Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The issue is not related to the ‘title of the property’ but for the claim of fundamental right of worship or prayer and if the ‘disputed area’ is held to be a ‘protected monument’ under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the bar under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply.”
“Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution, thus, the Ailan of 1935 was merely an executive or administrative arrangement and not a legislative enactment and the ASI report establishes a pre-existing temple structure, whose remains form the base of the present monument.”
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
“An order which is bad in the beginning, cannot be validated by any additional ground brought out later. The appellants cannot be allowed to raise a completely new ground to justify their action.”
Any employee working with an organization has the reasonable expectation of being paid a salary decently so that he can afford a decent standard of living from the said income. In case, the employee is not paid adequately, the same may render the employee unmotivated to work and the employee may not give his best in the organization and may look for other suitable jobs to supplement his/ her income.