Allahabad HC adjourns hearing in Bankey Bihari temple case till Aug 20
When the matter was taken up before a two-judge bench comprising Justices Arindam Sinha and Manjiv Shukla, it was informed by Additional Chief Standing Counsel R N Pandey that the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 has been challenged in the Supreme Court and it is pending.
The petition has been filed by Sri Bankey Bihari Ji and two others.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no order of the Supreme Court regarding stay of any proceedings in the matter nor any order to transfer the petitions pending or being filed in other courts, and thus the present writ is maintainable here also. However, the court fixed August 20 as the next date of hearing in the case.
On Wednesday, while hearing a separate plea challenging the validity of the ordinance, a single bench of the court fixed August 26 as the next date of hearing in the case. PTI COR RAJ KVK KVK KVK
view comments
First Published:
August 07, 2025, 21:45 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
23 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC to again hear case in which it had rebuked High Court judge for ‘absurd' order
The Supreme Court is scheduled on August 8 to hear again a disposed of case in which it had, earlier in the week, made scathing observations against an Allahabad High Court judge for passing an 'absurd' order. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded the High Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself', and making 'a mockery of justice'. The order had also brought to fore the Supreme Court's apprehensions about the High Court judiciary's performance. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had observed in an August 4 order, disposing of the case. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' to be registered in the civil dispute. The Bench had further asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from the criminal roster and not assign any criminal case to the latter till he demitted office.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Federal Judge Temporarily Halts Construction Of ‘Alligator Alcatraz' Detention Center
Judge Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, announced the order in court. A federal judge has issued a temporary order halting further construction of 'Alligator Alcatraz," a controversial immigration detention center being built in the Florida Everglades. The decision, handed down on Thursday by US District Judge Kathleen M. Williams, temporarily pauses all new construction activity for at least 14 days, according to the Associated Press. Judge Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, announced the order in court and stated that a written ruling would be issued later in the day. While the facility is allowed to continue operating in its current form and can still hold immigration detainees, the order blocks any ongoing development on the site. The temporary restraining order specifically states that 'new construction, including filling, paving, installation of new infrastructure, and installation of new lighting, must stop immediately." The legal battle over the detention center began when several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against both federal and state officials, claiming that construction at the site violates key environmental protections. The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order 'to prevent further irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and the fragile area where Defendants are building this detention center." However, according to a Miami Herald report, multiple environmental experts have warned that additional construction could irreversibly damage the surrounding ecosystem, disrupt native wildlife habitats, and set a dangerous precedent for development in protected wetland regions. The plaintiffs intend to continue pursuing the broader lawsuit, which was initially filed on June 27. Eve Samples, executive director at Friends of the Everglades, voiced her support for the ruling in an interview with the Palm Beach Post. 'We look forward to advancing our ultimate goal of protecting the unique and imperiled Everglades ecosystem from further damage caused by this mass detention facility," she said. The facility, often dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz," is located on a decommissioned airstrip west of Miami. It gets its nickname from the swampland that surrounds it, an area inhabited by native alligators, crocodiles, pythons, and other sensitive species. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Shields minors': Centre Defends Statutory Age Of 18 Years For Consent In Top Court
New Delhi: The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a "deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation. The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous. The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child's emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. "Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).' Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent,' it said. Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the "floodgates" to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships. 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy,' the Centre said. The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor's vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing'. The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said. 'The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children,' it said. Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
