By Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted two weeks to the Centre to reply in pleas difficult the constitutionality of provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a legislation that protects the identification and character of spiritual locations as existed on August 15, 1947. A bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices Ajay Rastogi and SR Bhat requested the Centre to file its reply by October 31, posting the matter for November 14.
Stressing the truth that when the validity of parliamentary legislation is below problem, the courtroom is guided by the Centre’s stand, CJI Lalit requested how rather more time the Centre needed to file its response.
Submitting that the federal government was contemplating its response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the courtroom to grant two extra weeks.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted that the legislation was handed and not using a debate and that sure questions weren’t thought-about by the SC within the Ayodhya verdict that upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The courtroom within the Ayodhya verdict had held that legislation can’t be used as a tool to achieve again in time and supply a authorized treatment to each individual disagreeing with the course that historical past has taken.
The CJI requested Solicitor General as to what his “personal” views had been on the influence of the Ayodhya judgment on the current pleas.
“In my opinion, it may not be covered. It cannot be coloured by this side or that side,” Mehta submitted.
A plea has urged the courtroom to declare sections 2, and three, which criminalise ‘conversion’ of a spot of worship for one faith or sect into one other and likewise part 4 which says worship shall be decided on the idea of the scenario that existed on August 15 1947.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted two weeks to the Centre to reply in pleas difficult the constitutionality of provisions of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, a legislation that protects the identification and character of spiritual locations as existed on August 15, 1947. A bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices Ajay Rastogi and SR Bhat requested the Centre to file its reply by October 31, posting the matter for November 14.
Stressing the truth that when the validity of parliamentary legislation is below problem, the courtroom is guided by the Centre’s stand, CJI Lalit requested how rather more time the Centre needed to file its response.
Submitting that the federal government was contemplating its response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the courtroom to grant two extra weeks.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi asserted that the legislation was handed and not using a debate and that sure questions weren’t thought-about by the SC within the Ayodhya verdict that upheld the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991. The courtroom within the Ayodhya verdict had held that legislation can’t be used as a tool to achieve again in time and supply a authorized treatment to each individual disagreeing with the course that historical past has taken.
The CJI requested Solicitor General as to what his “personal” views had been on the influence of the Ayodhya judgment on the current pleas.
“In my opinion, it may not be covered. It cannot be coloured by this side or that side,” Mehta submitted.
A plea has urged the courtroom to declare sections 2, and three, which criminalise ‘conversion’ of a spot of worship for one faith or sect into one other and likewise part 4 which says worship shall be decided on the idea of the scenario that existed on August 15 1947.