|
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Friday praised the Supreme Court, saying that when judges rise to the occasion, history is made.
In a post on X, Sibal said, "Supreme Court (December 12, 2024). When judges rise to the occasion history is in the making. A derailed democracy must be brought back on track." His remarks come after the Supreme Court restrained all courts from passing orders on pending suits against existing religious structures. A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan also ordered that no fresh suits can be registered over such claims while the court is hearing pleas challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. "As the matter is sub-judice before this court, we deem it fit to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this court. In the pending suits, courts would not pass any effective interim order or final orders, including orders of survey," the bench ordered. The apex court was informed that at present 18 suits are pending in the country against 10 mosques or shrines. The bench also granted four weeks to Centre to file an affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Places of Worship (Special Provision) Act, 1991, that prohibit the filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947. Additionally, the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the growing tendency to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalises cruelty by husbands and their relatives against married women. While quashing a Section 498A IPC case against a husband and his parents, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh said that the Section became a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. The verdict came on a criminal appeal filed by the husband and his family against the Telangana High Court's decision refusing to quash the domestic cruelty case registered by the wife against them. The wife had registered a domestic cruelty case against her husband and in-laws after he filed a petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage. The apex court said that the cases filed by the wife were to settle personal scores and grudges and the wife was misusing the provisions meant originally to protect her. (ANI)
|
