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

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

The Supreme Court is expected to put to rest a title dispute in India that has festered communal strife, which occasionally exploded, in India for more than a century. The Hindu sides contend there should be a temple for Lord Rama in a 2.7 acre land in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid has stood since the 16th century. The Hindu sides contend that an existing temple was destroyed for construction of the mosque, which the Muslims deny. The first case in the matter was filed as early as 1885 and the dispute continued escalating until December 6, 1992 when the mosque was demolished by those who wanted a temple. Here’s the sequence of events that have played out since then leading up to the much-awaited verdict from the country’s top court: 
	<div type="Slideshow" msid="71913656" hostid="261" title="All the important milestones in the Ayodhya case since 1992 leading up to the Supreme Court verdict" firstImageMsid="71913712" slideCount="11"></div>




 <div type="image" title="Slide 3 Ayodhya" msid="71913716" hostid="261"></div>

All the important milestones in the Ayodhya case since 1992 leading up to the Supreme Court verdict

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. <keyword id="1037861" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Waqf-Boards">Waqf Boards</keyword> have perpetual succession and they have power to acquire and hold property. In the <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> title dispute⁠— Ram temple versus Babri Masjid⁠— there are two Waqf Boards involved. One of them represents the Sunni sect and the other represents the Shia sect. The Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community’s appeal from 1960s. In 1961, the state government had seized control of the disputed site through the Faizabad court verdict. The Sunni Waqf Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside, which were reportedly placed under the mosque’s dome in on December 22, 1949. The <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> ordered in 2010 that the disputed land should be divided into three parts and one part should go to the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— the other two parts must go to the Hindu sides represented by Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity). But the Waqf Board wants the entire land and the mosque to be restored as it was before its demolition in 1992. Shia vs Sunni The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built a mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. However, the Shia WAQF Board has supported the construction of Ram temple at the site where the mosque (<keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword>) stood earlier. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the government must give an alternative site for the mosque construction.

The Waqf Boards and their stance on the Ayodhya dispute awaiting Supreme Court verdict

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties in the Ram-Janmbhoomi-Dabri masjid land dispute case, tore up a pictorial map showing the exact birthplace of Lord Ram during the hearings in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The reference to the pictorial map showing the exact birthplace of Lord Ram at the disputed site in Ayodhya by Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha, was objected to by Dhavan. Dhavan then asked the bench as to what he should do with it, to which the bench said that he can shred it into pieces. Dhavan then tore the pictorial map, provided by the counsel for All India Hindu Mahasabha, in the courtroom. During the arguments, Singh referred to various aspects of the <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> judgement and said there has been long faith and belief on the part of Hindus with regard to the scared nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram. Dhavan had also objected to Singh's attempt to refer to a book on Ayodhya, written by former IPS officer <keyword id="207684" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kishore-Kunal">Kishore Kunal</keyword>, saying such attempts should be disallowed. The bench had then asked Singh to proceed with the hearing saying, "Mr Dhavan, we have taken note of your objection."

Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that it will conclude today the day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case at <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword>, saying "enough is enough". A 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it is hearing the Ayodhya land dispute case for the last 39 days and no more time beyond today will be granted to parties to conclude the hearing in the case. "This matter is going to be finished today by 5 PM. Enough is enough," the bench, which also comprises justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said at the start of the proceedings on the 40th day. The apex court had earlier said the hearing would be concluded on October 17. Now deadline has been advanced by one more day. The CJI is demitting office on November 17. The bench also rejected a plea of a party seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing and said no such interventions will be allowed now at this stage of proceedings. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for a Hindu party, has commenced his submission in response to a lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf board in 1961 seeking title claim over the 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Enough is enough, says Supreme court Chief Justice on Ayodhya--wants to end arguments today

