Tag Archives: #case

1st National Case Comment Writing Competition Organised by Team Attorneylex: Register by 20th April

About the Organisation:

Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.

In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.

Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.

About the Competition:

The objective of this competition is to promote the importance of the latest landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India. This competition will enable the participants to know that how these latest judgments have changed the overall course of justice. The Supreme Court landmark judgments provided as the theme of the Competition would not only enrich the academic experience but also provide knowledge about the practical aspect of the professional legal world. This Case Comment Writing Competition seeks to promote original thoughts, and analysis amongst students, researchers, academicians and legal practitioners.

 Eligibility Criteria:

  • Open to All.
  • All undergraduate and postgraduate students, teachers, research scholars from a recognized school, college or university are eligible to participate in this competition.

List of Cases for Case Comment Writing ( Choose one)

  1. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 808] ( Shaheen Bagh Protests)
  2. Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 5 SCC 1] ( Protection under Anticipatory Bail )
  3. Dr. Shah Faesal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 4 SCC 1] ( Article 370 )
  4. Pandurang Ganpati v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd [2020 SCC OnLine SC 431] (SARFAESI Act )
  5. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v.State of A.P. & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC 383] (100% reservation for tribal teachers)
  6. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of Indian [Death Penalty and Mercy Petition 2014]
  7. Abhilasha v. Parkash [2020 SCC OnLine SC 736] (maintenance under Section 125 CrPC)
  8. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [2020 3 SCC 637] (Kashmir Lockdown)
  9. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu [Cauvery Dispute]
  10. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [ WP (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016]- [Sec. 377 Verdict]
  11. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subash Chandra Agarwal [CJI Office comes under RTI Act 2020]
  12. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors [Gender Equality in Armed Forces 2020]
  13. Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [Judicial Services 2020]
  14. Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors. [Verdict on Live-streaming Apex Court Proceeding]
  15. Justice K S Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Validity of Aadhaar Judgment passed on 26th September 2018)
  16. Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) 373 of 2006] – (Women entry on Sabarimala Temple)
  17. Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1
  18. Independent Though v. Union of India and Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 800
  19. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
  20. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 821

Submission Guidelines:

  • The case comment should preferably include the following elements: Synopsis, background, facts of the case, issues, contentions, findings, reasoning, disposition, critical analysis, conclusion.
  • The submission must be original. 
  • Submission must be in English Language only.
  • It should be submitted in Word/ Docs document format only.
  • Word Limit: 800-2000 words excluding citations.
  • Plagiarism limit: 25%. 
  • Co-authorship is not permitted.
  • Formatting Details:
  1. Font: Times New Roman
  2. Title: Font Size – 14, Bold, Underlined, Capital
  3. Headings: Font Size – 14, Bold, Capital
  4. Content: Font Size – 12
  5. Alignment: Justified
  6. Line Spacing: 1.5

Note: The submission shall also be accompanied by another Word document consisting of a Cover Letter mentioning the Name of the Author/s; Name of the Institution/College/University; Designation; Year of Study (if applicable); Email ID.

Marks Shall be allotted based on:

  1. Understanding of the Facts of the Case (Topic chosen)
  2. Interpretation
  3. Analysis and Conclusion
  4. Presentation and Creativity
  5. Compliance & Strict Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines

Important Dates and Timing: 

  1. Last Date of Registration: 20th April 2021
  2. Last Date of Submission: 21st, April 2021
  3. Declaration of Results: 26th April 2021

Prizes:

  • Winner: Cash prize Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
  • Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal  + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
  • 2nd Runner Up: Cash prize Rs. 500/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal  + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
  • Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
  • E – participation Certificate will be provided to all the participants.

Registration Fee:

Single Author: Rs. 60/-

Payments details:

Paytm/ G-pay/Phonepe- 9616696008 (Gaurav yadav)

Bhim UPI- 9616696008@upi

Bank details-

Name- Gaurav Yadav

Bank – Punjab National Bank

Account Number- 03842193000248

IFSC Code- PUNB0018300

Registration Link:

Click Here to register,

Or https://forms.gle/Li1GYjVZpum1wqoA8

Note: No refund will be made under any circumstances.

Website Link:

https://teamattorneylex.in/

If you have any queries feel free to contact

Vanshika – 07055460463

Gaurav – 09616696008

Email- contact@teamattorneylex.in

REPORT ON SUSHANT SINGH RAJPUT’S CASE

This article is written by Divya Singh Yadav, Sneha Asthana & Vivek Yadav

On 14th June 2020, the 34-year-old actor, Sushant Singh Rajput was discovered dead at his Bandra house within the urban concentrate on the day, which was claimed to be an instance of suicide by the native police. Mumbai police appeared to have closed the case at by showing people it was a suicide. However, as time passed by and Sushant’s father started acting upon the case, various links were made with Sushant’s death and his manager, Disha Salian’s, who died on June 9th, 2020, by accidentally falling off from the 14th floor from her fiancés’ residence in Malad. The short gap of just five days between both their deaths stirred up several rumours and conspiracies which instigated the Mumbai Police to investigate the case further. Several opinions arose on social media platforms and by Television media. 

  1. Heaps of political motives are being imputed within the case right from the word go. From the alleged involvement of high-profile politicians and screenland biggies in Mumbai to the approaching state elections, all types of conspiracy theories are floating around. Nausea has defendant the BJP of attempting to destabilise its government in a geographic area. A radical probe can prove whether or not these theories have any substance or are mere conjectures?  
  2. Some individuals, deliberately or accidentally, are attempting to form a divide between the states. Rhea is being branded as a Bengali lady who experienced necromancy to own complete management over a Bihari boy’s life, whereas Sushant’s family has been stereotypic, like several different Bihari family, as being ‘toxic’, that couldn’t settle for a giant town lady as his girlfriend. The probe can place finish to such ‘toxicity’ being peddled within the property right. 
  3. The probe will bring out the reality of whether or not the alleged suicide or murder of Sushant’s former manager Disha Salian is connected into Sushant’s death. Sushant was found dead solely six days once Disha’s end. It’ll additionally unravel the reality regarding the alleged involvement of influential individuals during this case. 
  4. It’ll additionally finish to the endless rounds of mudslinging between the police and therefore the politicians of 2 states. Shivsena’s leader has alleged that Sushant was displeased together with his father owing to his second wedding. In contrast, a state BJP leader has concerned a narco check of the Shiv Sena leaders for his or her involvement within the case. 
  5. It’ll additionally settle a big jurisdiction question of whether or not state police were well among its statutory rights to lodge FIR within the case and advocate the CBI probe once their geographic area counterparts had not lodged an FIR in the 1st place over the actor’s “unnatural death”. 
  6. It’ll additionally place screenland below scanner and answer the question if the alleged favouritism within the industry had something to try to with Sushant’s death under alleged depression?  
  7. It’ll additionally build it clear whether or not geographic area police were doing the investigation in right earnest or were attempting to scuttle the case struggling since the day, as alleged by Sushant’s family?  
  8. Finally, honest probe ought to guarantee justice to Sushant, his family, and his admirers if there was immorality so behind his death? And it’ll additionally offer justice to Rhea Chakraborty if she had no role to play some within the unfortunate incident. 

The Mumbai police began to put in all efforts to find out the truth only after an FIR was filed by Sushant Singh Rajput’s father K.K Singh in Bihar. The Mumbai police then put their nose to the grindstone to find out all angles of the reason for Sushant’s death. 

Role of Mumbai Police: Mumbai police, in this case, had the power to act under section 174 of CRPC. The police also said that all the instances and the pieces of evidence clearly stated that his death was suicide, and also there was no accused person, and hence there was no need for an FIR.

They started an investigation after his death and concluded that Sushant’s death was a suicide. The police state that the postmortem report was submitted at the Bandra police station. The deputy commissioner of Mumbai, on 22nd June 2020, said that the cause of his death was asphyxia due to hanging. The final post mortem was submitted on 25th June, which confirmed that Sushant’s death was due to hanging. And on 3rd August, police commissioner of Mumbai; Param Bir Singh said that the investigations of the death of Sushant and his ex-manager Disha Salian were not connected to each other.

Mumbai police also claimed that Sushant initially tried to hang himself with the help of a belt, but when that did not work out, he used a green kurta. They also said that due to the discrepancy of Sushant’s height and the distance between him and the fan, Sushant hanged himself in an inclined position.

On 3rd August, the police commissioner of Mumbai stated that there was no direct transfer of money from Sushant’s bank account to Rhea and there was no misappropriation of his funds. The police had investigated 56 people until 4th August.

Initially, the Mumbai police said the CCTV of Sushant’s home was not working on that day but on 3rd August; they stated that they had access to his CCTV footage and according to the recording there was no party at his house a day before his death.

