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

<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>‘<keyword id="482917" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha-election-results">Lok Sabha election results</keyword>’ was the most searched for news items on Google in 2019, followed by India’s second mission to Moon — <keyword id="414120" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chandrayaan-2">Chandrayaan 2</keyword>. </li><li>Users were also avidly searching for details on Article 370 and the PM Kisan Yojana this past year. </li><li>The <keyword id="399476" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya-verdict">Ayodhya verdict</keyword>, though a very recent event, is also among the 10 most searched news terms on Google in 2019. </li></ul>A lot of big things happened in India over the past year, from renouncing Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood to attempting to land on the Moon — even finally deciding the property rights for the controversial parcel of land in Ayodhya. But none were more important than the results of the world’s largest democratic exercise, the Lok Sabha election, according to Google’s Year in Search 2019 report. It’s not the just the Lok Sabha election results that people were avidly searching for online — but also the election results of the Maharashtra assembly election and the Haryana Assembly elections. Here are the top 10 new events that had Indians googling their fingers to the bone:

Top news events of 2019 that had Indians Googling their fingers to the bone

Top news events of 2019 that had Indian googling their fingers to the bone

<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

The early winter air hangs heavy and the smell of fresh paint mixes with that of bleaching powder, used extensively to sanitise disinfect the campus. Almost four years after the <keyword id="6355192" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lucknow">Lucknow</keyword> High Court shifted out to the new building on Faizabad road, the old High court building in Kaiserbagh is buzzing with activity again. It is here that the special CBI court will pronounce its verdict in the <keyword id="445212" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Mosque-demolition-case">Babri mosque demolition case</keyword> on Wednesday. Former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, former union ministers, <keyword id="58476" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Murli-Manohar-Joshi">Murli Manohar Joshi</keyword> and Uma Bharti, former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, former MP Vinay Katiyar and several other VHP leaders are among the 32 accused whose fate will be decided in the case on Wednesday. Ahead of the court verdict, a high alert has been sounded across the state for Wednesday. According to sources, more than 2,000 <keyword id="6393370" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Police-personnel">police personnel</keyword>, half of them in civil clothes, have been deployed to ensure the security of the area. SP Traffic Purnendu Singh said that all vehicular traffic has been banned the area and only ambulances, fire brigades and hearse vans will be allowed to move in the area. This will remain in force till the court verdict is announced. "There will be other diversions too and barricades will be put up at some places," he said. Besides, security has been beefed up in 25 districts that are known to be communally sensitive in Uttar Pradesh. Special security arrangements have been made in Ayodhya also where police personnel have been deployed in adequate numbers. Rapid Action Force personnel have also been deployed in Lucknow and Ayodhya. The CID, Lucknow intelligence unit and the CRPF are manning the complex and dog squads have also been deployed in the court that has been fitted with new CCTV cameras. Additional district and session judge (Ayodhya matters), SK Yadav, who has been hearing the case on a day-to-day basis since May 2017, has asked all the 32 accused persons to be present in the court when he pronounces the judgment on Wednesday. <keyword id="1223966" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="the-verdict">The verdict</keyword> will be announced in Court room number 18, and it has been decided that only five out of 32 accused will be inside the courtroom at any time. The rest will be seated outside in the lobby. There were 49 accused in the case apart from lakhs of 'kar sevaks' named in two separate FIRs lodged at the Ram Janmabhoomi (RJB) police station on the day of the demolition. Seventeen named accused, including Bal Thackeray, Ashok Singhal, Mahant Avaidyanath, Giriraj Kishore and Vijayaraje Scindia passed away during the course of the trial, leaving 32 accused in the case. Sources said that L K Advani, Uma Bharti, MM Joshi and Mahant Nritya Gopal Das are unlikely to be present when the court announces its verdict. Their applications for exemption are likely to be moved by their counsel before the court and they will seek exemption on health grounds. Uma Bharti has been found Covid positive and admitted to a hospital while Kalyan Singh was also hospitalised after testing positive for Covid. <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/punjab-bjp-sets-up-8-member-panel-to-tell-farmers-the-benefit-of-the-new-agricultural-laws/articleshow/78397519.cms">Punjab BJP sets up 8-member panel to tell farmers the benefit of the new agricultural laws</a>

You Searched For "ayodhya verdict news" and got 5 results

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

Top news events of 2019 that had Indians Googling their fingers to the bone

Prabhjote Gill

Top news events of 2019 that had Indian googling their fingers to the bone

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

BI India Bureau

Babri Masjid demolition verdict today, UP on high alert

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides