Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> today sought responses from senior <keyword id="6356617" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="bjp-leader">BJP leader</keyword> L K Advani and others on a plea against dropping of criminal conspiracy charge against them in the Babri mosque <keyword id="6367653" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Demolition">demolition</keyword> case. 
 A bench headed by <keyword id="42759" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Chief-Justice">Chief Justice</keyword> H L Dattu issued notices to the BJP leader and the CBI on a separate plea filed by Haji Mahboob Ahmad, one of the petitioners in the Babri mosque case. 
 
 
Ahmad, in his plea, has alleged that CBI may dilute its stand in the wake of the change in the government at the Centre. 
 Earlier, the CBI had moved the apex court against <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword>'s verdict on dropping conspiracy charge against Advani and 19 others in Babri mosque demolition case. 
 
 
During the brief hearing, CBI today sought time for filing a fresh affidavit on delay in filing the appeal and on the merits of the case. 
 
The court allowed the plea of the probe agency and granted four weeks time to file the response. 
 
The apex court had earlier pulled up CBI for the delay in filing an appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict. 
 
 
CBI has challenged in the Supreme Court the May 21, 2010 order of the high court, which had upheld a special court's decision to drop the charge against the leaders. 
 In its verdict, the high court had upheld the special <keyword id="6362306" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="CBI-court">CBI court</keyword> order dropping conspiracy charge against Advani, <keyword id="6361634" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Kalyan-Singh">Kalyan Singh</keyword>, <keyword id="42642" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Uma-Bharti">Uma Bharti</keyword>, Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi. 
 
The others against whom the charge was dropped included Satish Pradhan, C R Bansal, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Sadhvi Ritambhara, V H Dalmia, Mahant Avaidhynath, R V Vedanti, Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, Jagdish Muni Maharaj, B L Sharma, Nritya Gopal Das, Dharam Das, Satish Nagar and Moreshwar Save. 
 
Bal Thackeray's name was removed from the list of accused persons after his death. 
 
While upholding the special court's order, the high court 
 
 While upholding the special court's order, the high court had allowed CBI to proceed with other charges against Advani and others in a <keyword id="2788382" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Rae-Bareily-court">Rae Bareily court</keyword>, under whose jurisdiction the case falls. 
 
The May 2010 order of the high court had said there was no merit in CBI's revision petition against the May 4, 2001 order of the special court which had directed dropping of criminal conspiracy charge against them. 
 
 
There are two sets of cases -- one against Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 when the Babri mosque was demolished, while the other case was against lakhs of unknown 'karsevaks' who were in and around the disputed structure. 
 
CBI had charge sheeted Advani and 20 others under sections 153A (promoting enmity between classes), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505 (false statements, rumours etc. circulated with the intent to cause mutiny or disturb public peace) of the IPC. 
 
It had subsequently invoked charges under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC which was quashed by the special court whose decision was upheld by the high court. 
While upholding the special court's order, the high court had said CBI at no point of time, either during the trial at Rae Bareily or in its revision petition, ever stated that there was offence of criminal conspiracy against the leaders.

New Supreme Court notice to Advani, 19 others in Babri demolition case

<ul><li>Give Muslims another site for a mosque, the Supreme Court ordered quashing the division of land by the Allahabad High Court.</li><li>This is a historic judgement from the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir (temple) - Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute being fought in courts at least since 1885.</li><li>The central government has been vested with the disputed land and to come up with a scheme for the construction of a temple in Ayodhya.</li><li>The Muslims should be given a separate 5-acre site for the construction of a mosque, the SC ordered while calling the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law.</li></ul>In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ordered that Muslims be given a separate 5-acre site to build a mosque, while holding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law. At the same time, Justice Gogoi, while reading out a unanimous verdict, ordered that the Hindus will get to construct a Ram Mandir (temple) at the disputed site in Ayodhya, which the Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice Abdul Nazeer read out a unanimous verdict in the Ram Mandir (temple)- Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute that has lasted for centuries, and being fought in the courts since 1885. The verdict is expected to settle the issue that has shaped India's politics for nearly 30 years now. <div type="Youtube" id="YB8rCj6W2ks" title="Here are the top highlights from the Ayodhya verdict." thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YB8rCj6W2ks/mqdefault.jpg"></div>

 These are the key highlights of the order being read out: 1. Hindus get the possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram temple. Possession of disputed 2.77 acre land will remain with Central government receiver. SC asks centre to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple. 2. Alternate land should be allotted to the Muslims for a mosque. The Allahabad High Court was wrong in dividing the disputed Ayodhya site into three parts. 3. The government has to set up a trust that will enforce the Court's judgement. 4. Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama) is not a juristic person and therefore filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation. However, the Akhara that has sought the management rights to the temple may get adequate representation going forward, if the government deems fit. 5. The report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), which cited the presence of a tenth-century structure beneath the Babri Masjid, has been upheld. But the court highlighted the fact that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. Today, the Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court verdict, which divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram-- the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary)-- and the Sunni Waqf Board. All three parties moved the Supreme Court against the order. Reaction of the Muslim side The Muslim side has expressed its displeasure with the Supreme Court verdict. While they agree with the parts of the verdict, they disagree with the handing over of the disputed site to the Hindus. Zafaryab Jilani, a litigant from the Muslim side, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, said that the verdict is "neither justice nor equity". "We are not satisfied with the judgement and the court has reached some wrong conclusions. We will go through the judgement to decide the future course of action... but SC verdict has to be respected. Everyone must remain calm," Jilani said adding that they are yet to decide whether they will move a review petition. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/people-prepare-for-supreme-court-verdict-in-the-ayodhya-case-in-pictures/articleshow/71979301.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/why-the-supreme-court-verdict-on-the-ayodhya-dispute-is-being-delivered-on-a-saturday/articleshow/71979382.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Here's why the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute is being delivered on a Saturday</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-legal-rights-of-lord-rama-and-other-gods/articleshow/71948927.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">In India, Gods, rivers, and animals can pay taxes, hold property, sue, and get sued⁠— and that’s an important factor in the Ayodhya case</a>

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

In some relief to daily commuters, the <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> ordered the Delhi-Noida-Direct(DND) flyway to be toll free. 
 Pronouncing its order on a PIL filed by the <keyword id="2489659" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Federation-of-Noida-Residents-Welfare-Associations">Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Associations</keyword> (FONRWA), the high court directed the order to be implemented with immediate effect. 
 
The DND flyway connects Delhi on the west bank of the Yamuna with Noida and East Delhi. 
 
The DND flyway witnessed several protests and demonstrations seeking scrapping of the Rs 28 toll following allegations that the operator of the 9.2-km-long stretch (including the Mayur Vihar link) has already made significant profits. 
 
(Image: Indiatimes)

Delhi-Noida expressway becomes toll free

More than a century-old religious dispute⁠— the first case was filed in 1885⁠— became a land title suit is awaiting the final word from India’s Supreme Court, which is expected to give its verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid (mosque) dispute in <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> very soon. The Hindu sides contend there should be a temple for Lord Rama in the 2.7 acre land because one was destroyed for construction of the <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> in the 16th century. The dispute continued escalating until December 6, 1992 when the mosque was demolished by those who wanted a temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. 
 <div type="Youtube" id="-tpuk6l1GVE" title="What is the Ayodhya Dispute?" thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-tpuk6l1GVE/mqdefault.jpg"></div>



 The Allahabad High Court divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary), and the Sunni Waqf Board. The appeals at the Supreme Court are against this verdict and the contentions of all 50 parties to the case can be subsumed in the claims of the three primary parties to the case who got parts of the land in the High Court case. Ram Lalla Virajman Interestingly, the reference to Ram Lalla Virajman is to the deity of Lord Rama, represented by a human, legally called ‘next friend’, Trilok Nath Pandey, a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Both in India and the UK courts, there are legal precedents that have accepted deities as juristic entities in the past. The primary claims of Ram Lalla are as follows: <ul><li>Decree of declaration stating that the entire site (building and adjacent area) belongs to the deity.</li><li>Perpetual injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from interfering in any manner in the construction of a new temple under the trusteeship of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.</li><li>The representative of Ram Lalla is opposed to the division of the land title as it holds that the deity is indivisible.</li></ul>Nirmohi Akhara The Nirmohi Akhara is a math (a monastery) for ascetic devotees of Lord Rama. The Akhara claims to be existence since at least 1400 AD, according to some accounts, and that it has been managing the temple much before the construction of the mosque. With the current appeal at the Supreme Court, the Akhara wants the management and control of the temple back in its hands. For that, the Court has to first agree that a temple can be built there. The Akhara only came into the national spotlight in 1959 when it moved the court against the transfer of control of the disputed site to the state government. That 1959 lawsuit was borne out of incident on December 22, 1949 when a set of Hindu idols were placed under the dome of the Babri Masjid. But the Akhara has claimed that those idols were always there. <ul><li>stay the operation of the High Court's judgment that granted the three-domed structure to the Sunni Waqf Board and Shri Ram Virajman</li><li>Allow pooja (worships and rituals) of Lord Rama at the site and bar anyone from removing the deities as directed by the Supreme Court in the 1993 judgement.</li></ul>Gopal Singh Visharad Gopal Singh Visharad is an individual who moved the Faizabad court in 1950 demanding his right to worship at the disputed site saying his ancestors had been doing so before the mosque was established. Later that year, another appellant, Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, filed a suit seeking permission for "worship and darshan without any check, obstruction or interference". The Faizabad civil judge consolidated the suits filed by Visharad and Das and in the final verdict handed the disputed site over to the state government, which is when the Nirmohi Akhara jumped into the court battle demanding rights over the land. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. In the Ayodhya dispute, the Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community from 1961, after the state government had seized control through the Faizabad court verdict. The Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside. The consolidation of the three cases⁠— Visharad, Das, and the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— became the main case in 1964. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, in 1992, the Waqf Board sought to get the mosque restored. After 2010, the Board appealed at the Supreme Court against the division of the disputed site into three parts by the Allahabad High Court. Shia WAQF Board Interestingly, despite being a Muslim organisation, the Shia Waqf Board (representing a sect) has supported the cause for a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and sought that the Muslim parties should give up their claim. The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built the mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. The Shia Waqf Board has appealed that the Supreme Court must hand over the part of land that was given to the Sunni Waqf Board, by the Allahabad High Court verdict, to the Hindu parties. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt in another site. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/a-curious-rift-emerges-in-sunni-waqf-board-a-party-to-ayodhya-case-ahead-of-a-verdict/articleshow/71681803.cms">A curious rift emerges in Sunni Waqf Board-a party to Ayodhya case-ahead of a verdict</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-issue-days-ahead-of-a-verdict-muslim-parties-refuse-mediation-and-settlement/articleshow/71646131.cms">Ayodhya issue: Days ahead of a verdict, Muslim parties refuse mediation and settlement</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/lawyer-tears-up-pictoral-map-as-courtroom-drama-peaks-on-the-last-day-of-ayodhya-arguments/articleshow/71613741.cms">Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments</a>

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

<ul><li>Within days of the Indian government releasing new rules on how platforms like <keyword id="128682" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Netflix">Netflix</keyword>, <keyword id="2976376" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Amazon-Prime-Video">Amazon Prime Video</keyword> and others should be governed, the Supreme Court has a new proposal.</li><li>The apex court believes that since going to the cinema is becoming obsolete as more hop online to catch movies, everything released on OTT platforms should be screened.</li><li>These comments came as the Supreme Court heard a plea filed by Amazon Prime Video’s commercial head, <keyword id="2168986" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aparna-Purohit">Aparna Purohit</keyword> challenging the Allahabad High Court’s judgement.</li></ul>The Supreme Court of India has observed that online content on over-the-top (OTT) platforms should be screened. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Amazon Prime Video’s commercial head, Aparna Purohit. She has challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgement denying her pre-arrest bail in the criminal cases registered in connection to the controversial show called Tandav. <div type="twitter" handle="LiveLawIndia" handlename="Live Law" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/897707258334916608/nMQWwGlo_normal.jpg" favoritecount="3" retweetcount="1" status="Rohatgi: She is an employee employee Of Amazon. Producer and actor have been made an accused. Now, company is not a… https://t.co/8QJy8jT4Qn" createdat="1614843416000" id="1367378510218633217"></div> “We are of the view that some screening should take place. In fact, some platforms even show pornography,” said the bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan, according to LiveLaw. This comes after the Indian government introduced new rules for the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ <keyword id="2739840" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Hotstar">Hotstar</keyword>, last week. According to Bhushan, ‘traditional’ film viewing has now become obsolete and screening may be required for OTT platforms as more people head to the internet to catch the latest movie. <div type="twitter" handle="LiveLawIndia" handlename="Live Law" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/897707258334916608/nMQWwGlo_normal.jpg" favoritecount="6" retweetcount="2" status="Bench: One query - Traditional film viewing has now become obsolete. People watching cinema on internet has become… https://t.co/o1BsNNccOM" createdat="1614843292000" id="1367377990040973322"></div> India’s new IT Rules mandate that there needs to be a three-tier mechanism to address complaints and the classification of content. However, nowhere does it say that content will be screened before being allowed to appear online. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="81306652" title="India’s new rules for OTT platforms could lead an increase in content-related disputes" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div> Aparna Purohit and the Tandav-controversy Purohit has been booked under three sections of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2008 and five sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the prosecution, the Uttar Pradesh police, Tandav includes inappropriate depictions of the police force as well as Hindu gods and goddesses. <table style="border-width: initial; border-style: none; table-layout: fixed; width: 468pt;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Law </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Accusations action Purohit </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IT Act,2008 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 66 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Computer-related offences </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IT Act,2008 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 66F </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Punishment for cyber terrorism </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IT Act,2008 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 67 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Transmitting obscene material </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IPC </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 153-A </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Promoting enmity between different groups </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IPC </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 295 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IPC </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 505(1)(b) </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Public mischief </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IPC </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 505(2) </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Statements promoting hatred between classes </td></tr><tr><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">IPC </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Section 469 </td><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;overflow:hidden;overflow-wrap:break-word;">Forgery for purpose of harming reputation </td></tr></tbody></table> The Allahabad High Court denied Purohit anticipatory bail on the grounds that the scenes within Tandav, have been made ‘intentionally’ using the names of Hindu gods to convey an insidious message. "The sentiments of the majority community have been hurt by the display of the characters of their faith in disrespectful manner and on the other hand… The applicant had not been vigilant and has acted irresponsibly making her open to criminal prosecution in permitting streaming of a movie which is against the fundamental rights of the majority of citizens of this country," said the court’s <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/aparna-purohit-matter-allahabad-hc-389754.pdf">verdict</a>. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/this-spam-blocker-may-add-a-layer-of-anonymity-to-your-social-media-presence-while-twitter-and-facebook-are-under-pressure-to-verify-their-users/articleshow/81327239.cms">This spam blocker may add a layer of anonymity to your social media presence while Twitter and Facebook are under pressure to verify their users</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/enterprise/news/mozilla-is-not-happy-with-indias-new-it-rules-claiming-there-arent-enough-checks-and-balances-in-place/articleshow/81308608.cms">Mozilla is not happy with India's new IT rules claiming there aren't enough checks and balances in place</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/apps/news/whatsapp-signal-and-telegram-face-a-catch-22-situation-as-indias-new-social-media-rules-threaten-encryption/articleshow/81221070.cms">Whatsapp, Signal and Telegram face a catch-22 situation as India’s new social media rules threaten encryption</a>

