The Supreme Court delivered its historic verdict on the Ayodhya case on November 9. One of the key concerns was the security situation. The job of ensuring that the nation remained peaceful was entrusted to National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.
One of the key concerns ahead of the Ayodhya verdict that was delivered on Saturday was the security situation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was insistent that there ought to be a closure to this issue and he had even said before the verdict that the judgment should not be seen as a victory or loss to anyone.
Post the verdict too, the PM addressed the nation and compared the scenario to the fall of the Berlin Wall, which acted as a unifying factor. The job of ensuring that the nation remained peaceful was entrusted to National Security Advisor Ajit Doval.
New Delhi, Nov 14: The Supreme Court has closed the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi in which he attributed his remark, Chowkidar Chor Hai to the Rafale judgment of the Supreme Court.
The court said that Rahul Gandhi needs to be more careful in future for attributing to the court his remarks. While closing the contempt case against Rahul Gandhi, the SC said that he should be more careful in future. He uttered the words, Chowkidar Chor Hai, without even reading the Rafale judgment of the Supreme Court dated December 2018.
New Delhi, Nov 14: The Supreme Court has referred the Sabarimala matter to a larger Bench. In a 3:2 verdict, the Bench said that the matter will now be heard by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justices A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra in a majority verdict said that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud in their dissenting view maintained that matter not be referred to a larger Bench.
New Delhi, Nov 14: Two judges on the 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court recorded dissenting views in the Sabarimala case today. While Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justices R Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra referred the matter to a larger Bench, Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud recorded a dissenting note. Justice R F Nariman said that these are issues for the future Constitution Benches.
He said that the original judgment in the Sabarimala case was based on a bona fide PIL, which raised issues of women discriminated against for their entire period of puberty due to a physiological feature.
New Delhi, Nov 14: With the Supreme Court referring the Sabarimala matter to a larger Bench, there was no clarity at first whether the earlier judgment of the court would remain in force.
Many had expected a subsequent order that would spell out whether the September 28 2018 verdict of the Supreme Court allowing entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala would remain in force or not. The temple opens on November 16.
New Delhi, Nov 14: The Supreme Court gave out its reasoning before referring the Sabarimala matter to a larger Bench. In a 3:2 verdict, the court said that the matter would be heard by a 7 judge Bench.
The majority on the Bench were of the view that the entry of Muslim women inside a Mosque, Parsi women into the Tower of Silence and the Dawoodi Bora case are all similar to the Sabarimala case.