Once the High Court had given the decision to remove the mosque, then it was said that the Supreme Court which gave tough decisions on the temple of Shriram today .

The Honorable Supreme Court gave the date on the Ayodhya Shriram Temple case. After the High Court’s verdict in 2010, the case of the Ayodhya Shriram temple was moved to the Supreme Court and from 8 years till today, Ramlalla has been sitting in the tent till date and date only. There have been many such occasions when the Honorable Court has readily appeared on many occasions, but the Ayodhya Shriram Temple case has received date and date only.

It was being said that when the hearing began from October 29 then there will be a hearing every day after that but it did not happen and even this time, only date. Although the date has not been received at this time, the Supreme Court has said that the next hearing will be held in January and the date will be told only in January. We are going to tell you a case in which the Supreme Court had said that people’s beliefs should be respected .

That matter was linked to a mosque, but when it comes to Hindu beliefs, there is a change in the honorable court of justice. We are not questioning the Supreme Court here but are comparing two cases and the comparison comes only in the context. Explain that there was a mosque in the Allahabad High Court (Prayagraj) campus. While hearing a PIL, in November 2017, the High Court had ordered the removal of the mosque within three months.

The court said that this land belongs to the High Court. The construction of the mosque is illegal encroachment, so the mosque should be removed from there within three months. After the High Court this case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court banned the action of the removal of the mosque with immediate effect. It was argued that the emigration of the mosque would hurt the feelings of Muslim society. The Supreme Court told the High Court that the two parties should resolve the matter with the interaction between each other.

Apart from this, the Supreme Court had told the Yogi Government that he should tell about giving alternative land to build a mosque. The illegal mosque remains in the Allahabad High Court complex till today, because of its removal, the feelings of Muslims will be hurt but the feelings of Hindus on the Ayodhya issue are irrelevant, whether it is crushed or crooked, it seems that the Honorable Supreme Court does not make any difference does matter.


The whole nation was trying to know the court decision on the urban Maoists. They finally came.

The eyes of the whole country, including the conspirators, urban Maoists in Bhima Koregaon violence were restored to the Supreme Court. The country wanted to know that the court will send the urban Maoists to police custody or they will give bail. While passing the verdict, the Supreme Court has rejected bail application of three urban Maoists Arun Ferrera, Vernon Gonzalevis and Sudha Bhardwaj, and has given the same verdict,

Whose country was expected A Pune court of Bhima Koregaon Violence has sent the accused Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonzalev to the police custody till November 6. Sudha Bharadwaj has moved away from the Pune Police’s residence in Faridabad, Haryana. On Friday, the bail application of the three workers was rejected by the sessions court of Pune.

Dismissing the bail petition of Sudha Bharadwaj, including Gonjalvis and Fherera, District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge) De Vadane said that the material collected by the police appears to have a connection with their Maoists. Tell that three people were already detained but the Pune police was not able to take them into custody because different courts had banned them (after taking them into custody). When the bail plea was rejected, Pune police detained Ferreira and Gonzalvis.

Due to alleged involvement in the violence in Bhima-Koregaon on January 1, Pune Police had arrested these three in August with poet P Varvara Rao and Gautam Navlakha. Police have claimed that they have confiscated the conversation between them and the top Maoist leaders on e-mail. Nawalkha was released by the Delhi High Court in the case. The Bombay High Court has put an interim stay on his arrest till November 1. On the same day, the petition will be heard on the petition seeking a probe into the disturbances.

District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge) De Vadane said, “In the guise of social service, human rights, these people are working for the banned organization (CPI Maoist) and threat to India’s unity, integrity, security and sovereignty. Engage in activities being undertaken to deliver.

0In the order given on Friday, the judge said in this order, at this stage, on the basis of material collected by the investigating officer, relations with the banned organization (CPI Maoist) are first confirmed. He said that the investigation is at a turning point.

Listen to the judge just before the bashing of the court on Section 377

The statement of this judge exposes many hidden faces Statement of judges is a mirror to politicians

After dismissing Section 377 of the Supreme Court’s view of homosexuality as a crime, the country’s largest major nation is hurt by this decision of the judiciary and is criticizing this decision. But Section 377 has come to answer the questions raised by the people of the Supreme Court who were involved in this case.