India's Supreme Court observes that OTT platforms are showing pornography and proposes screening of online content

<ul><li><keyword id="70141" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Katju">Justice Katju</keyword> mocked the <keyword id="95895" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="UP-government">UP government</keyword> by posting a list of 18 Indian cities which could be given a new name. </li><li><keyword id="200296" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Markandey-Katju">Markandey Katju</keyword> recommended that the central and state governments could rename other cities that are also named after Mughal emperors. </li><li>The UP cabinet cited that they only changed the name due to popular demand from the people of the city. </li></ul>In an attempt to ‘restore’ the Indian culture, <keyword id="43254" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Yogi-Adityanath">Yogi Adityanath</keyword> announced ‘<keyword id="3481192" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="prayagraj">Prayagraj</keyword>’ as the new name for <keyword id="17425" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad">Allahabad</keyword> on Saturday. Since then, the decision has been criticised by many political leaders and eminent personalities. One of those being the former Supreme Court Justice, Markandey Katju, who <a href="https://twitter.com/mkatju/status/1052079927183302656">proposed</a> changing names of 18 more Indian cities and replacing all the names that are attributed to ‘Babur ki Aulads’ (the sons of Babur). 
 <div type="javascript" title="Custom" contenttype="Text"><cdata><![CDATA[
 
]]></cdata></div>



 Katju’s satirical twitter post showcased a list of cities which were potential candidates for a new name. Some of the recommendations include: Ahmedabad to Ashtavakra Nagar, Firozabad to Amitshahnagar, Hajipur to Hastinapur, Jamalpur to Jaiminipur, and even Ghaziabad to Ghatotkachnagar. Apart from Justice Katju, Madras High Court and Chief Justice of Allahabad Delhi have also criticised the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government. Even Congress and the Samajwadi party are protesting the decision. Akhilesh Yadav, the state’s former Chief Minister, <a href="https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/akhilesh-yadav-slams-yogi-govt-over-proposed-move-to-rename-allahabad-as-prayagraj-3048451.html">slammed</a> the UP government stating that current political leaders only show their work only by renaming cities. In contrast, some media <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/allahabad-news/allahabad-is-now-prayagraj-says-uttar-pradesh-minister-siddharth-nath-singh-after-cabinet-meeting-1932852">reports</a> claim that Yogi Adityanath has given Allahabad its former name ‘Prayag’ back. Even Kumbh Mela 2019, one of the most-awaited events in the city, will sport banners will with Prayagraj as the name of the city instead of Allahabad. This is not the first time that UP government has altered names. Earlier, Adityanath had renamed Mughalsarai junction in Agra to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Junction in order to give the railway station a ‘Hindu identity’.

You Searched For "Allahabad High Court" and got 6 results

New Supreme Court notice to Advani, 19 others in Babri demolition case

BI India Bureau

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Delhi-Noida expressway becomes toll free

BI India Bureau

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

BI India Bureau

India's Supreme Court observes that OTT platforms are showing pornography and proposes screening of online content

Prabhjote Gill

Justice Katju ‘suggests’ new names for 18 Indian cities

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides