{"id":222733,"date":"2019-12-01T11:15:38","date_gmt":"2019-12-01T05:45:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=222733"},"modified":"2019-12-01T11:15:38","modified_gmt":"2019-12-01T05:45:38","slug":"supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

TOP STORIES<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

\nAyodhya Verdict<\/span>| Here\u2019s why the 5-judge bench unanimously held that the disputed site belongs to Hindus<\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n

The 5-judge bench finally put an end to the Ayodhya Title dispute and held that the disputed land is to be given to Trust for construction of Ram Mandir. In an effort to balance the interest of both the parties involved, the Court directed \u00a0that a suitable plot of 5 acres must be granted to Sunni Waqf Board to set up a Mosque.<\/p>\n

\n

Sabarimala Review Petitions<\/span> NOT referred to a larger bench, but kept pending. Here\u2019s what Supreme Court has actually held<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

It may not be inappropriate if matters involving seminal issues including the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution touching upon the right to profess, practise and propagate its own religion, are heard by larger bench of commensurate number of Judges.<\/p>\n

\n

Here\u2019s why Supreme Court held that the Office of CJI<\/span> comes under the purview of RTI<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

It cannot be doubted and debated that the independence of the judiciary is a matter of ennobled public concern and directly relates to public welfare and would be one of the factors to be taken into account in weighing and applying the public interest test. Thus, when the public interest demands the disclosure of information, judicial independence has to be kept in mind while deciding the question of exercise of discretion.<\/p>\n

\n

RESTRUCTURING OF TRIBUNALS<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Rules made under S. 184 of Finance Act struck down; Centre to make new Rules for appointment to Tribunals<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought the Aadhaar issue was over with K.S. Puttaswamy judgment? Not yet. Here\u2019s why<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Maharashtra Political Crisis|<\/span> Floor test to be conducted on tomorrow; Proceedings to be live telecast <\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

It was necessary and expedient to conduct the floor test as soon as possible to determine whether the Chief Minister, who was administered the oath of office, has the support of the majority or not.<\/p>\n

\n

Karnataka MLAs Disqualification case<\/span>: Read why SC \u2018partly\u2019 upheld Speaker\u2019s order<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court upheld the speaker\u2019s orders dated 25.07.2019 and 28.07.2019 to the extent of the disqualification of the Petitioners but has set aside the part of order that said that disqualified members can\u2019t contest elections till the end of the current Assembly term i.e. the 15th<\/sup>\u00a0Legislative Assembly of Karnataka. It, hence, directed that 17 Karnataka MLAs can contest the by-elections in the state.<\/p>\n

\n

Article 370| SC reserves order on pleas challenging restrictions imposed in J&K after abrogation of Article 370<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The 3-judge bench of N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy, and B R Gavai, JJ has reserved the judgment on\u00a0a batch of pleas including that of Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad challenging the restriction imposed in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir following abrogation of provisions of Article 370.<\/p>\n

\n

Haren Pandya Murder Case<\/span>|SC dismisses review petitions of 9 convicts<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The order, of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n

\n

RAFALE DEAL<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

SC dismisses the petition seeking review of the Rafale Verdict<\/a><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Rahul Gandhi\u2019s apology for his \u201cChowkidar Chor Hai remarks\u201d; Contempt Petition dismissed<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Delhi-NCR Pollution|<\/span> Crop stubble burning must stop immediately and all states must do everything to stop it: SC<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

People are dying. More people will die but those at the helm seem interested only in gimmicks. We will supervise this matter now. Crop stubble burning must stop immediately and all states must do everything to stop it.<\/p>\n

\n

MORE STORIES<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

When a woman says she did not consent to a physical relationship, court should not presume otherwise<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 struck down. Here\u2019s why<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The introduction of Section 87 would result in a delay of disposal of arbitration proceedings, and an increase in the interference of courts in arbitration matters, which defeats the very object of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which was strengthened by the 2015 Amendment Act.<\/p>\n

Victim\u2019s counsel can make up for deficiencies in the prosecution case but can\u2019t argue the case<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

If the victim\u2019s counsel feels that a certain aspect has gone unaddressed in the examination of the witnesses or the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor, he may route any questions or points through the Public Prosecutor himself.<\/p>\n

NCLAT\u2019s order set aside in Essar Steel Insolvency case; Key issues on Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process answered<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The NCLAT judgment which substitutes its wisdom for the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors and which also directs the admission of a number of claims which was done by the resolution applicant, without prejudice to its right to appeal against the aforesaid judgment, must therefore be set aside.<\/p>\n

SC refuses to strike down provision relating to an NRI\u2019s right to claim eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has refused to hold\u00a0 Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Rent Act) merely because it grants a right to claim eviction for bona fide need by summary procedure to a certain group of landlords, that is, Non-Resident Indians subject to and on the satisfaction of statutory conditions which incorporate a check on frivolous evictions.<\/p>\n