We are talking about Supreme Court Judge Justice Chandrachud who has exposed many faces with his statement. Justice Chandrachud has said why politicians often give powers to the judges? Supreme Court Judge Justice Chandrachud expressed disappointment over the government’s decision to leave the verdict on sensitive issues like challenging section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and said that the leaders had to leave such powers on the judges The work is going on daily.

Justice Chandrachud said, “Why do leaders give power to judges many times and we are seeing it in the Supreme Court everyday. We saw in section 377, where the government told us that we are leaving it at the discretion of the court and ‘this discrimination of the court’ was a very tempting principle for me not to answer, so the second day in my judgment, I answered Gave.

Justice Chandrachud said that the verdict in Article 377 represents the true sense of fighting between the laws of colonial origin and the laws that represent the right values of constitutional values. The judge also said that the need for reconciliation with the values of constitutional jurisprudence of the colonial laws before or after independence has also been demonstrated in this judgment.

In the year 2018, the 19th Annual Bodh Raj Sahni Memorial Lecture organized by Justice Chandrachud National Law University was speaking on the subject of “the rule of law in constitutional democracy”. The Supreme Court, which partially annihilated Section 377 of the IPC, which held gay sex in the category of crime, in its verdict mentioned the history of this 158-year-old provision which was made in 1533 during the reign of King Henry VIII of Britain. Taken from law.

The Constitution Bench of five judges of Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice RK Nariman, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DJ Chandrachud and Justice Indu Malhotra said in their decision on Thursday that section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has given constitutional right to equality and dignity Is violated. Justice Nariman and Justice Chandrachud have explained in detail about the development of the stream in their separate but agreed decisions

Justice Nariman said that Section 377 is based on the British Act, 1533, which was made by the then King Henry VIII. Through the Biggie Act, the “condemnable and disgraceful crime” of the great (anal intercourse) with the human race or the animal was prohibited. Justice Chandrachud said in his judgment that the word “big” is derived from the old French word “bugre” and it means anal sex.

Supreme Court now decides on section 377 Celebrating at the homosexual after the Supreme Court verdict

Earlier the government passed the SC / ST act

Earlier the government passed the SC / ST act. Supreme Court now decides on section 377 Celebrating at the homosexual after the Supreme Court verdict Just a few days before the Supreme Court’s decision by the Central Government, the SC ST Act was not enough to have passed the law and passed that another case suddenly changed India’s old culture

Where the Congress Party had already cleared its stand in this matter, Arun Jaitley, who was counted among the most cautious ministers of the Bharatiya Janata Party ruled some time ago, had also indirectly agreed to it in one of his statements. After all, the Supreme Court’s Supreme Decision came on the issue after which the gay people have jumped. It is known that in the much anticipated case, finally the Supreme Court Court has said that homosexuality is no longer a crime

This is a big win for the LGBTQ community. These laws, which have been implemented for almost 150 years, are now over. Whether there is a gay sex crime or not, the case was heard in court in July. After the 4-day hearing between July 10-17, the court had reserved the decision. The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench comprises Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice Chandrachud, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Indu Malhotra. All these have given an unanimous verdict.

Supreme Court has declared a historic decision today, that the agreement on consensus will not be a crime now. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on the validity of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which confirms homosexuality, has been ruled by the court, that it was demanded by the court that the sexual intercourse between mutual consent between two adults was not considered as crime. Go.

Hindu Dharmacharya had strongly opposed this demand but it is believed that satisfactory arguments could not be presented on this issue by the Central Government and finally the gay ideology was won. 

Akhilesh wanted to take back the case of the terrorists of the blast? Question-about Akhilesh is surrounded by Supreme Court verdict

In 2007, the case of terrorist attack in Lucknow’s Kachhari, capital of Uttar Pradesh, once again is in the headlines. The reason for this is that Dr Tariq Kazmi of Azamgarh and Mohammad Akhtar of Kashmir were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court for two terrorists in the Lucknow Kachari blast case

The two terrorists who have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court, once the Uttarakhand Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav wanted to take back the trial of these terrorists. After the Supreme Court’s verdict, the Bharatiya Janata Party has become an attacker on Akhilesh Yadav, which has stirred up the stirring state politics. BJP spokesman Shalabh Mani Tripathi said that the terrorists who have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the court,

Akhilesh Yadav tried to bring the same terrorists back from jail and tried them in his government. Due to the court’s refusal, the trial of these terrorists could not be repaired and today the court has convicted these terrorists and sentenced them. Shalabh Mani Tripathi said that after the decision came from the court, it has become clear that in the SP government, how did not only the hooligans, the mafias, but the terrorists also had political protection.

