Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“An academic or personal opinion expressed by a student, teacher, or scholar on a legal judgment, even one involving sensitive issues, cannot be equated with any religious attack.”
The Commission strictly opined that if the complainants were strictly vegetarian and that non-vegetarian foods hurt their religious sentiments, then why did they opt to order food from an outlet that delivers both veg and non-veg food items.
“Every action that might be disliked by a class of people may not necessarily lead to the outraging of religious sentiments because an act without the intention to outrage religious feelings would not be covered under Section 295A.”
The Court said that it is not understandable that how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class especially when the complainant himself states that Hindu — Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony.
“On account of handful persons sitting and blocking the road, inconvenience is being caused to the commuters and residents of the Tri-city and the misery is continuing.”
“The Hindus also have fundamental right to profess and practice their religion freely and propagate their religion without interfering in their way of practice. Therefore, the Hindus have right to maintain their temples as per their customs, practices and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is having duty to protect the temples from such unwanted incidents”
Allahabad High Court said that the Gods have been shown in a film by the film makers including the dialogue writers without taking care of holiness and sanctity of those characters.
Allahabad High Court has also allowed an application requesting the inclusion of Manoj Muntashir Shukla, the dialogue writer of ‘Adipurush’, as a party in the case and issued notice to him.
Allahabad High Court said that offences of the kind that have a tendency to promote hatred between classes of people or communities, have to be put down with a heavy hand. These offences cannot be permitted to flourish in society by adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the community.
With 1263 judgments delivered; three Chief Justices of India taking turns to lead the judiciary; a number of judges retiring and a
Allahabad High Court: In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgements passed
Calcutta High Court: Shampa Sarkar, J. stayed the investigation in a matter which came up over an artist’s Facebook post containing intimate
Najeeb, who along with some other members of Popular Front of India (PFI) had chopped¬off the professor’s right palm, has been in jail for much more than five years and there are 276 witnesses left to be examined.
Supreme Court: The 2-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has refused to quash the FIRs registered against News18 Journalist
“The transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary. Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked.”
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ, allowed an appeal pertaining to
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ came to the rescue of actress
Supreme Court: Quashing the complaint filed against Mahendra Singh Dhoni for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of people when an image of