This article examines the Supreme Court's upcoming hearing on challenges to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, alongside petitions seeking its enforcement. It highlights the legal and political debates surrounding the Act, including arguments from both challengers and supporters, as well as the Union Government’s ambiguous stance. The article underscores the Act’s significance in preserving secularism and communal harmony in India.
After three days of hearings between May 20 and May 22, the Court noted there was presumption of constitutionality even as certain aspects required detailed consideration. Here is a run-down of the arguments by petitioners, respondents, and the rejoinders.
Even as the Union’s affidavit and rejoinders were filed by May 4, outgoing CJI Khanna deferred the hearings to CJI Gavai’s tenure. Today, at last, the petitions, including interventions challenging and supporting the Waqf amendment will be heard substantively.
Today, a Division Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna will continue hearing both sides regarding challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. As the Court gears for a hearing that will preliminarily assess whether an interim order is required, our comprehensive explainer breaks down the Union’s counter and the rejoinders.
As the Union files a reply in seven days, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that no new appointments will be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Board
Despite the Supreme Court’s data indicating an impressive rise in the number of women judges in India’s district judiciary, qualitative representation of women judges cannot be improved unless there is broader gender sensitisation. As it reinstated the women judges, the Court highlighted the “stigma” associated with punitive terminations.
Judge Aditi Sharma resigned on July 29 after the judge against whom she raised allegations of harassment was greenlit by the Collegium for elevation. We provide a brief recall of a story that must be remembered.
As petitioners gear up for rejoinder arguments, we bring to you the complete rundown of the arguments advanced by the Delhi Police to oppose the grant of bail to the Petitioners.
In its over 140 page judgment, summarised here, the Court distinguished two sets of reliefs based on the alleged roles assigned to each of the seven individuals in the 2020 Delhi riots.
In its 598 page judgment delivered last week, which discharged Arvind Kejriwal and 22 other accused, a Delhi court ruled that the evidence did not inspire “grave suspicion”, failing to make a prima facie case.
