as a token of celebration and honour in the Indian marriage system. The legislature was aware of the Indian tradition, and thus the aforementioned exception was carved out. The aforementioned list would also serve as a means of resolving dowry allegations that are later raised in matrimonial disputes, according to the court.

    The court observed that Section 8B requires the appointment of a Dowry Prohibition Officer for the purpose of implementing the Act and, as a result, requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary as to how many Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed in the state and, if not, why they have not been appointed at a time when dowry cases are increasing. The next hearing in the case will be held on May 23.

  • ASI begins medical survey of Gyanvapi mosque premises; seeks 4 weeks’ time to post record

    Specific Information Provider

    LUCKNOW: The medical survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’s premises resumed in Varanasi on Friday an afternoon after the Allahabad Prime Courtroom rejected the petition filed by means of the Muslim litigants in quest of a keep at the Varanasi court docket’s order for a systematic survey by means of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

    Heavy police and paramilitary forces, together with an anti-riot squad and RAF, have been deployed to strengthen the realm round Kashi Vishwanath Dham, particularly, at gate no. 4.

    In line with Varanasi DM, but even so the 37-member ASI group and legal professionals of plaintiffs, a group of district management additionally went throughout the Gyanvapi mosque compound.

    In the meantime, the ASI on Friday moved an software in Varanasi district court docket in quest of 4 weeks’ time from district pass judgement on Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to post its record after finishing the medical investigation and survey of Gyanvapi mosque.

    Status govt suggest (govt of India) Amit Srivastava, who had moved the appliance to hunt time for ASI, mentioned, “After going throughout the software court docket reserved its order on Friday and would ship the order on Saturday.”

    Previous, after undertaking the preliminary probe which commenced at 7 am at the mosque premises, the Varanasi district management requested the ASI to take a damage of just about one and a part hours to facilitate the namaz at Gyanvapi mosque within the afternoon.

    Following measuring and cleansing the premises every of the 4 groups of ASI remained busy scanning the partitions and mapping of the compound to start additional workout routines for medical learn about. In the meantime, expressing hope that no hurt can be brought about to the mosque as consistent with SC order, AIM additionally appealed to the folks of the neighborhood not to get misled by means of rumours and provocative statements and to take care of peace.

    AIM boycotted the survey, which persisted until a damage used to be taken to facilitate other people of the Muslim neighborhood in providing namaz as consistent with the order of SC.

    The survey concluded at 4.30 pm and then all individuals of the survey group, plaintiffs, and their legal professionals got here out of the Gyanvapi premises. The survey works had began by means of ASI by means of dividing its group into 4 portions.

    Previous, ASI had began the medical learn about of Gyanvapi mosque on July 24 in compliance with the district pass judgement on court docket’s July 21 order. On the other hand, it used to be halted on July 24 afternoon following a keep order from the Excellent Courtroom.

    The  Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (mosque control committee) had boycotted the workout and moved the Excellent Courtroom in opposition to the HC order on Thursday which used to be slated for listening to on Friday. On the other hand, after listening to the AIM’s plea, the apex court docket upheld the Prime Courtroom’s order refusing to prevent the ASI probe. 

    LUCKNOW: The medical survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’s premises resumed in Varanasi on Friday an afternoon after the Allahabad Prime Courtroom rejected the petition filed by means of the Muslim litigants in quest of a keep at the Varanasi court docket’s order for a systematic survey by means of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

    Heavy police and paramilitary forces, together with an anti-riot squad and RAF, have been deployed to strengthen the realm round Kashi Vishwanath Dham, particularly, at gate no. 4.

    In line with Varanasi DM, but even so the 37-member ASI group and legal professionals of plaintiffs, a group of district management additionally went throughout the Gyanvapi mosque compound.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    In the meantime, the ASI on Friday moved an software in Varanasi district court docket in quest of 4 weeks’ time from district pass judgement on Ajay Krishna Vishvesha to post its record after finishing the medical investigation and survey of Gyanvapi mosque.

    Status govt suggest (govt of India) Amit Srivastava, who had moved the appliance to hunt time for ASI, mentioned, “After going throughout the software court docket reserved its order on Friday and would ship the order on Saturday.”

    Previous, after undertaking the preliminary probe which commenced at 7 am at the mosque premises, the Varanasi district management requested the ASI to take a damage of just about one and a part hours to facilitate the namaz at Gyanvapi mosque within the afternoon.

    Following measuring and cleansing the premises every of the 4 groups of ASI remained busy scanning the partitions and mapping of the compound to start additional workout routines for medical learn about. In the meantime, expressing hope that no hurt can be brought about to the mosque as consistent with SC order, AIM additionally appealed to the folks of the neighborhood not to get misled by means of rumours and provocative statements and to take care of peace.

    AIM boycotted the survey, which persisted until a damage used to be taken to facilitate other people of the Muslim neighborhood in providing namaz as consistent with the order of SC.

    The survey concluded at 4.30 pm and then all individuals of the survey group, plaintiffs, and their legal professionals got here out of the Gyanvapi premises. The survey works had began by means of ASI by means of dividing its group into 4 portions.

    Previous, ASI had began the medical learn about of Gyanvapi mosque on July 24 in compliance with the district pass judgement on court docket’s July 21 order. On the other hand, it used to be halted on July 24 afternoon following a keep order from the Excellent Courtroom.

    The  Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (mosque control committee) had boycotted the workout and moved the Excellent Courtroom in opposition to the HC order on Thursday which used to be slated for listening to on Friday. On the other hand, after listening to the AIM’s plea, the apex court docket upheld the Prime Courtroom’s order refusing to prevent the ASI probe. 

  • Gyanvapi dispute: Plea in Allahabad HC seeks sealing of mosque to give protection to indicators, symbols

    Categorical Information Carrier

    LUCKNOW: A  Public Passion Litigation (PIL) plea was once moved in Allahabad Top Court docket, on Wednesday, looking for instructions to the UP executive to seal the Gyanvapi mosque but even so transferring an utility in Varanasi District Court docket.

    Whilst the appliance within the Varanasi district court docket to give protection to indicators to be had within the mosque advanced was once submitted by way of Advocates Manbahadur Singh and Anupam Dwivedi on behalf in their shopper Rakhi Singh, one of the vital lead plaintiffs within the Gyanvapi -Shringar Gauri case, the PIL within the Top Court docket was once moved by way of Jitendra Singh Vishen, president, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, and family of Rakhi Singh.

    The petitioners have expressed apprehensions that the Hindu indicators and logos provide on mosque premises may well be destroyed by way of non-Hindus.

    The PIL advised the court docket to seal the premises with out affecting the ASI survey order of the Varanasi District Court docket.

    Considerably, 5 Hindu ladies plaintiffs, together with Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak have been from Varanasi and Rakhi Singh of Delhi, had moved Varanasi Civil Court docket (Senior Department) looking for the worship rights of Maa Shringar Gauri at the Gyanvapi premises via a plea filed in August 2021.

    Each the appliance in Varanasi district Court docket and PIL in Allahabad Top Court docket have been filed only a day forward of the the most important Top Court docket order to be delivered on Thursday in reference to the ASI survey of Gyanvapi mosque premises.

    Considerably, the PIL plea claims that on the disputed website (agreement Plot No. 9130 Ward and PS- Dashaswamedh, District Varanasi), a powerful temple used to exist, during which Lord Shiva himself established the “Jyotirlinga” lakhs of years in the past, then again, the mentioned temple was once broken/destroyed within the 12 months 1669 by way of emperor Aurangzeb.

    Alternatively, responding to the advance, SM Yasin, joint secretary, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM), the mosque control committee known as the allegation baseless and mentioned, “Our suggest would reply on this topic.” The petitioner’s attorney Anupam Dwivedi mentioned the Varanasi district court docket had mounted August 4 as date of listening to.

    The Allahabad prime court docket final week prolonged the keep at the ASI survey of Gyanvapi Masjid until the decision is pronounced on August 3. On July 21, the Varanasi district court docket ordered an in depth medical survey of the mosque by way of the ASI to determine whether or not it was once constructed over a pre-existing temple whilst maintaining {that a} medical probe is essential for reality to return out. The district pass judgement on Dr AK Vishvesha had directed the ASI to hold out a complete survey the use of relationship, excavation and floor penetrating radar tactics of the plot the place the mosque stands subsequent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

    LUCKNOW: A  Public Passion Litigation (PIL) plea was once moved in Allahabad Top Court docket, on Wednesday, looking for instructions to the UP executive to seal the Gyanvapi mosque but even so transferring an utility in Varanasi District Court docket.

