Latest news with #AllahabadHighCourt
News18
6 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
Allahabad HC Seeks State's Reply On Objections To Bankey Bihari Temple Trust Ordinance
Last Updated: The objections were raised by amicus curiae Sanjay Goswami in a matter filed under Article 227 concerning the temple's administration The Allahabad High Court on Monday took on record serious objections raised against the Uttar Pradesh government's move to constitute a trust for the management of the Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple in Mathura, and directed the State to respond. The objections were raised by amicus curiae Sanjay Goswami in a matter filed under Article 227 concerning the temple's administration. The court was hearing a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and others. Goswami challenged the constitutional validity of The Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, particularly objecting to provisions that allow the inclusion of several government officials as ex-officio trustees. These include the District Magistrate, SSP Mathura, Municipal Commissioner, officials of the Dharmarth Karya Vibhag and the Braj Teerth Vikas Parishad. He argued that the temple is a privately managed religious institution traditionally overseen by the successors of Swami Haridas Ji, and that the ordinance attempts to give the State administrative control over it through indirect means. The move, he said, amounted to a 'backdoor entry" by the State into religious affairs. According to the amicus, while the government may regulate crowd management and ensure public safety, it cannot take over internal administration or interfere with religious practices of a temple that is not State-controlled. He also cautioned that such an ordinance, if not examined, may set a precedent for similar government actions across the State. 'The Constitution forbids such type of venture by the State Government encroaching upon the area of religion," he submitted, while referring to existing examples of temple control by State governments in other regions like Tamil Nadu. The High Court observed that the matter required further consideration and directed the Uttar Pradesh government to respond to the objections raised. The case has been listed for further hearing on July 30. It was also noted that a related matter is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court on July 29. The case is being heard by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal. 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.
News18
8 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law. According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted. These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes. In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform. Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review. view comments First Published: July 23, 2025, 13:27 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.
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Cash discovery row: Justice Varma urges SC to accord urgent hearing on his plea
Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to accord urgent hearing on his plea seeking to invalidate a report by an in-house inquiry panel, which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row . "I will have to constitute a bench," Chief Justice B R Gavai told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who mentioned the matter for Varma. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Leadership Healthcare Degree Public Policy Data Analytics Artificial Intelligence MBA Management Operations Management Design Thinking Technology Product Management healthcare Cybersecurity Project Management Data Science PGDM CXO Others others Data Science MCA Digital Marketing Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details The CJI was heading a bench which also comprised Justices K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo Sibal requested the bench to list the matter as early as possible, saying they have raised some constitutional issues in the plea. Varma has also sought quashing of the May 8 recommendation by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna urging Parliament to initiate impeachment against him. Live Events The three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court conducted the inquiry for 10 days, examined 55 witnesses and visited the scene of the accidental fire that started at around 11.35 pm on March 14 at the official residence of Justice Varma, then a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and now in the Allahabad High Court.
India.com
12 hours ago
- India.com
SC Upholds Allahabad HC Order: No Arrest For 2 Months Following Domestic Violence Complaints Under IPC 498A
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court's guidelines regarding complaints/FIRs filed under the Domestic Violence Law (IPC 498A), which direct that accused persons should not be arrested for two months after the complaint is registered. The Supreme Court stated that the guidelines set by the Allahabad High Court will remain effective, and the concerned departments must adhere to them. The Allahabad High Court, in its 2022 judgment, issued these guidelines to curb the increasing trend of misuse of Section 498A, where the husband and his entire family are falsely implicated. The key instruction in the High Court's guidelines was that during a two-month cooling-off period after the FIR or complaint is registered, no arrest or police action will be taken against the accused. During this period, the matter will be immediately referred to the Family Welfare Committee in each district. In another development, the Supreme Court has directed an IPS officer to tender an unconditional public apology to her former husband and in-laws for the "physical and mental agony" caused by several false criminal cases she filed against them during their marital dispute, according to an NDTV report. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih ordered the quashing of all ongoing cases in the matter and dissolution of the marriage, as the couple had separated in 2018. The apex court also ruled that the daughter will stay with her mother, and the husband and family can visit her. In its verdict, the court noted that the husband spent 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. The court held that the suffering they had to endure was irreparable and directed the officer to tender a public apology. "The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," NDT reported, quoting the judges. The judges said that the apology must also be published and shared on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and other similar social media platforms within three days of the order. They clarified that this apology should not be seen as an admission of guilt and will not affect any legal rights, responsibilities, or consequences under the law.