Soon after the Mumbai police began investigating, there was news regarding K.K Singh, Sushant Singh Rajput’s father had filed an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty in Bihar

On July 25th, Sushant Singh Rajput’s 74 years old father, Krishna Kishore Singh, lodged an FIR in Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna, against Rhea Chakraborty, Rhea’s mother, Sandhya Chakraborty, father, Indrajit Chakraborty, brother Showik, house manager Samuel Miranda and business manager Shruthi Modi on the grounds of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code – abetment of suicide.  The charges mentioned in the FIR also include:

  1. Section 306 – abetment of suicide
  2. Section 341 – punishment for wrongful restraint
  3.  Section 342 – punishment for wrongful confinement
  4. Section 380 – theft in a dwelling house 
  5. Section 406 – punishment for criminal breach of trust 
  6. Section 420 – cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

Mr KK Singh has also invoked provisions of the Mental Health Care Act alleging that the ‘machinations’ used by Rhea and her family led to Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide.

Mr Singh had also claimed that Rhea Chakraborty was handling Sushant’s bank accounts and when the balances were dropping low, she had left with cash, jewellery, laptop, credit card, its PIN and password and essential documents and doctors’ receipts. The FIR also claimed that Rs 15 Crores were siphoned off from Sushant’s account into accounts of unknown persons.

He claimed that Sushant was also threatened by Rhea to show doctor’s receipts to the media to prove him mad, as a result of which he would not get any further work.

Mr KK Singh has alleged that Rhea Chakraborty had only befriended Sushant to further her own career using his contacts and that her parents helped her “purloin the assets of my son worth crores of rupees and started interfering in all aspects of his life.”

He also alleged in the FIR that Rhea convinced Sushant to leave is own residence claiming that his house was haunted.

Mr Singh goes on to allege that Rhea blackmailed Sushant and threatened to make his medical record public due to which Sushant almost gave up his cinema career to settle down in Coorg.



Following the FIR, a team of 4 from the Bihar police reached Mumbai for starting an investigation of the case on the same day and on 31st July, the Enforcement Directorate filed an Enforcement Case Information Report against Rhea Chakraborty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

When the Bihar Police team landed in Mumbai, Patna Central Superintendent of Police, Mr Vinay Tiwari was sent to quarantine till the 15th of August in compliance with the State Guidelines of quarantining all domestic flyers. The Bihar police team had, however, collected statements of Sushant’s ex-girlfriend, Ankita Lokhande, his sister, his cook and his friends and colleagues. The team also applied to the Crime Branch to seek assistance from the Mumbai police in collecting information regarding Sushant’s financial accounts. The investigation from both the states together led to a tussle, thereby resulting in controversies regarding elections political moves.

However, on 29th July, Rhea Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the FIR from Bihar to Mumbai because no action of the case had arisen in Bihar; therefore Bihar does not hold jurisdiction to probe the matter. Instead, the Mumbai police should be investigating. Until the plea was decided, Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar, on public pressure, recommended CBI investigation into the matter. On August 19th, the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict and transferred the case to the CBI and validated the FIR that was filed in Bihar.

CBI had taken over the probe on 7th August after the centre had issued a notice after the Bihar government’s recommendation. Then CBI had re-registered the case against Sushant’s girlfriend Rhea, her mother, father, brother, Sushant’s ex-manager and his flat-mate and others based on the complaint made by Sushant’s father earlier with Bihar police on 25th July. 

On 19th August, the supreme court of India allowed CBI to probe into Sushant Singh Rajput’s death.

The CBI investigation was allowed by the SC due to the following reasons:

  1. Mumbai police had not investigated the case in a bonafide manner

The court had observed that the police was investigating the case under section 174 of CRPC, which has a limited scope, and hence no proper investigation could be done. 

  1. Patna police had the jurisdiction to investigate the case

The FIR lodged by Bihar police was valid and was considered to be crucial for the case it was considered necessary to look into the matter. Sushant’s father had filed a complaint based on criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money, and therefore, the incident’s consequences would arise in Patna too.

  1. An independent organisation’s investigation necessary to avoid conflict between the two states

The court had observed that there were conflicts between the governments of both the states, and a lot of allegations were made that the Mumbai police did not do an excellent job in investigating the case.

The judgment said that both the states were making allegations that there was political interference into the matter, and the validity of the investigation was in question. 

  1. Justice for Rhea and Sushant’s family

The court also was in the opinion that the actor had died long before the world could realise his full potential. And the court added that Rhea herself wanted CBI investigation.

  1. To avoid uncertainty due to multiple investigations

The court said that one organisation should be in charge of investigating to avoid confusion about the case.

The court had denied Rhea’s request to transfer the investigation to Mumbai police stating that the provision 406 of CRPC does not grant the power to the supreme court to transfer investigation from one state to another when the matter is only at the investigation stage.

CBI had divided its team into three parts to investigate the matter. The main interrogation and investigation of the accused and other people involved in the matter will be done by the team led by Nupur Prasad (superintendent of police). The deputy Inspector general (DIG) Suvej Haq will be in charge of coordinating with Mumbai police in collecting all the documents regarding the case.

Since the CBI probe has begun, various pieces of evidence have appeared in the open convincing people of murder. The case has highlighted call records, text messages, drug traces, political links, Bollywood Mafia and several other matters. If the world ever knows the truth behind the case, then it could be very detrimental for some of the most influential people of the country. Terror links have also been traced, and the entire film industry has been put under the spotlight through the entire investigation. Remarks about Rhea’s character, her family and her career have also been made by the media channels to create bias.

However, the legal justice system does not depend on such remarks and works on a proof. Several questions need to be answered. 

  1. Why was no action taken once Rajput’s family had alerted in Feb. that his life might be in danger?  
  2. What came of the probe in Rajput’s former manager, Disha Salian’s, case who died six days before Sushant underneath mysterious circumstances?  
  3. Why is not anyone talking and concerning the missing CCTV footage, the duplicate keys, and therefore the fifty SIM cards?  
  4. Are Rajput’s friend Siddharth Pithani‘s statements inconsistent with the menage staff’s?  
  5. How did Rhea manage to rent the foremost costly professional person to assist her case?  
  6. Did Rhea resist Bihar Police’s involvement, and was geographical region government against the CBI probe?  
  7. Why is that the IPS officer sent from Bihar unbroken in quarantine?  
  8. Is there political involvement within the case on the far side mere suspicion?  
  9. Why was it declared an ‘open and shut’ suicide case inside minutes of Sushant Singh Rajput’s body was found?  
  10. Why are details of Sushant Singh Rajput’s medical and treatment reports accessible within the public domains? 
  11. Did Sushant Singh Rajput have mental health issues? 
  12. Was there a party the night before Sushant took his life? 
  13. Was Aditya Thackeray ever at the alleged party? 
  14. Did Salman Khan scold Sushant for ‘misbehaving’ with Sooraj at a party? 
  15. What happened to all the ‘nepotism’ and ‘Bollywood mafia’ debates? 
  16. Why were big Bollywood names dragged into the investigation in the first place? 
  17. Did Rhea Chakraborty take Rs 15 crore of Sushant Singh Rajput’s money? 
  18. Did Sushant’s relationship with his family turn sour over the years? 
  19. Did Steve Huff speak to Sushant Singh Rajput’s spirit, or was it a sham? 

A stricter probe and continuous questioning are what is required. India has seen sudden deaths of actors like Jiya Khan and Sridevi as well. They remained mysteries for the nation too. Commenting on Sushant’s death, Jiya Khan’s mother has tweeted in support for the CBI probe claiming that she is absolutely sure that politics and the Bollywood mafia are involved in the death of Sushant as they were in the death of her innocent daughter. She believes there are people so influential in the industry that cannot tolerate such competition and threaten innocent people to give in to the apparent filthy politics. Unlike Jiya and Sridevi’s case, the country today, especially with the help of the media, strives to find the truth behind Sushant’s death. 

The certainty of an answer in the coming times is mild, but there is hope to find out if what actress Kangana claims to be the game of the Bollywood Mafia is in fact true. The social media attention on the case has definitely led our forces to fight this one out and bring justice to who deserves it. 

Allahabad HC orders Dr Kafeel Khan’s release, sets aside detention order under NSA

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dropped charges under National Security Act against Dr Kafeel Khan, the pediatrician directing his immediate release. Dr Kafeel Khan has been incarcerated in Mathura jail for the last six months. 

The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Marhur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh cancelled his detention in a habeaus corpus petition filed by a Kafeel’s mother. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier extended his detention by three months till November 13.

In its last hearing, the HC bench adjourned the matter as parties prayed to file additional documents and the court wanted to pursue original records of the proceedings under the NSA, resulting in the detention of Khan and further extension of the same.

According to the plea, Khan was earlier granted bail by a court and he was supposed to be released. However, the NSA was imposed against him. Hence, his detention was illegal, the plea said.

Under the NSA, people can be detained without a charge for up to 12 months if authorities are satisfied that they are a threat to the national security or law and order. Khan is currently lodged in a Mathura jail.

The Gorakhpur doctor was arrested on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) for an alleged provocative speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.

Supreme Court fines Advocate Prashant Bhushan with Rs 1

After finding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of Court for his tweets on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari finally sentenced him on August 31st, 2020 to a token fine of Rs. 1. The Bench also stated that if Advocate Prashant Bhushan defaults on this payment then he may be sent to prison for three months and may be debarred from practicing for three years.

The Court had given several opportunities to the Advocate to express his regret and apologise. However, Bhushan had issued a supplementary statement standing by his tweets and refusing to apologise. The Court also pointed out that Bhushan had given publicity to the events of his case by involving the press in it. That being said, the Court added that its decisions are not to be influenced by publication of opinions in the press.

Source: Bar and Bench

Hadiya Marriage Case

           

Facts:-

The petitioner (father )filed a case on the ground that Hadiya (originally Akhila Ashokan) was deceived into marrying her husband, Mr. Shafin Jahan and forcibly converted to Islam. I.e, He alleged that Hadiya had been misled and forced to become a Muslim.

Question of law:- 

  • Does the High Court have the power to annul the marriage of an adult under Article 226?
  • Does marriage being the most crucial decision of life, can be taken only with the active involvement of her parents, and no legal adult consent is necessary?

Held:- 

  • The writ of habeas corpus is ‘a great constitutional privilege’ or ‘the first security of civil liberty.’ It is a remedy against illegal detention, which affects the liberty and freedom of the detainee. In this case, the High Court misused the habeas corpus. When Hadiya appeared before the High Court, she stated that she was not under illegal confinement. The High Court has no power to decide the ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. 
  • Parens patriae is the power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent or guardian. The State acts as the parent of such an individual. The courts can invoke this role only in exceptional cases where the individual is either mentally incompetent, underage, or has either no parent/legal guardian or abusive one.
  •  The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21. The High Court was wrong in using its powers under Article 226 to annul Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan.

Submitted By: Priya Singh

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/hadiya-marriage-case/

AYODHYA BABRI MASJID DISPUTE

Facts:

According to Hindu mythology, Lord Rama was born on the Sarayu river banks, which in present-day is a place identified in Uttar Pradesh. According to Hindu beliefs, a temple stood at the birthplace of Lord Rama, which was demolished in 1528 by Mughal emperor Babur who then constructed the Babri Masjid there. Again in 1992, kar sevaks blazed the mosque to the ground. The disputed land measured 2.77 Acres.

In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit to build a temple on the Ramchabutra. In 1934, some parts of the mosque were damaged due to a struggle between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Then in December 1949, idols of Lord Ram were forcefully placed in the central dome resulting in a desecration of the mosque. A suit is later filed by Nirmohi Akhara in 1959, asking for possession of the site. A lawsuit is filed by Sunni Central Board of Waqf in 1961, claiming ownership.

In 1984, Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) started a campaign for the construction of Ram Mandir at the site. In 1989, the foundations of Ram Mandir were laid down by the VHP after getting permission from the Rajiv Gandhi government. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed entirely. Hearings in High Court started in April 2002 to ascertain the ownership. On 30 September 2010, it was ruled by the Allahabad HC that the land should be divided into three parts- one third to Ram Lalla Virajman, which was represented by the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha; one third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining to the Nirmohi Akhara. The case is then taken to the SC by the parties in December. The judgment finally came in November 2019.

Question of law

  • Was the claim of the parties barred by limitation?
  • Who had ownership and title over the property?
  • Law of adverse possession applicable equally to the Hindu and the Muslims?
  • Can idols and idol worship places be considered as juristic entities?

Held

  • Based on the oral and written evidence presented, it was concluded that Babri Masjid was built on Janmaasthan of Lord Ram.
  • The disputed property would be treated as a single composite unit instead of the three portions split by the Allahabad High Court ruling in 2010.
  • A trust would be set up under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Dispute Act with the Board of Trustees or any other suitable body. Its working and management would be determined by the scheme framed by the Central government.
  • The disputed property would be handed to the Trust or the body as per the above clause, and 5 acres of land would be given to the Plaintiff, Sunni Central Waqf Board.
  • The ownership claim of the Shia Waqf Board was rejected.
  • Another piece of land will be given to the Muslims as per article 142
  • The Plaintiff has the right to worship at the disputed property subject to restrictions imposed to maintain peace and order. 

Submitted By: Shreya khandelwal

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/ayodhya-babri-masjid-dispute/