Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Allahabad High Court clarified that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not curtail the State’s power to acquire religious properties for a public purpose, including road widening and infrastructure development.
“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.”
“The land in question, though administered by a corporate body, is essentially trust property held for the benefit of the community, and any irregularity in its alienation is a matter of legitimate public concern.”
“The petitioner approached the Court only after the declaration of the financial results and the contract was already executed and it was opined that any interference at this juncture would not only unsettle a concluded contract but also cause administrative chaos and financial loss to the public exchequer.”
“The unoccupied portion of the hill has been in the possession of the temple from time immemorial and has been treated by the temple authorities as their property.”
Supreme Court held that a State has no locus standi to challenge a Will of a private citizen by claiming to be a person interested in the estate of the deceased due to the action taken under Escheats Act.
“If the State, whose duty it was to bring the offenders to justice, took sides with an accused and permitted him to dictate the manner in which the investigation against him was to progress, it would be antithetical to the concept of ‘the rule of law’.”
“Where one ineligible person was ignored at the cost of another ineligible person without reasonable basis or rationale, the ineligible person, who was ignored, could raise his voice and approach the Court to find out the reasons for his exclusion”
“The consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances in Chhattisgarh has increased manifold in recent years. It not only has evil effects on the body and mind of the person consuming it, but it ruins the entire family and society too.”
The Resolution Plan has been approved by 83.46% voting share of the CoC, therefore, at the instance of Appellant, approval of Resolution Plan cannot be allowed to be questioned.”
“The only aim or intention of the petitioner was to get a compassionate appointment for her son in one way or the other, i.e., without disclosing the true and correct facts regarding the financial condition of her family.”
“There is no fundamental right of a person to have a live-in relationship with a woman legally married to another man and, more particularly, when the woman appears to be his own sister.”
“The appellant being an evaluator/examiner, was required to keep his hands off once the evaluation sheet was submitted by him and was not required to indulge in any kind of head-on-collision with the University.”
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
The formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is in the exercise of supervisory powers of Central Information Commission and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers.
The Delhi High Court said that the directions sought were not only beyond but also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Court found that the respondents could not establish locus standi to seek any injunction against the impugned communications vis-a-vis content moderation by social media to suppress misleading information especially related to Covid-19 and 2020 Presidential Elections.
Several pro-life medical associations and doctors challenged the FDA regulations issued in 2016 and 2021 that ensured easy access of mifepristone for termination of pregnancy and sought a preliminary injunction for the FDA to rescind these regulatory actions.