Top News Headlines 10th Jun 2021: Temple Lands Shall Always Remain With Temples

'Temple Lands Shall Always Remain With Temples; Public Purpose Theory Shall Not Be Invoked Over Temple Lands': Madras HC

The judgment was passed in a suo moto PIL of 2015. The Madras High Court highlighted the need to preserve cultural heritage. The Madras High Court issued 75 directions to the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that the temples and ancient monuments are properly maintained. The Hon’ble Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and P.D. Audikesavalu criticized the departments of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, and Archeology for not efficiently working for the upkeep of the temples and idols. The Court made it clear that temple lands must remain with the temples and public purpose theory should not be invoked over temple lands. The Court also directed the State Government or HR&CE Department should not to give away these lands against to wish of the donors.

What do you think of this case?

Nobody can dispute that you have a right to report, Madhya Pradesh High Court; Defence cites Juhi Chawla Case

The Division Bench of MP High Court comprising of Justices Prakash Srivastava and Virendra Singh reserved the Court’s order in the plea moved by the Journalists challenging the validity of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Video Conferencing and Audio-Visual Electronic Linkage Rule, 2020 which restricted the media from attending court proceedings. Senior Advocate Aditya Adhikari appearing for Madhya Pradesh High Court cited the Juhi Chawla case where the proceedings were interrupted by a person singing songs as a defense. The Bench remarked that the Court is in favor of transparency. 

What do you think of this case? 

Bombay High Court grants protection from arrest to co-accused of Kangana Ranaut in 'Didda' copyright infringement case

A Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bandra had ordered the Khar Police to register an FIR given the complaint filed by the author of ‘Didda’, Ashish Kaul against film producer Kamal Jain and actress KanganaRanaut for allegedly infringing the copyright of the book. Kaul claims that Ranaut breached his trust and acted in violation of his legal rights. In connection to the FIR, the Bombay High Court has granted the producer protection from arrest till July 1, 2021.

What do you think of this case?

Allahabad High Court slams applicants for approaching HC directly to file a bail application 

The Allahabad High Court passed an order, in the case of Ankit Bharti v/s State of UP and Anr., in connection to the filing of anticipatory bail applications directly in the High Court. The Courtstated that it was necessary to mention the compelling circumstances for filing such an application in the High Court. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail application was dismissed as there was no compelling or special circumstance mentioned to approach the High Court without approaching the Sessions Court first. 

What do you think of this case? 

Central Government approves increase in sanctioned Bench Strength of Telangana High Court by 75% after intervention by the CJI

The proposal of the Telangana High Court to increase its sanctioned bench strength by 75% was agreed by the Central Government. The Ministry of Law and Justice agreed to the proposal of the High Court after the intervention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, N. V. Ramana. The strength of 24 judges was increased to 42 judges. Out of the 42 Judges, 32 will be permanent judges and 10 will be Additional Judges. 

What do you think of this case?

Can the wife of second marriage solemnize during first obtain pensionary benefits of dead husband? Madras High Court refers the issue to a larger bench

In Malarkodi v/s The Chief Internal Audit Officer, the Petitioner is the second wife of the deceased husband. The second marriage was solemnized when the first wasn’t dissolved. The first wife later passed away. Now, the question before the Court is concerning its validity and whether the wife of second marriage solemnized during the existence of has a right to obtain pensionary benefits of the dead husband. The Court referred the issue to a larger bench.

What do you think of this case?