#Hindu petitioners

[purple-worm]

Some excerpts from Adv. Vrinda Grover's statement at the Supreme Court of India, as a part of the 15 petitions that were heard for the marriage equality bill. She presented arguments for the concept of a chosen family which was a more progressive stance on how families/unions could be defined by the constitution and it goes beyond just same-sex marriage. It could cover polyamory and recognition of queerplatonic intimacies between 2 or more individuals, and much more:

“During COVID, a study that was done on trans persons found that when trans persons due to lockdown and the nature of the disease, had to return to their natal families and their homes. Over there they faced violence. They faced conversion therapy which is prohibited. And that was actually an illustration of what would happen if other social formations of care and support did not exist. This is what has been described as an atypical family. This form of chosen family is recognized in our law; for instance, adoption.

Adoption is a form of chosen family. Today we recognize families and we conceptualize family as by blood, marriage or adoption."

"There is increasing legislative and judicial recognition of a person who may not necessarily be conjoined through marriage or conjugal intimacies. In relation to the advanced directive, every person who is not a minor shall have a right to make an advanced directive in writing specifying any of the following individual or individuals in order of precedents he wants to appoint as his nominated representatives.

"..Ensure that laws and policies recognize the diversity of family forms, including those not defined by descent or marriage and take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure that no family may be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity of any of its members, including with regard to family related social welfare and other public benefits, etc. "

"I would say that what we are canvassing before this court is a different imagination. A new imagination of marriage and relationships and of family. An imagination which actually places at the foundation, love, care, and respect which may or may not come from the natal family because of my sexual orientation and gender identity.”

"There can be a feminist jurisprudence and feminist critique of family and that family can perpetuate caste purity and patriarchal control; so there may be persons who are of different sexual orientations and gender identities, which because of the hostility of natal families actually form intimacies that are non-marital, non-procreative, which are intimacies that are the only social conclave and support they can find."

Her statements were pleasantly surprising. Most of the earlier petitions chose to only focus on gay marriage and trans people having the right to marry, and I didn't expect any of the (star)lawyers/petitioners to go beyond that. But this. This is a sign of liberation. It reminds me a lot of the family code that granted marriage equality in Cuba. I love that we have some very progressive minds fighting this case.

[lestatdelioncourtsbitch]

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing petitions regarding legalization of same-sex marriage. The government is arguing that the concept of same sex marriage is against the so called "indian values" and won't be accepted by majority of the society.

But just because the society is narrow minded, is it right to deny gay couples their personal rights? Is it right to limit the personal rights of any human being based on colonial era views. It is high time we end the stigma around sexuality and accept the fact that gay people are indeed a part of society.

The petitioners are trying to seek recognition of same-sex marriage under various Acts, like the Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Hindu Marriage Act.

They put forth the argument that marriage is a union between two people, not necessarily a man and a woman. They cited that the right to marry cannot be withheld from a section of people based on their sexual orientation.

The centre is arguing that gay couples cannot procreate, but straight couples who cannot proceate are allowed to marry. Women who are past the age of procreation are allowed to marry. How the fuck does procreation decide who can get married??

The Special Marriage Act, which was meant to help people seeking inter-faith marriage (another significant issue in India) requires couple to give a notice before their marriage. As argued, why should gay couple be required to announce their marriage if straight couples don't have to?

Excluding gay people from the basic societal and personal rights only contributes to increasing the stigma against homosexuality.

Providing marriage rights to gay couples does not harm or infringe the rights of straight couples. It just creates a India a more hospitable and welcoming place for the LGBTQ+ community instead of a place we seek to escape

We as a society have come a long way, and legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction.

I hope that the SC will take the right and informed decision.

Looking at the arguments and proceedings of the court, I really think that there is a fair chance that gay marriage is legalised.

As a proud bisexual Indian woman, I would be a more content member my country if the Judiciary takes such decisions to make lives of the LGBTQ+ community in India.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/same-sex-marriage-hearing-we-are-in-charge-dont-tell-us-how-to-conduct-our-proceedings-sc-tells-govt/article66750307.ece

Highlights

CJI- "There is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all… A man or a woman is not a definition of what their genitals are, it is far more complex."

Government argument- society may not accept that same-sex marriages ought to be on par with heterosexual marriages.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul- it is not mandatory that the whole society should accept something for the Court to recognise rights.

Advocate Rohtagi- "We want to enjoy the full panoply of rights available to our heterosexual brethren. We want to enjoy the unit of family. We want privacy and freedom to move freely. The government cannot treat us as lesser mortals and tell us to remain content just because homosexuality has been decriminalised”

[seemabhatnagar]

Temple festival is a celebration of diversity and inclusion, not caste hierarchy

Temple festival is a celebration of diversity and inclusion, not caste hierarchy

Pandiarajan v. The District Collector Virudhnagar, The Tahsildar Thiruchuli & The Inspector Aruppukaottai

WP 30303/2023

Before High Court of Madras at Madurai

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi J disposed of the Writ Petition on 19.12.2023 directing the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department to ensure that all the devotees including the schedule caste people are permitted in the temple festival.

Facts

Petitioner a Scheduled Caste was excommunicated from participating in the temple festival of Arulmighu Chelliyaramman Temple.

The people from Maravar community of the Village were not permitting the Scheduled Caste people to participate in the temple festival and they were preventing them from taking mulaippari and not collecting tax from them for the temple festival.

The Tahsildar had conducted a peace committee meeting on 13.06.2023 with both the groups in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchuli.

A resolution was passed in the said meeting that the village festival has to be performed only as per the advice of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department that no community people is entitled to conduct the festival by collecting tax separately that the parties are restrained from spreading any rumors in the social media.

Submission of the Counsel of the Petitioner

The Hindu caste people were not permitting the scheduled caste people to participate in the Margazhi festival of the above temple.

Wherefore, the present petition was filed to implement the proceedings of the Tahsildar, held on 13.06.2023.

Submission of the Counsel for the Respondents

There was a peace committee meeting held on 13.06.2023 in the presence of the officials, wherein, the parties were advised to conduct the temple festival peacefully.

Observation of the Court

As per the peace committee meeting resolution dt. 13.06.2023, the villagers shall not prevent any body from offering prayers to the deity and from participating in the temple festival.

It was also resolved that the temple festival has to be conducted only by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department.

No person nor any group can restrain a person from performing his religious duties and it is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The temple worshipped by the public is a public temple and the HR & CE Department is having every right to interfere with the affairs of the temple.

It was, in fact agreed between the parties in the peace committee meeting that the festival has to be conducted by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department.

Order

The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department shall conduct the Margazhi festival to Arulmighu Chelliyaramman Temple.

The Tahsildar shall ascertain from the Village Administration Officer and other revenue officials that if any untouchability issue prevails in the Village, he will submit a report to the District Collector and the District Collector shall take appropriate action.

The Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment (HR & CE) Department has to ensure that all the devotees including the schedule caste people are permitted in the temple festival and also to take appropriate action by appointing a fit person after ascertaining the report of the Tahsildar.

Seema Bhatnagar

[petsincollections]

X89.847 Votive plaque (ema)

Object Name: Votive plaque (ema) Place of Origin: Japan Date: 1917 Materials Used: Wood and paint Dimensions: H: 22.7 cm, W: 30.0 cm, D: 1.0 cm (H: 8.9 in, W: 11.8 in, D: .39 in) Credit Line and Accession Number: Fowler Museum at UCLA. Gift of Dr. Daniel C. Holtom. X89.847

In Japan, people who seek divine assistance in overcoming difficulties may place a votive offering known as an ema in a Buddhist temple or Shinto shrine. The illustrations on the ema reflect the petitioner’s problem. Petitioners may paint their own illustration, but as far back as the Edo period (1600-1868), ema were also painted in commercial studios and offered for sale to clients. The petitioner typically added an inscription to the purchased ema, often including a personal name and date. An ema is also sometimes presented simply as an expression of thanks to the deities.

Ema with snake motifs are usually presented at temples dedicated to the goddess Benzaiten, the Japanese version of the Hindu goddess Saraswati. Found in Buddhist and popular religious traditions in Japan, Benzaiten is associated with music, speech, intelligence, happiness, and prosperity. Through their connection with the goddess, snakes are believed to bring financial prosperity and also to cure sickness.

Exhibition Wall Text: Intersections: World Arts, Local Lives, 2006

Fowler Museum, UCLA

[amlawfrimseo]

Ruling by the High Court of Karnataka on Matrimonial Cases

Ruling by the High Court of Karnataka on Matrimonial Cases

Case Overview

In a recent ruling dated 26th July 2023, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S. Dixit of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru addressed the long pendency of matrimonial cases, emphasizing the importance of their swift resolution. The case in focus, Writ Petition No. 14769 of 2023, was filed by Sri. N Rajeev against Smt. C. Deepa under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the expeditious disposal of his matrimonial case (M.C. No. 2514/2016) pending before the Vth Additional Judge Family Court, Bangalore. This case highlights the need for swift Karnataka matrimonial case resolution.

Petitioner's Grievance

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri. Basavaraj R Bannur, sought a decree for the dissolution or nullity of marriage under Section 13(1)(IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The primary grievance was the prolonged delay in the trial and disposal of his case, which had been pending since 2016.

[novumtimes]

Pakistani court adjourns hearing of petition seeking contempt proceedings for not naming Lahore chowk after Bhagat Singh

LAHORE, June 8: A Pakistani court on Friday adjourned the hearing of a petition seeking contempt proceedings against the government for not complying with the court’s order regarding renaming a chowk in Lahore after Independence war hero Bhagat Singh for three months.Bhagat Singh was hanged at Lahore’s Shadman Chowk by colonial British rulers on March 23, 1931, after being tried under charges of hatching a conspiracy against the regime. The freedom fighter is respected in the subcontinent not only by Sikhs and Hindus but also by Muslims.Lahore High Court Justice Shams Mahmood Mirza on Friday adjourned the further hearing of the case till September 13, on the request of one of the respondents.During the hearing, Assistant Advocate General Punjab Asghar Laghari told the court that Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, Rafia Haider (one of the respondents) requested for an adjournment as she has been abroad for a couple of months.The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Khalid Zaman Khan Kakar, told the court that there had already been a lot of delay in the matter, therefore, it should decide forthwith.“After hearing the arguments from both sides, the LHC adjourned the proceedings till September 13,” a court official said.Earlier, the LHC had issued notices to Punjab Chief Secretary Zahid Akhtar Zaman and Deputy Commissioner Lahore.Rafia Haider and the administrator of the City District Government sought a reply to the petition of the Bhagat Singh Memorial Foundation Pakistan in this regard.The foundation chairman, Imtiaz Rasheed Qureshi, had filed the contempt petition for their failure to name the Shadman Chowk after Bhagat Singh.Qureshi said that the LHC in 2018 had ordered the government to name the Shadman Chowk after Bhagat Singh where he was hanged in 1931.“But both the provincial and district governments deliberately did not comply with the LHC’s order thus committing contempt,” he said.Bhagat Singh fought for the independence of the subcontinent. Singh was hanged by British rulers on March 23, 1931, along with Raj Guru and Sukhdev after being tried under charges of hatching a conspiracy against the regime. Singh was initially jailed for life but later awarded the death sentence in another “fabricated case”.Founder of Pakistan Qauid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had reportedly twice paid him tribute during his speech in the central assembly saying there had never been any brave person in the subcontinent like Bhagat Singh.Qureshi stated that Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter of the subcontinent and gave his life along with his companions for the cause of freedom.“It will be in the interest of justice to name Shadman Chowk after Bhagat Singh and also install his statue at the square to inspire the people of Pakistan and the world,” he said. (PTI) Previous articleMan arrested in UP over alleged objectionable remarks on Modi, Yogi Source link via The Novum Times

[legaleagleseyegurgaon]

Conjugal Rights in India: A Guide for Filing and Legal Procedures

Conjugal rights are a legal concept related primarily to marriage, which obligates spouses to live together, providing each other with companionship and support. In India, these rights are especially delineated within the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under Section 9, which allows an aggrieved spouse to file for restitution of conjugal rights if the other spouse has withdrawn from their society without a reasonable excuse.

Who Can File for Restitution of Conjugal Rights?

Any married individual whose spouse has left without a valid reason can file for restitution of conjugal rights. This legal remedy is available under the assumption that there was no justified reason for the departure.

Where to File?

Petitions for restitution of conjugal rights should be filed in the district court within the jurisdiction where:

The marriage was performed,

The spouses last lived together, or

Either spouse currently resides.

Conditions for Filing

For a successful claim, the following conditions must be met:

The spouses are not living together.

The withdrawal by one spouse is without any reasonable grounds.

Grounds for Rejection of Petition

A petition can be dismissed if:

The respondent has valid reasons for withdrawal that can be legally substantiated,

The petitioner admits to any matrimonial misconduct, or

The behavior of the petitioner makes it unreasonable for the respondent to live together.

Legal Consequences and Further Steps

If the decree for restitution is granted and the respondent still refuses to comply, the court may enforce it by attaching the respondent's property. Should the decree not be complied with for over a year, it could serve as grounds for divorce. Additionally, the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the decree in a higher court if dissatisfied with the decision.

During the Process

During the legal proceedings, the wife can still claim maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides financial support during and after the litigation process.

Consultation and Legal Services in Gurgaon

For residents of Gurgaon facing matrimonial issues or considering filing for restitution of conjugal rights, it's advisable to consult with a knowledgeable family lawyer. Finding the best family lawyer in Gurgaon or the best female divorce lawyers in Gurgaon can provide tailored legal advice and representation, ensuring your rights are protected. Legal Eagles Eye in Gurgaon can be an excellent resource for those needing expert legal guidance on these matters.

[angel0news]

Citizenship Act CAA Unconstitutional? 237 Petitions Before Top Court Today

Amid the row over the Centre's move to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) weeks before Lok Sabha election, the Supreme Court will hear today a batch of 237 petitions challenging the law. A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra will hear the matter.

Among the petitioners are Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a political party primarily based in Kerala, and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, Trinamool leader Mahua Moitra and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

The day after the Centre notified CAA rules, the two organisations approached the Supreme Court, seeking a pause on the implementation of the law. They termed CAA "discriminatory" against the Muslim community.

Back in 2019, when the Citizenship Amendment Bill cleared the Parliament, multiple petitions had been filed against it. But the court had not paused its implementation because the rules had not been notified. On Friday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that there was no question of a pause back then since the rules were not notified. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then said that the fact that the rules were notified before the elections was irrelevant.

Under this law, non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan fleeing religious persecution can seek Indian citizenship. Persons from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, are eligible to seek citizenship under CAA.

The Opposition has slammed the Narendra Modi government over the timing of the law's implementation - four years after it cleared the Parliament. The move is "evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam", party leader Jairam Ramesh has said.

Trinamool Congress chief and Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has said she doubts the legality of CAA and alleged a conspiracy to "snatch citizenship rights". "BJP leaders say CAA gives you rights. But the moment you apply for citizenship, you become illegal migrants and you will lose your rights. You will lose rights and be taken to detention camps. Please think before you apply," she said.

The Centre has trashed the Opposition's allegations. Stressing that the CAA is not "unconstitutional", Home Minister Amit Shah has accused the Opposition of resorting to the "politics of lies". On the timing of the law's implementation, he said, "BJP made it clear in its 2019 manifesto that it will bring CAA and provide Indian citizenship to refugees (from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan). BJP has a clear agenda and under that promise, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was passed in both houses of Parliament in 2019. It got delayed due to Covid."

He has also said that minorities of the country "need not be afraid because CAA has no provision to take back the rights of any citizen".

[speedyposts]

Hindu prayers begin inside India’s Mughal-era mosque after court order

Hindu worshippers have begun praying inside a 17th-century mosque in the Indian city of Varanasi, hours after a court order gave them the go-ahead at the disputed site.

The Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi is one of several Muslim places of worship that right-wing Hindu groups, backed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have sought for decades to reclaim.

.adtnl2-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; background-color: #fff; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); margin: 20px auto; } .adtnl2-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; } .adtnl2-banner a img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl2-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left; } .adtnl2-title a { font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #333; } .adtnl2-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #555; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl2-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #4CAF50; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ transition: background-color 0.3s; border-color: #4CAF50; } .adtnl2-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; } .adtnl2-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #888; margin-top: 10px; }

Dabiri-Erewa warns Nigerians against irregular migration, Especially to Canada

The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), Abike Dabiri-Erewa, has urged Nigerians travelling abroad to go legitimately and with proper documentation

Read Article

Ads by NSMEJ

Varanasi is Modi’s parliamentary constituency in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, also governed by the BJP.

On Wednesday, a local court ruled that Hindu worshippers could pray in the building’s basement and ordered the authorities to “make proper arrangements” for worshippers within a week.

Indian media reports said the family members of Hindu priests started praying in the mosque’s basement in the early hours of Thursday.

#WATCH | A priest offers prayers at 'Vyas Ji ka Tehkhana' inside Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, after District court order.

Visuals confirmed by Vishnu Shankar Jain, the lawyer for the Hindu side in the Gyanvapi case pic.twitter.com/mUB6TMGpET

— ANI (@ANI) February 1, 2024

Akhlaq Ahmad, the lawyer representing Muslim petitioners, said the court order would be appealed.

The Gyanvapi Mosque was built during the Mughal Empire in a city where Hindus from across the country cremate relatives by the Ganges river. Hindu worshippers claim the mosque replaced a temple to the Hindu deity Shiva.

Last month, the Archaeological Survey of India said a survey of the site appeared to corroborate the belief that it was originally home to a temple.

Emboldened right-wing Hindu groups have laid claim to several Muslim sites of worship they say were built atop ancient temples during Mughal rule.

Meanwhile, bulldozers have knocked down a centuries-old mosque in India’s capital, a member of the building’s managing committee said.

The Masjid Akhonji in New Delhi, which its caretakers say is about 600 years old, was home to 22 students enrolled in an Islamic boarding school.

It was torn down on Tuesday in a forest of Mehrauli, an affluent neighbourhood dotted with centuries-old ruins from settlements predating modern Delhi.

In Mehrauli, Delhi, the Delhi Development Authority carried out an arbitrary demolition of a 600-year-old mosque on Tuesday.

Imam Zakir Hussain stated that Masjid Akhonji, which housed Madrasa Bahrul Uloom and the graves of revered figures, was completely razed. pic.twitter.com/tjEWowUfQN

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) January 31, 2024

Mohammad Zaffar, a member of the mosque’s managing committee, told the Agence France-Presse news agency it did not receive any prior notice before a demolition was carried out “in the dark of the night”.