Architects Act, 1972 will prevail over AICTE Act as far as recognition of degrees and diplomas of architecture education is concerned<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Norms and Regulations set by the Council of Architecture (CoA) and other specified authorities under the Architects Act, 1972 would have to be followed by an institution imparting education for degrees and diplomas in architecture.<\/p>\n

Rape & murder of a 10-year-old & her brother: SC refuses to review it\u2019s 2:1 verdict awarding death sentence<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

In a ghastly case involving rape and murder of 2 children, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ\u00a0has refused to review their verdict in\u00a0Manoharan v. State, (2019) 7 SCC 716<\/a><\/em>, upholding \u00a0the conviction of the accused.\u00a0In the said judgment, the bench had unanimously upheld the conviction, but gave 2:1 verdict on quantum of punishment<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Tata\u2019s Housing project in Chandigarh stalled for being \u2018too close\u2019 to Sukhna Lake & Widlife Sanctuary<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the matter concerning the housing project, on the ground that the area in question falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ has held that such projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary.<\/p>\n

SC directs Orissa govt. to to depute full time Chief Administrator for Shri Jagannath Temple to ensure peaceful darshan<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is apparent that various aspects have to be gone into and considered by the Temple Managing Committee and wherever the Government role comes in, the Government has to do the needful after taking all the stakeholders into confidence.<\/p>\n

\n

IN OTHER NEWS<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Know Thy Judge| Justice SA Bobde takes charge as the 47th Chief Justice of India<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

A part of me will always remain with the Supreme Court: CJI Ranjan Gogoi on his last working day<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

TOP STORIES Ayodhya Verdict| Here\u2019s why the 5-judge bench unanimously held that the disputed site belongs to Hindus The 5-judge bench finally <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":218562,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,34119],"tags":[5363],"class_list":["post-222733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-scmonthly","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"TOP STORIES Ayodhya Verdict| Here\u2019s why the 5-judge bench unanimously held that the disputed site belongs to Hindus The 5-judge bench finally\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-12-01T05:45:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-12-01T05:45:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019","og_description":"TOP STORIES Ayodhya Verdict| Here\u2019s why the 5-judge bench unanimously held that the disputed site belongs to Hindus The 5-judge bench finally","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-12-01T05:45:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/","name":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg","datePublished":"2019-12-01T05:45:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/01\/supreme-court-monthly-roundup-november-2019\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Monthly Roundup \u2013 November 2019"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Supreme-Court_1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":223227,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/12\/ayodhya-all-petitions-seeking-review-of-the-5-judge-bench-ayodhya-verdict-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":0},"title":"Ayodhya| All petitions seeking review of the 5-judge bench Ayodhya verdict dismissed","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 12, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench headed by SA Bobde, CJ has dismissed a batch of petitions seeking review of its November 9 Ayodhya land dispute verdict, which cleared the way for construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site. The bench\u00a0took these review pleas for consideration in-chamber, rejected them\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218090,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/14\/ayodhya-hearing-day-5-arguments-advanced-on-whether-there-was-an-existing-temple-at-the-disputed-site\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":1},"title":"Ayodhya hearing| Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 14, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: On the 5th Day of the Ayodhya Title dispute hearing, arguments on\u00a0whether a temple existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya were presented before the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217842,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/08\/ayodhya-hearing-day-3both-hindus-muslims-have-always-called-the-disputed-site-a-janmasthana-ram-lallas-counsel\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":2},"title":"Ayodhya hearing|Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Senior Advocate K Parasaran, appearing\u00a0for the Ram Lalla, one of the parties in title dispute case, has told the Supreme Court that Lord Ram's birth place need not be the exact spot but could also mean surrounding areas. \"Janmasthan need not be the exact spot but can also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":221929,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/08\/breaking-5-judge-bench-to-pronounce-ayodhya-verdict-tomorrow\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":3},"title":"BREAKING| 5-judge bench to pronounce Ayodhya verdict tomorrow","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: \u00a0The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ, S.A. Bobde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ will deliver its verdict on the Ayodhya dispute on Saturday, ending decades of uncertainty ever since the Babri Mosque was demolished in 1992. The notice published on the Supreme\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/27\/ayodhya-hearing-there-was-a-temple-in-the-inner-courtyard-of-the-disputed-site-nirmohi-akhara\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":4},"title":"Ayodhya Hearing| There was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site: Nirmohi Akhara","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"August 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Senior counsel appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, told the Supreme Court that there was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site. Senior Advocate S K Jain told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220377,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/30\/ayodhya-hearing-we-dont-want-any-mediation-ram-lalla-virajmans-counsel\/","url_meta":{"origin":222733,"position":5},"title":"Ayodhya hearing| We don’t want any mediation: Ram Lalla Virajman’s counsel","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Ram Lalla Virajman, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, on Monday told the Supreme Court that it does not want any mediation in the case. The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222733\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/218562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}