<ul><li>Governor Vajubhai Vala has given fresh deadline till 6 pm for HDK to prove majority. </li><li>Karnataka assembly has resumed after it was adjourned till 3 pm. </li><li>BJP President says that the trust vote might not be held today. </li><li>Karnataka legislative assembly is continuously being adjourned amid BJP’s demand for trust vote. </li><li>Karnataka CM HD Kumaraswamy said that he will move to the Supreme Court against the Governor’s order. </li></ul>The governor of Karnataka gave a fresh deadline to the ruling government to prove it majority by 6 pm. The CM H D Kumaraswamy has been exhaustively delaying the process, hanging on to power. BJP President Siddaramaiah had earlier said that the trust vote probably won’t be held today. The assembly has resumed after it was adjourned till 3 pm, with no progress on the much awaited trust vote. Kumaraswamy said today that he will move to the Supreme Court against the vote. Governor Vala had earlier directed the Speaker to hold the trust vote by 1:30 pm today. Also, the Congress state President was seen heading to the Supreme Court, possibly delaying it further. Kumaraswamy said, “It (trust vote) is crucial and cannot be completed by 1:30 pm. This needs to be discussed.” The opposition, BJP, has been alleging that the ruling party is delaying it, as it does not have the requisite majority. They had also staged an overnight protest by ‘sleeping’ in the Assembly. Governor is interfering: Cong JD(S) spokesman Ramesh Babu said that the CM’s counsel will move the Supreme Court today for a stay on the Governor's Thursday’s order asking him to prove majority by the deadline. “The Governor is interfering in the workings of the Legislative Assembly, which is the domain of the Speaker under the provisions of the Constitution,” Babu said. Congress-JD(S) alliance is to petition on the basis that CM Kumaraswamy had moved the confidence motion in the house on Thursday and the debate had started and so setting a deadline should be stayed by the court. In the meanwhile, one of the Congress MLAs Shreemant Patil is admitted in a hospital in Mumbai, after he complained of chest pains. Yesterday, Congress alleged that BJP has kidnapped them. Delayed Trust The trust vote which was supposed to happen yesterday, was relentlessly delayed by the ruling Congress-JD(S) coalition which might be facing an end of its run. Kumaraswamy will have to prove that his government has majority to carry on, as MLAs have been leaving his fold. BJP party members had staged an overnight dharna or protest over the delay of trust vote. Accusations, speeches and allegations between both Congress and BJP managed to delay the vote, yesterday. Finally, the state’s Governor wrote a letter to CM Kumaraswamy regarding the trust vote after senior BJP MLAs met him at the Raj Bhawan. The case of a kidnapped legislator Yesterday, the Speaker had refused to conduct the trust vote amid allegations by the Congress against the BJP for kidnapping its MLA Shreemant Patil, who had decided to take his resignation back. Speaker Ramesh Kumar had asked home minister MB Patil to give a detailed report of Shreemant after talking to his family. The Speaker said that he had received a letter in this regard named in Patil’s name, saying he would abstain from coming to the house due to health related issues. However, the Speaker asked the present Home Minister of Karnataka, MB Patil to contact Shreemath Pati’s family and give a detailed report by tomorrow. “What kind of a Speaker would I be if I proceed with a document which has no date or letterhead,” said K R Ramesh Kumar. The house was disrupted throughout the day on the issue of trust vote and when it was finally adjourned till today, BJP announced a night long strike in the assembly itself till the voting was not done. “We are demanding voting on the motion but the chief minister is reluctant to take it up as he has confirmed himself that he has lost confidence of the House and the people. Everybody knows Congress-JD(S) coalition has only 98 MLAs, we have 105,” said B S Yeddyurappa, BJP party president. Crisis mode The Karnataka state government went into a crisis mode earlier this month, after 16 of its MLAs from both the parties of the coalition government resigned. For the last two weeks, the political crisis in the state raged on, as Speaker of the Assembly refused to accept them, taking them to court. One of the rebel MLAs, Roshan Baig was also detained at Bengaluru airport and questioned, as he was stopped from taking a chartered flight, a few days back.

Karnataka Governor sets another deadline at 6 pm for Kumaraswamy to prove majority

<ul><li>India has seen numerous communal riots in its history with the Ayodhya dispute as the flashpointIndia has seen numerous communal riots in its history with the Ayodhya dispute as the flashpoint. </li><li>So ahead of the SC verdict, there were numerous appeals for calm no matter which side the verdict goes in favour of⁠— starting from the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.</li></ul>It was announced on Friday that the Supreme Court verdict in the historic Ram Temple vs <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> standoff at Ayodhya will be announced on Saturday, November 11. Efforts to calm any tension post the verdict had begun much before but they peaked on Friday night and Saturday morning. The dispute between Hindus and Muslims over a holy site in Ayodhya is over a century old and has proved to be an explosive issue. So while both sides⁠— one that wants a temple and the other that wants a mosque⁠— seem desperate for a closure and have their hopes pinned on the country’s Supreme Court, the anticipation has turned out to be a headache for both the local authorities, the state and central governments, as well as for people who couldn’t care less. 
	
	
	






 <div type="Slideshow" msid="71979316" hostid="261" title="See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case" firstImageMsid="71979317" slideCount="10"></div>

See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case

<ul><li>In March, 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that rivers, Ganga and Yamuna, would be legally treated as “living people,” and enjoy “all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”.</li><li>However, in September 2018, Justice Chandrachud of India’s Supreme Court said that while a deity or an idol can own property and have other legal rights, but it cannot granted fundamental rights.</li><li>So in the case between those who want a temple for Lord Rama in Ayodhya and those who want to restore a demolished mosque, one of the parties to the case is Lord Rama himself⁠.</li></ul>One of the important questions in front of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> is the following: Is the Ram Janmabhoomi (the birthplace of Lord Rama) a juristic entity, independent of the presence of idols? And if so, is it immune from possession claims as a juristic entity? A juristic person, as opposed to a “natural person” (that is, a human being), is an entity whom the law vests with a personality. The practice began under the British administration of India. The British administrators held that the legal owner of a temple’s land and wealth was the deity, with a shebait or manager acting as trustee. Much like a corporation and its directors. However, one cannot place a deity and bestow it with wealth and property. For a deity to be considered a legal entity only “when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for the public at large,” according to the judgement in the Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1969) case. This entails a Hindu ritual called the ‘prana pratishta’ after which the deity is believed to have come alive. However, a mosque, a church or a gurdwara cannot be considered as juristic entities because these are places where people gather to worship and are not objects of worship themselves, according to a Supreme Court verdict in 2000. 
	