He said many graves in the mosque compound were also desecrated and no one was allowed to take out copies of the Quran or other materials from inside the mosque before it was razed.

“Many of our revered figures and my own ancestors were buried there. There is no trace of the graves now,” Zaffar told AFP. “The rubble from the mosque and the graves has been removed and dumped somewhere else.”

The officials said the demolition was part of a drive to remove “illegal” structures from a forest reserve.

Calls for India to enshrine Hindu supremacy have grown rapidly louder since Modi took office in 2014, making its roughly 200-million-strong Muslim minority – the world’s third-largest Muslim population – increasingly anxious about its future.

Last week, Modi presided over a grand inauguration ceremony in the nearby city of Ayodhya for a Hindu temple built on the former grounds of another Mughal-era mosque.

Hindu zealots had torn down the Babri Mosque in 1992 in a campaign spearheaded by members of Modi’s party, sparking sectarian riots that killed 2,000 people nationwide, most of them Muslims.

A decades-long court battle that ensued over the future of the Babri site ended in 2019 when India’s top court permitted the construction of a temple to the deity Ram, who, according to Hindu scripture, was born in the city.

The consecration of the Ram temple by Modi fulfilled a 35-year-old pledge of the BJP and has been portrayed by the party and its affiliates as a Hindu reawakening. It also came months ahead of national elections due by May and is expected to boost Modi’s chances of winning a third term.

Critics accuse Modi of pushing a pro-Hindu agenda and promoting discrimination against Muslims, but he says his government does not do so.

Last week, a senior leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJP’s far-right ideological mentor, questioned whether Gyanvapi Mosque and three others, including the razed one in Ayodhya, were mosques at all.

“Whether we should consider them mosques or not, the people of the country and the world should think about it. They should stand with the truth, or they should stand with the wrong?” Indresh Kumar told Reuters news agency in an interview.

“Accept the truth. Hold dialogues and let the judiciary decide.”

.adtnl2-container { display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; background-color: #fff; border: 1px solid #ddd; border-radius: 10px; overflow: hidden; box-shadow: 0 0 10px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1); margin: 20px auto; } .adtnl2-banner { width: 100%; max-height: 250px; overflow: hidden; } .adtnl2-banner a img { width: 100%; height: auto; max-height: 250px; } .adtnl2-content { width: 100%; padding: 20px; box-sizing: border-box; text-align: left; } .adtnl2-title a { font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; margin-bottom: 10px; color: #333; } .adtnl2-description { font-size: 1.2em; color: #555; margin-bottom: 15px; } .adtnl2-learn-more-button { display: inline-block; padding: 10px 20px; font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; background-color: #4CAF50; color: #fff; border-radius: 50px; /* Pill style border-radius */ transition: background-color 0.3s; border-color: #4CAF50; } .adtnl2-learn-more-button:hover { background-color: #45a049; } .adtnl2-marker { font-size: 0.8em; color: #888; margin-top: 10px; }

Dabiri-Erewa warns Nigerians against irregular migration, Especially to Canada

The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), Abike Dabiri-Erewa, has urged Nigerians travelling abroad to go legitimately and with proper documentation

Read Article

Ads by NSMEJ

[prafulsharma]

Unveiling the Layers of History: ASI's Survey Reveals Ancient Hindu Temple Beneath Gyanvapi Mosque

Introduction:

In a significant revelation, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has unveiled findings from its recent survey of the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi. The report suggests that a "large Hindu temple" existed at the site before the construction of the present-day mosque. According to the ASI, parts of this ancient temple were incorporated into the construction of the Gyanvapi Mosque. The survey was conducted in response to claims by Hindu petitioners seeking year-round access for darshan and pooja of Maa Shringar Gauri within the Gyanvapi Masjid compound. Let's delve into the details of the ASI findings and their implications.

See Dick - Gali Disawar Ka Record

The Historical Context:

The Gyanvapi Masjid, a 17th-century mosque located adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi, has been a site of historical and religious significance for centuries. The Varanasi court, recognizing the importance of the claims made by Hindu petitioners, granted permission for a court-approved scientific survey to ascertain the historical truth behind the construction of the mosque.

ASI's Survey Findings:

The ASI's survey report reveals a fascinating historical layer beneath the Gyanvapi Mosque. According to the findings, a substantial Hindu temple predated the construction of the mosque. Remarkably, parts of this temple were repurposed in the building of the Islamic place of worship we see today. This discovery has the potential to reshape our understanding of the site's history and foster a more nuanced appreciation for the cultural and religious evolution that has taken place over the centuries.

Implications for Access and Worship:

The findings hold particular significance for Hindu petitioners who have long sought continuous access for darshan and pooja of Maa Shringar Gauri within the Gyanvapi Masjid compound. The court's decision to make the ASI report available to all parties suggests a commitment to transparency and a fair resolution of the dispute. As the legal process unfolds, the question of religious access and worship rights takes center stage.

Challenges and Controversies:

The revelation of an ancient Hindu temple beneath the Gyanvapi Mosque naturally sparks debates and controversies. The delicate balance between historical preservation, religious sentiments, and legal considerations presents a complex challenge. The challenge lies in finding a resolution that respects the diverse historical layers of the site while safeguarding the rights and sentiments of different communities.

Promoting Cultural Harmony:

In a country as diverse as India, where cultural and religious histories intertwine, it becomes imperative to approach such discoveries with sensitivity and a commitment to promoting cultural harmony. The coexistence of multiple faiths and the shared history of religious sites underscore the need for dialogue and understanding. The ASI's findings, while shedding light on the past, also offer an opportunity for fostering unity and appreciation of India's rich cultural tapestry.

Looking Ahead:

As the legal process continues and discussions unfold, all stakeholders need to engage in constructive dialogue. Respect for historical truths, acknowledgment of religious sentiments, and a commitment to cultural harmony should guide the path forward. The Gyanvapi Masjid and its surroundings have the potential to become a symbol of coexistence, where the layers of history are not a source of division but a testament to the shared heritage of the people.

See Dick - Satta King Gali Disawar

Conclusion:

The ASI's survey report revealing an ancient Hindu temple beneath the Gyanvapi Mosque opens a new chapter in the historical narrative of Varanasi. As we navigate through the complexities of history, faith, and legal considerations, it is crucial to approach this revelation with an open mind and a commitment to finding solutions that respect the diverse fabric of India's cultural and religious heritage. The story of Gyanvapi is not just about the past; it is an opportunity to shape a future where different communities can coexist in harmony and mutual respect.

[seemabhatnagar]

The son and the daughter are equally entitled to inherit a share of the property by birth as coparceners.

Yagnaseni Patel v. The GM Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. & others

WP No. 28534/2020 before Hon’ble Orissa High Court

U/A 226 & 227 of Constitution of India

Writ Petition Allowed on 22.06.2023

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B R Sarangi J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M S Raman J

Background

This is a case where daughters claim equal share in the property of their late father. After the death of the father petitioner’s 03 brothers got property mutated in their name in the Revenue Record. Petitioner and her 02 other sister filed Mutation Appeal before Sub Collector, Sundargarh. Sub-Collector directed Tehsildar to record the name of 03 sisters in the Record of Rights (RoR). Name was recorded in RoR along with their 03 brothers. Daughter’s than claimed equal share in the property before Claim Commission being daughter of the Coparcener are entitled to get equal share as that of her brothers irrespective of the date of death of her father. Brothers disputed on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court namely Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju and others. In these cases, it was held by the SC that daughters are not entitled to get the benefit being not the co-sharer. Claim Commission decided the matter against the petitioner on 04.01.2020.

Contention of the Petitioner

Judgment, basing upon which the Claims Commission decided the matter, had been referred to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench decided the same in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, 2020 (II) OLR (SC) 569, which was in favor of the petitioner.

Being daughter of the Late Kulamani Patel stand on the same footing as are the sons.

In view of the decision of the larger Bench in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, the decision of the Claim Commission is not sustainable and it be quashed.

Contention of the Respondent’s

Since the parties (Petitioner Daughter) approached the Claims Commission for adjudication of the matter and the same was decided on the basis of the law applicable at the relevant point of time. Wherefore, the present Writ Petition be dismissed.

 Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 should abhor to undertake a deeper examination in such matters.

Hindu Law & Amendment in Hindu Law (2005)

In Hindu Law Succession of property in a Hindu Undivided Family is governed by two schools of law 1. Mitakshara 2. Dayabhaga. Mitakshara entitles a son to a right equal to his father in the joint family property by birth.

All the male descendants of a Hindu in the male line up to the fourth degree of generation are his sons. The adopted child also gets a right equal to the right of his adoptive father in the joint family property from the date of adoption. The daughter is not given a right by birth in the joint family property.

The Parliament, being inspired by the amendments in four States namely Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra & Karnataka, passed The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 for the whole of India.

The amendment is that even in a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law the daughter of a coparcener is made as good a coparcener as a son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. She has a right to agitate in respect of her share in the joint family property.

Decision of Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in re Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others.

 The finding of the apex Court (Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju) that daughters are not entitled to get the benefit of equal share being co-sharers in the ancestral property, no more remains res integra in view of the Larger Bench judgment of the apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others.

In the case of Vineeta Sharma, Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was under consideration and a question was framed “does the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, have a retrospective effect”.

The Apex Court, answered the same in affirmative, held that daughter shall remain as coparcener (one who shares equally with others in inheritance of an undivided joint family property) throughout life, regardless of the question as to whether her father was alive when the law was amended in 2005 or not

Sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth.

Observation of the Orissa High Court

In view of the decision dt. 11.08.2020 of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others., Claims Commission has committed error apparent on the face of the record by passing the order impugned denying benefit to the daughter.

The earlier judgement of the Supreme Court namely Prakash and others v. Phulabati and others & Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B. Raju has no effect in view of the subsequent decision of the Larger Bench.

The daughter has a right to get the property of her father from the date the Amendment Act came into force.

Decision

The Writ Petition was allowed and the order dated 04.01.2020 passed by Claims is not sustainable in the eye of law and was quashed. However, the matter was remitted back to the Claims Commission for re-adjudication.

Seema Bhatnagar

[legalupanishad]

Supreme Court Denies Legalizing: Same-Sex Marriages

This article on 'Supreme Court Denies Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages in a 3:2 Verdict' was written by Ishika Agarwal, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Since ancient times, marriage has been regarded as a sacred thread creating a bond between two people, and this bond not only connects two souls but also two families. In the past, marriage was only possible between a man and a woman. The concept of same-sex marriage or gay marriage did not exist at that time. Those who solemnized their marriage and lived together got legal and social recognition. Both statutory and personal laws have recognized heterosexual marriage, i.e., marriage between the opposite gender. However, marriage between people of the same sex was not recognized until recent times. There are only a few countries around the world that have given legal recognition to same-sex marriages. India has not accepted or granted legal recognition to same-sex marriage. In this article, we will discuss the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriages in India.

Background of the case

There was a total of 21 petitions filed by various same-sex couples, LGBTQIA+ activists, and transgender persons. These petitions took issue with the Special Marriage Act 1954, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, and the Foreign Marriage Act 1969. These petitions were transferred to the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on January 6, 2023. The petitioners, who are supported by prominent lawyers such as Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek, Manu Singhvi, Raju Ramachandran, Anand Grover, Geeta Luthra, K V Viswanathan, Saurabh Kirpal, and Menaka Guruswamy have highlighted the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals and urged the court to recognize such a union, which would enable them to lead a life of dignity comparable to that of heterosexual couples. They also urged that same-sex marriage should be given legal recognition under the Special Marriage Act so that they can avail the other benefits. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, argued that a total of 160 laws would be affected if marriage equality was granted and further added that it is the Parliament that can make, amend, or repeal the laws and Courts have not been conferred with such powers. Contact Us and avail the best assignment help for students available online! Further, the Union Government indicated its willingness to set up a committee to determine whether certain privileges can be bestowed upon same-sex and queer couples without formally recognizing their relationship as a form of marriage. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing Madhya Pradesh State, opposed the petition along with senior advocate Kapil Sibal and senior advocate Arvind Datar.  The high-profile case was heard by a panel of five judges of the Supreme Court of India, including Chief Justice of the Union of India DY Chandrachud, comprising Justices SK Kaul and S Ravindran Bhat. The other members of the panel were Justices Hima Kohli and P. S. Narasimha.

Other countries' views on same-sex marriage

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a US-based LGBTQ advocacy group, 32 countries have recognized gay marriage. This marriage is recognized by court rulings only in 10 countries. These countries include the US, Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, and Canada. In the year 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to legalize gay marriage. Most other countries around the world have already passed laws to allow same-sex couples to get married.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

On Tuesday, i.e., October 17, 2023, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court pronounced four judgements that were written by CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice PS Narasimha, respectively. CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul agreed, while Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha agreed on the same opinion.

Judgement of CJI DY Chandrachud

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) ruled that the Court of Justice is not able to invalidate the Special Marriage Act (SMA) as the Parliament and State Legislature have the exclusive power to do so, leaving the decision-making to them. The Court further asserted that any invalidity of the SMA would result in the loss of the advantages of progressive legislation. Furthermore, he said that the guidelines of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), a government agency under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, discriminate against atypical, unmarried couples adopting a child, thus violating Article 15 of the Constitution, and held that unmarried couples, including queer couples, can jointly adopt a child. He was in favour of the recommendation made by the Union government to constitute a committee to determine the rights and entitlements of queer couples.

Judgement of Justice SK Kaul

Judge Kaul concurred with the view of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) that civil unions for same-sex couples should be recognised by law and that this is an important step towards achieving marriage equality.

Judgement of Justice Ravindra Bhat

He disagreed with the judgement of CJI DY Chandrachud and said that civil unions can only be granted via enacted laws. However, he also favoured the recommendation made by the Union Government. He further added that the present case is very different from previous cases in the way that previous cases were related to the protection of citizens’ rights from violence or harm caused to them by the state. He submitted that the right to marry is not a fundamental right. Justice Bhat stated that the Court does not have the power to constitute a legal framework in this regard, as there are several grounds that need to be taken into consideration, and it is only the legislature that can do so.