For the politics of appeasement, the Samajwadi Party tried to get rid of the goons, the mafias, the terrorists, from the prison.

By doing so, the SP government worked to increase terrorism and to spoil the atmosphere of the state. The BJP spokesman said that the decision of the government was stunned by the people who had voted for the government for the promotion of the state by voting and in the last assembly elections, the people of the state gave the punishment to the Samajwadi party.

Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman said that former Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav should answer that why even after taking oath of protection of the people, why did he commit the help of the dreaded terrorists? Shalabh Mani Tripathi said, “Who does not remember that when the serial blasts in the entire state along with Kachri in 2007, the investigating agencies had arrested terrorists Dr Tariq Kazmi and Mohammed Akhtar with complete evidence after the hardships.

Despite all the evidence and evidence in this case, the Akhilesh Yadav in the SP government tried to withdraw the lawsuit filed against these terrorists and on the instructions of the Chief Secretary Justice, he had written the letter to DM and ordered the trial to be withdrawn. This move of the government was not only a snap of the security agencies but also the morale of militant forces and the atmosphere of peace in the state was born.

In the matter, the court had refused to withdraw the lawsuit against the terrorists, who were shouting at the Akhilesh government’s intention and now on the basis of the evidence, the court has sentenced these terrorists to death. 

Priya Prakash, as opposed to Islam, was known by many religious people, police station and sought punishment, now comes the judgment of the Supreme Court

Supreme court new decision on Priya Prakash case

Famous Malayalam actress Priya Prakash had suddenly faced the resentment of all religious people, due to which she had suffered a mental anguish for some time, in a very short time, she became very famous with her eyes’ movements.

A large section of the Muslim community had started taking the court against them from the court to the police station and in no case was demanding punishment for declaring them as anti-Islam. It is known that the Supreme Court’s decision is not less than a boon for the newly-turned actress Priya Prakash, because after the Supreme Court’s decision, the FIR registered in Telangana and Maharashtra against Kerala Actress Priya Prakash Warrier has been canceled.

Priya Prakash, who reached the court under heavy pressure of Muslim organizations, got immediate relief only when the Supreme Court had banned the FIR on February 21 last.

After this, the famous actress Priya Prakash filed a petition in the Supreme Court and demanded the repeal of the cases against her, which was decided in her favor. In this matter, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Chief Justice Deepak Mishra said in one of his orders that the songs of Oru Ovar Love do not hurt the feelings of the Muslim community.

The most relieved thing is that the Supreme Court has ordered that no FIR will be lodged against Priya Prakash in future even with this song. In his petition Priya Prakash had said that some people have filed cases after making false translations of Oru Ovar Love’s song. In his petition, he feared that such cases could be registered in other non-Malayali speaking states too

FIR was lodged against Priya Prakash Warrier in Telangana and Maharashtra. FIIs were accused of hurting feelings of a religious community on filmmakers 

Here is the national consensus: After the UP massacre of the sadhus in Haryana

The Supreme Court asked the Rajasthan Government – “What has been done in the case of rakbar”?

Here is the national consensus: After the UP massacre of the sadhus in Haryana, the Supreme Court asked the Rajasthan Government – “What has been done in the case of rakbar”?

This is the time when the country is troubled to know who is he who is cutting his tongue by killing one and doing a sadhu. Who has become such a victim of frenzy, who is going to kill the sadhu in the saffron cloth several kilometers away and after that it is far from the grip of police and administration. Who is the problem, who is more from the temples of Hindus, who does not want to be worshiped in Hindu temples.

But at the same time, the Supreme Court has expressed its concern that in the case of Rakbar, The rakbar who was beaten to death in Alwar and the charges were placed on the guards. However, it is not clear now that there was no ruckus in the smuggler. It is to be known that the Supreme Court has asked the Rajasthan government for a reply in the murder case of Rakabhar Khan, allegedly by the alleged gorkhicks in Alwar, Rajasthan.

The bench of three judges, headed by CJI Deepak Mishra, on hearing the contempt petition filed against Rajasthan government, has asked the principal secretary of Rajasthan to file an affidavit within a week to explain the action taken in this case.

Last month, the Supreme Court had issued instructions to the central and state governments in this case. The court had said about the killings in the name of Mob Lynching and Gaurakshi that no citizen can take law in their own hands. The state government will work in a state of a state in a state of crisis and chaos. The next hearing of the case will be on August 30. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has asked all the states to file a compliance report for mobs lynching. 

“Religion is a relationship between you and your creator.”Supreme Court said right of a woman to pray is a constitutional right

Supreme Court said right of a woman to pray is a constitutional right

“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion… This means your right as a woman to pray is not dependent on a legislation. It is your constitutional right,” the judge said. 

The Supreme Court referred the petitions on women’s entry to Sabarimala temple to the Constitution bench. the Kerala government said women should be allowed entry to the temple.
The right of a woman to pray is a constitutional right and does not depend on laws, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a bunch of petitions that challenge the traditional ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age in the famous Sabarimala temple. The temple board has even made it mandatory for women to provide age proof before they are allowed in. Women in this age group are restricted from offering prayers at Sabarimala
Every woman is also the creation of God and why should there be discrimination against them in employment or worship,” said Justice DY Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench hearing the case.
Tagging a woman’s right to enter the famous Sabarimala temple with her menstrual cycle is unreasonable, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench observed on Wednesday.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, asked whether the exclusion of women aged between 10 and 50 from entering a temple because they are considered ‘impure’ amounts to the practice of untouchability, a social evil abolished by law.
The CJI said there is no concept of “private temple , Once a temple is opened, everybody can go and offer prayers. Nobody can be excluded. The Chief Justice noted that the Sabarimala temple drew funds from the Consolidated Fund, had people coming from all over the world and thus, qualified to be called a “public place of worship.”
A batch of petitions has challenged the prohibition on women of a certain age group from entering the Sabarimala temple.”In a public place of worship, a woman can enter, where a man can go. What applies to a man, applies to a woman,” Chief Justice Misra observed.
The Kerala government was quick to point out to the Bench that the State supported entry of women into the Sabarimala temple. In 2016, the State had opposed it in the Supreme Court.
 “There is nothing in health, morality or public order that prevents a woman from entering and offering worship in a temple opened for the public… The prohibition in Sabarimala is discrimination not just on gender but sex. Menstruating women are viewed as polluted,” Ms. Jaising submitted.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said women and their physiological phenomena are creations of God. If not God, of nature.”A woman is a creation of God, if you don’t believe in God, then of nature. Why should this (menstruation) be a reason for exclusion for employment or worship or anything,” he said.
He quoted Article 25 (1) which mandates freedom of conscience and right to practise religion. “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion…”
“This means your right as a woman to pray is not even dependent on a legislation. It is your constitutional right. Nobody has an exclusionary right of entry to a temple,” Justice Chandrachud observed. Chief Justice Misra pointed out that there were many temples which allowed visitors only up to a certain point, but there are none which ban entry to the temple in total.
Justice Rohinton Nariman, also on the Bench, observed that the Constitution upheld the ideals of liberty of thought, expression, belief and faith, be it for man or woman. Justice Nariman said the prohibition on women aged between 10 and 50 is “arbitrary”. He said menstruation can also happen as early as nine and extend to the late fifties.
Ms. Jaising submitted that Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 allows a “religious denomination” to ban entry of women between the age of 10 to 50 years. She said the discrimination was a violation of the fundamental rights to equality and gender justice.
She said the right to enter a temple extends to all Hindus, regardless of caste, sex or gender.”What is good law for Harijans is good law for women,” she submitted.
When Justice Chandrachud initially told Ms. Jaising that the petitioners should focus on Article 25 (freedom of religion) rather than on Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) of the Constitution, Ms. Jaising responded that “menstruating women are not allowed even to intermingle within their own family. This is untouchability!”
On Rule 3 (b) and the right of a religious denomination to ban women from entering temples, Ms. Jaising said, “Freedom of conscience resides in humans. Institutions only have the right to manage their affairs. It is my right to worship. Denominations have no right under Article 25.”
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said the prohibition on menstruating women amounts to drawing out a “forced declaration” from women about their menstruation. “This is a violation of their dignity and privacy and amounts to involuntary disclosure,” Mr. Ramachandran submitted.

You have also seen many places in the moon-star flags. Is it really related to India or Indianity? This will prove in the Supreme Court

very few people knew that its real history is now Can come in front.

You must have seen this flag in many places … by putting it on many places, giving some religious speech to some, and by putting some to it, going to the temple of idolatry .. But very few people knew that its real history is now Can come in front.
Although there is also a similar flag of Pakistan, it can be considered similar. At times, the security forces and the army etc. have also been shown to show this flag as a challenge. After all these issues, the then Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf Board chairman Wasim Rizvi has decided to bring the truth to the fore. 
It should be known that in the quickest proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday asked the central government under the leadership of Narendra Modi to clarify their stand on the petition to ban moon-star green flag and written a written answer Submit Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has said that the bench of two judges, headed by Justice AK Sikri, has told the opinion of the Central Government in the week. 
Rizvi said, “I have demanded an immediate ban on the green flag of the moon stars from the Supreme Court, because this flag is similar to the flag of Pakistan and the Muslim League.” Wasim Rizvi says that this green flag with half moon and star marks was invented in 1906 by the old Muslim League’s Waqar ul Mali and Mohammad Ali Jinnah before independence. 
The most important thing is that the court accepted the PIL filed by Wasim Rizvi, chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf Board, in which he had demanded a ban on the green moon-star flag across India. Wasim Rizvi, who had become the true symbol of true statements and brotherhood at the present time, filed this petition on April 17. 
In this petition, Rizvi has justified the argument that these flags meet the Pakistani flag very much, and some clerics have resorted to lies and have incorrectly linked this flag to Islam, whereas their religion has nothing to do with Islam. It is not worth taking. 
He said that due to this flag many communal tension spreads and the distance between the two communities increases. Therefore it should be banned. It has been said in the petition that Prophet Mohammed Sahib used white or black flag in his caravan. This demand of Wasim Rizvi is getting widespread support and with a large number of organizations, a large section of the general public also appreciated the work of Mr. Rizvi for telling the history of this flag. 

Hindus and Muslims should be allowed to enter the Hindu temples, after the order came, the angry saint.

The decision made by the Supreme Court over the Lord Jagannath temple in Puri,

The Hindu society is frustrated with the decision made by the Supreme Court over the Lord Jagannath temple in Puri, Orissa and now Jagadguru Shankaracharya Pujayshree Nishchalanand Saraswati of Dwarka Peeth has expressed surprise over the Supreme Court’s decision and said that the Supreme Court’s This decision is not appropriate and there is a shock on the ancient Sanatani civilization. 
Significantly, the Supreme Court has recently given the decision that people of non-Hindu religion can also enter the Jagannath temple. Let us tell you that the tradition of this ancient temple of Hindus has been that non-Hindus are not allowed in the temple. Shankaracharya of Puri Nishchalanand Saraswati and Gajapati Raja Dibya Singh Dev have given permission to allow non-Hindus to enter the temple. Has filed its protest on the proposal. 
It is known that King Dibya Singh Dev is considered to be the first servant of Lord Jagannath. Built in the 12th century, this temple is permitted only for Hindus. Discussions on the entry of non-Hindus in the temple started when the Supreme Court directed Guru Jagannath temple management on Thursday to allow all the devotees to worship God 
Even if they belong to any religion. Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protested on this decision of the Supreme Court that he would file a reconsideration petition in this matter in the Supreme Court, so that the court may consider its proposal again. 
Govardhan Peeth’s Shankaracharya Swami Nishchalanand Saraswati said in a communique that it is not acceptable for us to allow everyone to enter the temple in violation of centuries-old tradition of Sanatan Dharma.
Shankaracharya of the Govardhan Peeth is the head of the Pandit’s head institution Mukti Mandap in Shri Jagannath Temple. Shankaracharya said that the Supreme Court will have to reconsider its decision as Jagannath Amandir has its own importance and the non-Hindus enter the temple till date. If not given then still can not be given. Pujya Shankaracharya hopes that the Supreme Court will change its decision on the rethink petition. 
Badrinath Patnaik, the acting guardian of the Odisha unit of the VHP, told that before taking any action on the temple, Gajapati Raja Diyasinha Deb of Puri and Shankaracharya of Puri Nishchalanand Saraswati should be consulted. Let us know that Jagannath Temple is also known as Sri Mandir. Patnaik said, “The state government will be appealed that he maintain his current stand in the matter and if he fails to do so, then we will file a reconsideration petition in the larger bench of the Supreme Court.