    Whilst the appliance within the Varanasi district court docket to give protection to indicators to be had within the mosque advanced was once submitted by way of Advocates Manbahadur Singh and Anupam Dwivedi on behalf in their shopper Rakhi Singh, one of the vital lead plaintiffs within the Gyanvapi -Shringar Gauri case, the PIL within the Top Court docket was once moved by way of Jitendra Singh Vishen, president, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh, and family of Rakhi Singh.

    The petitioners have expressed apprehensions that the Hindu indicators and logos provide on mosque premises may well be destroyed by way of non-Hindus.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    The PIL advised the court docket to seal the premises with out affecting the ASI survey order of the Varanasi District Court docket.

    Considerably, 5 Hindu ladies plaintiffs, together with Laxmi Devi, Sita Sahu, Manju Vyas and Rekha Pathak have been from Varanasi and Rakhi Singh of Delhi, had moved Varanasi Civil Court docket (Senior Department) looking for the worship rights of Maa Shringar Gauri at the Gyanvapi premises via a plea filed in August 2021.

    Each the appliance in Varanasi district Court docket and PIL in Allahabad Top Court docket have been filed only a day forward of the the most important Top Court docket order to be delivered on Thursday in reference to the ASI survey of Gyanvapi mosque premises.

    Considerably, the PIL plea claims that on the disputed website (agreement Plot No. 9130 Ward and PS- Dashaswamedh, District Varanasi), a powerful temple used to exist, during which Lord Shiva himself established the “Jyotirlinga” lakhs of years in the past, then again, the mentioned temple was once broken/destroyed within the 12 months 1669 by way of emperor Aurangzeb.

    Alternatively, responding to the advance, SM Yasin, joint secretary, Anjuman Intezamia Masajid (AIM), the mosque control committee known as the allegation baseless and mentioned, “Our suggest would reply on this topic.” The petitioner’s attorney Anupam Dwivedi mentioned the Varanasi district court docket had mounted August 4 as date of listening to.

    The Allahabad prime court docket final week prolonged the keep at the ASI survey of Gyanvapi Masjid until the decision is pronounced on August 3. On July 21, the Varanasi district court docket ordered an in depth medical survey of the mosque by way of the ASI to determine whether or not it was once constructed over a pre-existing temple whilst maintaining {that a} medical probe is essential for reality to return out. The district pass judgement on Dr AK Vishvesha had directed the ASI to hold out a complete survey the use of relationship, excavation and floor penetrating radar tactics of the plot the place the mosque stands subsequent to the Kashi Vishwanath temple.

  • Allahabad HC to renew listening to on plea in opposition to ASI survey on Gyanvapi premises

    By means of PTI

    PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad Prime Courtroom will on Thursday resume listening to on a plea in opposition to a Varanasi district court docket order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to behavior a survey to resolve if the Gyanvapi mosque used to be constructed upon a temple.

    The topic is indexed for listening to within the court docket of Leader Justice Pritinker Diwaker at 3:30 pm.

    The court docket had on July 26 prolonged the keep at the ASI survey at the Gyanvapi mosque premises until Thursday.

    Right through the listening to on Wednesday, a senior ASI professional used to be provide within the court docket.

    The professional advised the court docket that the ASI group used to be no longer going to “wreck the construction (mosque)” in anyway.

    After listening to the plea by means of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, Leader Justice Diwaker posted the topic for additional listening to on Thursday.

    The court docket ordered that the keep at the ASI survey will proceed until then.

    The mosque committee had moved the top court docket on July 25, an afternoon after the Perfect Courtroom halted the ASI survey until 5 pm on Wednesday, permitting time for the committee to attraction in opposition to the decrease court docket’s order.

    PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad Prime Courtroom will on Thursday resume listening to on a plea in opposition to a Varanasi district court docket order directing the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to behavior a survey to resolve if the Gyanvapi mosque used to be constructed upon a temple.

    The topic is indexed for listening to within the court docket of Leader Justice Pritinker Diwaker at 3:30 pm.

    The court docket had on July 26 prolonged the keep at the ASI survey at the Gyanvapi mosque premises until Thursday.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    Right through the listening to on Wednesday, a senior ASI professional used to be provide within the court docket.

    The professional advised the court docket that the ASI group used to be no longer going to “wreck the construction (mosque)” in anyway.

    After listening to the plea by means of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, which manages the Gyanvapi mosque, Leader Justice Diwaker posted the topic for additional listening to on Thursday.

    The court docket ordered that the keep at the ASI survey will proceed until then.

    The mosque committee had moved the top court docket on July 25, an afternoon after the Perfect Courtroom halted the ASI survey until 5 pm on Wednesday, permitting time for the committee to attraction in opposition to the decrease court docket’s order.

  • Allahabad HC directs makers of ‘Adipurush’ to seem earlier than it on July 27

    Through PTI

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Prime Courtroom has directed the makers of the debatable film “Adipurush” to seem earlier than it on July 27 and the central executive to shape a committee to present its perspectives at the movie.

    A holiday bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh was once listening to separate petitions of Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan in search of a ban at the film.

    The courtroom has ordered director Om Raut, manufacturer Bhushan Kumar, and discussion author Manoj Muntashir to seem earlier than it on July 27.

    It has additionally directed the central executive to represent a five-member committee to present its view at the movie as as to whether it had harm the sentiments of the general public.

    In a separate order, it additionally directed the federal government to check the verdict of granting of certificates to the film.

    The order was once uploaded at the prime courtroom’s website online past due on Friday.

    The bench has mentioned the secretary of the Ministry of Knowledge and Broadcasting and chairman of Central Board of Movie Certification (CBFC) will record their private affidavits apprising it as as to whether the information for certification of the movie for public exhibition has been adopted in letter and spirit.

    The courtroom mentioned in case the needful affidavits aren’t filed through the following date, any Magnificence-1 officer, now not beneath the rank of deputy secretary, Ministry of Knowledge and Broadcasting, in addition to any accountable officer of the CBFC will seem in individual along side data.

    It has additionally directed the director, the manufacturer and the discussion author to record their private affidavits explaining their bona fide through the following date.

    The courtroom mentioned it was once restraining itself from passing any meantime order or any coercive motion in opposition to them earlier than having their reaction on affidavits.

    It had ultimate heard the subject on June 28.

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Prime Courtroom has directed the makers of the debatable film “Adipurush” to seem earlier than it on July 27 and the central executive to shape a committee to present its perspectives at the movie.

    A holiday bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Shree Prakash Singh was once listening to separate petitions of Kuldeep Tiwari and Naveen Dhawan in search of a ban at the film.

    The courtroom has ordered director Om Raut, manufacturer Bhushan Kumar, and discussion author Manoj Muntashir to seem earlier than it on July 27.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    It has additionally directed the central executive to represent a five-member committee to present its view at the movie as as to whether it had harm the sentiments of the general public.

    In a separate order, it additionally directed the federal government to check the verdict of granting of certificates to the film.

    The order was once uploaded at the prime courtroom’s website online past due on Friday.

    The bench has mentioned the secretary of the Ministry of Knowledge and Broadcasting and chairman of Central Board of Movie Certification (CBFC) will record their private affidavits apprising it as as to whether the information for certification of the movie for public exhibition has been adopted in letter and spirit.

    The courtroom mentioned in case the needful affidavits aren’t filed through the following date, any Magnificence-1 officer, now not beneath the rank of deputy secretary, Ministry of Knowledge and Broadcasting, in addition to any accountable officer of the CBFC will seem in individual along side data.

    It has additionally directed the director, the manufacturer and the discussion author to record their private affidavits explaining their bona fide through the following date.

    The courtroom mentioned it was once restraining itself from passing any meantime order or any coercive motion in opposition to them earlier than having their reaction on affidavits.

    It had ultimate heard the subject on June 28.

  • Prayagraj: Top Courtroom bans the discharge of Aljazeera’s ‘disputed’ documentary in India, know the entire topic

    Prayagraj Information In Hindi : The Allahabad Top Courtroom has stayed the discharge of a documentary movie by means of Aljazeera Media Community. A social activist has claimed that the movie portrays Indian Muslims as frightened, which isn’t true.

    Prayagraj: Top Courtroom bans unlock of Aljazeera’s ‘disputed’ documentary in India The courtroom has mentioned that until the topic is pending within the courtroom, the documentary might not be launched. The courtroom of Justices Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Ashutosh Srivastava has directed the Central Executive to make certain that it isn’t launched till its contents are correctly scrutinized by means of the government. The Courtroom has directed the Central State Executive and Al Jazeera Media Community to document their answer. Additionally, the following listening to has been mounted for July 6. This PIL used to be filed on behalf of social employee Sudhir Kumar of Prayagraj. In his petition, the petitioner has said that he has discovered from print and social media experiences that Aljazeera’s documentary movie ‘India, Who Lit the Fuse?’ It presentations that India’s Muslim minority lives in an environment of concern. It is a divisive narrative by means of Al Jazeera, which is a ways from truth.

    The petitioner has additionally apprehension prior to the Courtroom that telecast of the documentary with out following the constitutional and statutory safeguards might result in disturbance of regulation and social order. Due to this fact, the Top Courtroom, making an allowance for the conceivable ‘sick results’ of the movie, ordered a keep at the telecast of the documentary until the problems raised within the petition are determined.

    Information of within sight towns

    Navbharat Instances Information App: Information of the rustic and the sector, the situation of your town, schooling and industry updates, the motion of the sector of movie and sports activities, viral information and spiritual deeds… Get the newest Hindi information, obtain updates from NBT Appletest Information Just like the NBT Fb web page to stick tuned

  • Mere ownership and transportation of livestock inside state now not offence below UP cow slaughter act

    Categorical Information Carrier

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Courtroom has noticed that mere ownership and transportation of livestock throughout the state would now not quantity to an offence below the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

    The courtroom handed the order after listening to the bail utility of Yadav, who used to be arrested and saved in prison for nearly 3 months after six cows, and not using a indicators of bodily damage, used to be recovered from a car owned via him. Because of this, he used to be jailed for the offences below the UP Cow Slaughter Act-1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

    Whilst permitting the bail utility of Kundan Yadav, the courtroom noticed that mere ownership of are living cow/bullock on its own can not quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence below the Act in opposition to cow slaughter. Additional, mere transportation of cows from one position to every other inside Uttar Pradesh would now not come throughout the ambit of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, the mere transportation of cows inside UP state would now not quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt to devote an offence below the stated Act.

    “No subject material or circumstance has been proven via the suggest for the state to exhibit that any bodily damage to any cow or its progeny so that you could endanger the existence thereof reminiscent of to mutilate its frame or to move it in any scenario, wherein endangering the existence thereof,” stated the Pass judgement on.

    The courtroom in its order stated that the state suggest didn’t display subject material to exhibit that the applicant had slaughtered or introduced to slaughter a cow, bull, or bullock in anyplace in UP.   “Therefore the alleged act of the applicant does now not come throughout the ambit of the UP cow slaughter Act,” stated the courtroom.

    The courtroom granted bail to the applicant whilst staring at that there used to be no aim of endangering the lifetime of any cow via now not offering meals or water. 

    “There’s no witness to confirm that the applicant has brought about any bodily damage to any cow or its progeny so that you could endanger the existence. No document of the competent authority has been positioned to turn any bodily damage used to be brought about at the frame of a cow or bullock”, added the courtroom.

    A couple of days previous, the Top Courtroom had made a identical statement in reference to the restoration and ownership of meat announcing it used to be now not a punishable offence below the similar Act until confirmed that it used to be red meat or red meat product. 
     

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Courtroom has noticed that mere ownership and transportation of livestock throughout the state would now not quantity to an offence below the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

    The courtroom handed the order after listening to the bail utility of Yadav, who used to be arrested and saved in prison for nearly 3 months after six cows, and not using a indicators of bodily damage, used to be recovered from a car owned via him. Because of this, he used to be jailed for the offences below the UP Cow Slaughter Act-1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

    Whilst permitting the bail utility of Kundan Yadav, the courtroom noticed that mere ownership of are living cow/bullock on its own can not quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence below the Act in opposition to cow slaughter. Additional, mere transportation of cows from one position to every other inside Uttar Pradesh would now not come throughout the ambit of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, the mere transportation of cows inside UP state would now not quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt to devote an offence below the stated Act.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    “No subject material or circumstance has been proven via the suggest for the state to exhibit that any bodily damage to any cow or its progeny so that you could endanger the existence thereof reminiscent of to mutilate its frame or to move it in any scenario, wherein endangering the existence thereof,” stated the Pass judgement on.

    The courtroom in its order stated that the state suggest didn’t display subject material to exhibit that the applicant had slaughtered or introduced to slaughter a cow, bull, or bullock in anyplace in UP.   “Therefore the alleged act of the applicant does now not come throughout the ambit of the UP cow slaughter Act,” stated the courtroom.

    The courtroom granted bail to the applicant whilst staring at that there used to be no aim of endangering the lifetime of any cow via now not offering meals or water. 

    “There’s no witness to confirm that the applicant has brought about any bodily damage to any cow or its progeny so that you could endanger the existence. No document of the competent authority has been positioned to turn any bodily damage used to be brought about at the frame of a cow or bullock”, added the courtroom.

    A couple of days previous, the Top Courtroom had made a identical statement in reference to the restoration and ownership of meat announcing it used to be now not a punishable offence below the similar Act until confirmed that it used to be red meat or red meat product. 
     

  • UP cow slaughter act: Mere ownership of meat no longer an offence, says Allahabad HC

    Categorical Information Provider

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Court docket claimed that simply possessing or wearing meat can’t quantity to the sale or shipping of pork or pork merchandise.

    The court docket seen that wearing meat can’t be a punishable offence underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act except confirmed via cogent and enough proof that the substance recovered is pork.

    “Mere ownership of meat on its own can’t quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence underneath Segment 3 of Act Number 1 of 1956. No document of the competent authority or approved lab has been proven to show that the beef recovered is pork,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whilst granting bail to the accused.

    The Top Court docket in its Would possibly 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution may just no longer produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the ownership of the accused was once pork or pork product.

    Accused Ibran was once held in March, this 12 months in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his ownership.

    His recommend Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was once a painter and dealing at a area when a raid was once carried out.

    Ibran’s legal professional additional submitted that there was once no proof to hyperlink his shopper with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was once falsely implicated within the case.

    Passing the bail order, the Top Court docket claimed that there was once no subject material circumstance to signify that the accused applicant was once promoting or transporting or providing on the market or shipping pork or pork merchandise. 

    LUCKNOW: The Allahabad Top Court docket claimed that simply possessing or wearing meat can’t quantity to the sale or shipping of pork or pork merchandise.

    The court docket seen that wearing meat can’t be a punishable offence underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act except confirmed via cogent and enough proof that the substance recovered is pork.

    “Mere ownership of meat on its own can’t quantity to committing, abetting or making an attempt an offence underneath Segment 3 of Act Number 1 of 1956. No document of the competent authority or approved lab has been proven to show that the beef recovered is pork,” seen Justice Vikram D Chauhan whilst granting bail to the accused.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    The Top Court docket in its Would possibly 25 order had granted bail to the accused booked underneath the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act claiming that the prosecution may just no longer produce cogent proof that the substance recovered from the ownership of the accused was once pork or pork product.

    Accused Ibran was once held in March, this 12 months in reference to the restoration of 30.5 kg of meat from his ownership.

    His recommend Ajay Kumar Srivastava had argued that the accused was once a painter and dealing at a area when a raid was once carried out.

    Ibran’s legal professional additional submitted that there was once no proof to hyperlink his shopper with the alleged restoration of meat and that he was once falsely implicated within the case.

    Passing the bail order, the Top Court docket claimed that there was once no subject material circumstance to signify that the accused applicant was once promoting or transporting or providing on the market or shipping pork or pork merchandise. 

  • Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute: Allahabad HC asks Mathura court docket to switch all petitions to it

    Specific Information Provider

    LUCKNOW: In a flip of occasions, the Allahabad Top Court docket, on Friday, transferred the entire fits associated with the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute pending within the decrease court docket of Mathura, to itself.

    The Top Court docket directed the Mathura decrease court docket to switch all circumstances together with the related information to Top Court docket inside the subsequent two weeks.

    The Top Court docket, on Might 3, had reserved the order over a petition in search of switch of the case, wherein the Hindus had claimed the best over the land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah is constructed, to the Top Court docket from Mathura decrease court docket.

    The one pass judgement on bench of Allahabad Top Court docket, comprising Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, allowed the switch software moved through the Hindus together with Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mathura, thru legal professional Ranjana Agnihotri and 7 others.

    “The moment switch software is authorized…Let the District Pass judgement on, Mathura get ready an inventory of all such circumstances of equivalent nature involving the subject material and touching upon its outer edge, expressly or through implication come with details of such circumstances and those fits/circumstances together with the file, as above, will likely be duly forwarded to this Court docket inside of two weeks and the similar shall stand transferred to this court docket within the workout of suo motu powers of this Court docket,” the Court docket ordered.

    The respondents within the case come with the Control Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah, Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Believe, Katra Keshav Dev, and Shri Krishna Jamna Sthan Sewa Sansthan.

    The switch plea filed through advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma claimed that the problems concerned within the fits pending prior to the Mathura court docket involved crores of devotees of Lord Krishna and the topic was once of nationwide significance, therefore it will have to be heard within the Top Court docket.

    The petitioners had additionally claimed within the software in search of switch of the circumstances that the fits pending prior to the Mathura court docket may just comfortably be heard within the Top Court docket as there have been considerable questions of legislation concerned and in addition the ones associated with the translation of the Charter of India.

    The petitioners had highlighted that following the preliminary swimsuit being filed prior to the Court docket of Civil Pass judgement on (Senior Department) in Mathura, plenty of fits have been filed copying the preliminary plea’s contents verbatim. All the ones fits have been of equivalent nature and the subject material in addition to reduction sought in those circumstances was once equivalent.

    Whilst listening to the petition, the Top Court docket referred to Phase 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Process (CPC) to notice that as consistent with the stated provision, the swimsuit pending within the subordinate court docket might be withdrawn and transferred to Court docket to which the applying was once made and that it was once the Top Court docket which was once competent to listen to and get rid of the similar.

    Advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, Birendra Prasad Maurya, Devid Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, Nasiruzzaman, Prateek Rai, Radheshyam Yadav and Varun Singh represented the respondents.

    LUCKNOW: In a flip of occasions, the Allahabad Top Court docket, on Friday, transferred the entire fits associated with the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah mosque dispute pending within the decrease court docket of Mathura, to itself.

    The Top Court docket directed the Mathura decrease court docket to switch all circumstances together with the related information to Top Court docket inside the subsequent two weeks.

    The Top Court docket, on Might 3, had reserved the order over a petition in search of switch of the case, wherein the Hindus had claimed the best over the land on which the Shahi Masjid Idgah is constructed, to the Top Court docket from Mathura decrease court docket.googletag.cmd.push(serve as() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

    The one pass judgement on bench of Allahabad Top Court docket, comprising Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, allowed the switch software moved through the Hindus together with Bhagwan Shri Krishna Virajman at Katra Keshav Dev Khewat, Mathura, thru legal professional Ranjana Agnihotri and 7 others.

    “The moment switch software is authorized…Let the District Pass judgement on, Mathura get ready an inventory of all such circumstances of equivalent nature involving the subject material and touching upon its outer edge, expressly or through implication come with details of such circumstances and those fits/circumstances together with the file, as above, will likely be duly forwarded to this Court docket inside of two weeks and the similar shall stand transferred to this court docket within the workout of suo motu powers of this Court docket,” the Court docket ordered.

    The respondents within the case come with the Control Committee of Shahi Masjid Idgah, Shri Krishna Janmbhoomi Believe, Katra Keshav Dev, and Shri Krishna Jamna Sthan Sewa Sansthan.

    The switch plea filed through advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Prabhash Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Sharma claimed that the problems concerned within the fits pending prior to the Mathura court docket involved crores of devotees of Lord Krishna and the topic was once of nationwide significance, therefore it will have to be heard within the Top Court docket.

    The petitioners had additionally claimed within the software in search of switch of the circumstances that the fits pending prior to the Mathura court docket may just comfortably be heard within the Top Court docket as there have been considerable questions of legislation concerned and in addition the ones associated with the translation of the Charter of India.

    The petitioners had highlighted that following the preliminary swimsuit being filed prior to the Court docket of Civil Pass judgement on (Senior Department) in Mathura, plenty of fits have been filed copying the preliminary plea’s contents verbatim. All the ones fits have been of equivalent nature and the subject material in addition to reduction sought in those circumstances was once equivalent.

    Whilst listening to the petition, the Top Court docket referred to Phase 24(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Process (CPC) to notice that as consistent with the stated provision, the swimsuit pending within the subordinate court docket might be withdrawn and transferred to Court docket to which the applying was once made and that it was once the Top Court docket which was once competent to listen to and get rid of the similar.

    Advocates Punit Kumar Gupta, Birendra Prasad Maurya, Devid Kumar Singh, Kamlesh Narayan Pandey, Nasiruzzaman, Prateek Rai, Radheshyam Yadav and Varun Singh represented the respondents.

  • Can spiritual schooling be given in funded madrassas? Allahabad Top Court docket’s query to the central and state authorities

    Prayagraj: The Allahabad Top Court docket has requested the Heart and the UP authorities whether or not spiritual schooling may also be imparted in government-funded madrassas. The courtroom has additionally requested that if this occurs, whether or not this can be a violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 and 30 of the Charter of India or now not? Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has requested scholars to reply in six weeks, taking cognizance of spiritual schooling being given to scholars in madrassas excluding the overall curriculum. The Lucknow bench of the Top Court docket gave this order whilst listening to the petition of Ejaz Ahmed running in Madrasa Samdania Islamia, Shudnipur, Jaunpur. Ejaz challenged the non-payment of wage by means of submitting a writ petition. In line with the petitioner, Madrasa Samdania Islamia is funded by means of the state authorities and because his appointment on April 6, 2016, his wage has now not been launched. The courtroom mentioned that the secretary of the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the predominant secretary of the UP authorities, the minority welfare division and the UP state authorities will have to report a respond to the petition. In the meantime, the petitioner will have to be given wage from the date of his appointment on April 6, 2016. The following listening to at the petition shall be after 6 weeks.

    subject of violation of articles of the charter
    The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad Top Court docket has wondered the central and state governments at the spiritual schooling imparted in madrassas. The query is, how can spiritual schooling be imparted in madrassas run with authorities cash? The courtroom has additionally requested to inform whether or not this isn’t a contravention of all of the basic rights equipped within the charter? The following listening to of the case shall be after six weeks. A unmarried bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh handed this order all over the listening to at the carrier petition of Ejaz Ahmed of Jaunpur.

    The courtroom mentioned in its order that the central and state governments will have to inform how spiritual schooling is being imparted at authorities expense or after the volume is given by means of the federal government? The Top Court docket additionally requested whether or not this isn’t a contravention of a few articles of the Charter? The Court docket mentioned that the Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Govt of India and the Major Secretary, Minorities Welfare and Waqf will have to resolution those questions whilst submitting affidavits together with replying to the petition.

    The petitioner has sought the intervention of the Top Court docket elevating the problem of non-payment of wage to himself. The petitioner says that he teaches in a madrasa positioned in Shudnipur, Jaunpur. He isn’t being paid wage. The courtroom has additionally ordered at the petitioner’s case that if the petitioner teaches within the mentioned madrasa. If this madrasa receives cash from the federal government, then the petitioner will have to be paid wage as consistent with the appointment letter dated sixth April, 2016.

    Even prior to the courtroom raised questions
    Within the 12 months 2021 additionally, the Allahabad Top Court docket had raised many questions whilst listening to the petition of the Control Committee of Madrasa Anjuman Islamia Faizul Uloom. The courtroom had mentioned that there’s a idea of secular state within the preamble of the charter, so can the secular state give budget to varsities (madrasas) imparting spiritual schooling. The courtroom had requested whether or not the madrassas imparting spiritual schooling are giving coverage to the religion of all religions beneath the elemental rights won from Articles 25 to 30 of the Charter?

    The courtroom had wondered whether or not beneath Article 28, madrassas can train spiritual schooling, message and manner of worship? Are there any forums of schooling for different religions that supply spiritual schooling? It was once additionally requested whether or not there’s a ban at the access of girls in madrasas. If this is the case, is not it discriminatory?