Judgement of Justice PS Narasimha

Consenting with Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha said that the right to marry is a statutory right and not a constitutional right. He further agreed with Justice Ravindra Bhat with respect to the CARA regulations and said that unmarried couples, including queer couples, do not have the right to adopt, and these regulations could not be declared unconstitutional. With respect to schemes of gratuity, pensions, insurance, etc. that are not applicable to queer couples, legislative policies in that respect should be taken into consideration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court refused to give constitutional validity to same-sex marriages by a 3:2 majority and also held civil unions unconstitutional. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation of the Union Government, as stated by the Solicitor General of India, to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the rights, entitlements, and other concerns related to same-sex couples but refused to validate the adoption by unmarried couples and queer couples.

Reference

'Same-Sex Marriage Verdict: SC refuses to give marriage equality rights to LGBTQIA+ community in India', LiveMint, 17 October 2023, Available at: https://www.livemint.com/news/samesex-marriage-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-verdict-lgbtqia-special-marriage-act-cji-chandrachud-11697505822651.html Padmakshi Sharma, Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgement In Same-Sex Marriage Case Tomorrow, LiveLaw, 16 October 2023, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-to-pronounce-judgement-in-same-sex-marriage-case-tomorrow-240282 'Same-sex marriage: Key points from Supreme Court verdict', Times of India, 17 October 2023, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/same-sex-marriage-key-points-from-supreme-court-verdict/articleshow/104486756.cms?from=mdr Read the full article

[tadktabhadkta]

Hindu marriage not valid without 'saat pheras': Allahabad High Court

Hindu marriage not valid without 'saat pheras': Allahabad High Court 

In recent proceedings, the Indian High Court ruled that the "saat pheras" ceremony and other rites are necessary for a Hindu marriage to be legitimate. In response to a case in which a man alleged that his estranged wife had wed a second time without first divorcing him, the Allahabad High Court stated. As a result, the Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh-led court granted a plea brought by Smriti Singh, who was disputing the entire course of her husband's charge against her under IPC Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 109 (Punishment of abetment).

If 'saat pheras' are not done, a Hindu marriage is void  The Sanskrit word 'Saptapadi' or'saat pheras', which means'seven stages', is a derivative. In a Hindu wedding, the bride and groom walk seven full circles around the 'agni,' or sacred fire, to symbolize the seven pledges and principles they make to one another. One of the most significant rites of a Hindu wedding is the formation of circular circles, known as "pheres." According to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, any party's traditional rites and ceremonies may be used to solemnize a Hindu marriage.

What was the case?

Smriti Singh, the petitioner, wed Satyam Singh in 2017. She left her in-laws' house due to strained ties and filed a FIR citing dowry harassment. The police filed a charge sheet against the spouse and his family after conducting an inquiry. Later, Satyam accused his wife of bigamy in an application he sent to higher-ranking police officers. The claims against Smriti were thoroughly looked through by the Circle Officer of Sadar, Mirzapur, who judged them to be false. On September 20, 2021, Satyam later filed a complaint, stating that his wife had wed a second time. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh stated in his examination of a case submitted by Smriti Singh, "It is generally recognized that the term'solemnise' means, in the context of marriage... The marriage must be performed with these suitable rites and in accordance with necessary form in order to be regarded solemnized. "There is no specific allegation concerning the 'Saptapadi' in the complaint or in the statements submitted before the court," the court said while voiding the summons order. "Accordingly, this court believes that no prima-facie offence has been established against the applicant, as the claim of a second marriage lacks supporting evidence," it continued. Also Read This : Sikkim Cloudburst: Death Toll Rises To 14, Over 100 Missing Including 22 Army Men, PM Assures Help Read the full article

[amlawfrimseo]

Filing a Petition for Divorce in India

Filing a Petition: The divorce process in India begins with the crucial step of filing a petition. This is the formal action taken by one spouse, known as the petitioner, to initiate the legal proceedings for divorce. The petition is filed in the appropriate family court, which has jurisdiction over the matter based on factors such as the place of marriage, the residence of the respondent, or where the couple last resided together

Preparing the Petition

The petitioner must meticulously prepare the petition, ensuring that it comprehensively details the grounds for seeking divorce. These grounds vary depending on the personal law applicable to the marriage. For instance, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, grounds can include cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion to another religion, mental disorder, and more. Under the Muslim personal law, grounds such as incompatibility and failure to fulfill marital obligations might be cited.

[news-global]

Gyanvapi Mosque Case

The Gyanvapi Mosque case is a contentious legal battle revolving around the ownership of the Gyanvapi Mosque complex in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India. At the heart of the dispute is the claim made by Hindu petitioners that the mosque was constructed on the remains of an ancient Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva. Contrarily, the Muslim side firmly denies this assertion, contending that the…