	
	
	
	
	<div type="Slideshow" msid="71948744" hostid="261" title="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" firstImageMsid="71948747" slideCount="3"></div>

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

<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

<ul><li>It said that the office of <keyword id="6363345" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji">CJI</keyword> will come under Right to Information act (<keyword id="6356198" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="RTI">RTI</keyword>). </li><li>This means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application.</li><li>However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. </li></ul> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of India has made its <keyword id="42759" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice">chief justice</keyword> accountable to the public. It said that the office of CJI will come under Right to Information (RTI) which means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application. “RTI office of <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> is a public authority under RTI. Judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency,” ruled SC in its order. However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. "Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness. The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you can't destroy the institution," the SC bench said. 2010 or now? This order mirrors the Delhi High Court judgement which said that judicial independence was not the privilege of a judge but a responsibility. The case was filed by an RTI activist S C Agarwal who had engaged prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan to file the case. The controversial case had triggered a debate between transparency and judicial freedom. Bhushan had famously questioned if judges inhabit a “different universe” and described their reluctance to part information as “disturbing”. This is the second important judgement that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has pronounced in the last week, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">after AYodhya case order on Saturday (November 9). </a>

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

Mumbai, Dec 26 () Around a third of urban Indians (29 per cent) feel safety for women should be the country's focus in 2020, a survey has revealed.
 Less than half of this number feel the economic condition (12 per cent) and job market (11 per cent) should receive attention in the new year, according to the survey by the UK-headquartered online market research and data analytics firm YouGov.
 Data for this survey was collected online by YouGov Omnibus among around 1,011 respondents in India between December 10-13, 2019 using YouGov's panel of over 8 million people worldwide.
 Not only do people feel women safety needs prominence, close to half of the people (45 per cent) said it did not improve in 2019.
 Although both men and women felt this equally (43 per cent men and 48 per cent women), there was a difference of opinion amongst the age groups, it said.
 A higher number of Gen X (52 per cent) felt that measures for women safety did not show any advancement in 2019 as compared to the millennials (40 per cent), it added.
 Moreover, many felt that economic conditions (39 per cent), political situations (35 per cent) and job scenario in the country (35 per cent) did not see any improvement in 2019.
 However, over a third (35 per cent) said technological developments witnessed a positive shift in the past year.
 Looking back at the past year, YouGov data showed that although happenings from the sports and entertainment world remained in the public eye throughout 2019, politics took precedence over them and the top three highlights of the year belonged to this area.
 When asked what according to them was the most important political event of 2019, the revoking of Article 35A emerged on top (with 28 per cent saying it was the most important event).
 Similarly, for the most important cultural and sports events, 'the Ambani wedding' and 'FRIENDS' 25th Anniversary' and 'India's performance in ICC World Cup 2019' came on top, respectively.
 However, when asked to choose the highlight of 2019 from a combined list of 20 of these political, cultural and sports events, a quarter (24 per cent) chose the revoking of Article 35A as the spotlight event.
 This was followed by the Ayodhya case hearing (18 per cent) and Bharatiya Janata Party's victory in the general elections (17 per cent), it added.
 Looking ahead at 2020, one in five (19 per cent) Indians said the country's space project Chandrayaan 3 will be the biggest event of the new year.
 Another 16 per cent think the T20 World cup will be a highlighting event, with a higher number of male than female respondents (20 per cent vs 11 per cent) saying this.
 Some even thought the slow GDP growth (14 per cent), Nasa's Mars exploration program (12 per cent), India's smart city mission 2.0 (10 per cent) and the Delhi State Elections (9 per cent) will take centre stage in the new year.
 A smaller proportion felt global events such as 2020 Tokyo Olympics (9 per cent) and the US Presidential Elections (8 per cent) will be the defining moments of 2020. SM ABM
ABM

You Searched For "Ayodhya case" and got 14 results

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

BI India Bureau

All the important milestones in the Ayodhya case since 1992 leading up to the Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

The Waqf Boards and their stance on the Ayodhya dispute awaiting Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments

PTI

Enough is enough, says Supreme court Chief Justice on Ayodhya--wants to end arguments today

PTI

Karnataka Governor sets another deadline at 6 pm for Kumaraswamy to prove majority

BI India Bureau

All the important milestones in the Ayodhya case since 1992 leading up to the Supreme Court verdict

See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case

BI India Bureau

See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case

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

BI India Bureau

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

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

BI India Bureau

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

Preeti

Katya

29 pc of Indians feel women's safety should be focus of 2020: Survey

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides