The PIL in Supreme Court challenges the constitutional validity of S. 2 , 3 , 4 of the Places of Worship ( Special Provisions ) Act 1991 , as they not only offend Articles 14 , 15 , 21,25,26 , and 29 but also violate principles of secularism.
Declaring India to be “secular” in the Preamble has often had the opposite effect as can be seen from the rude and insensitive behaviour towards the elegant Tanishq ad and has added to growing intolerance.
Shortly after a special CBI court acquitted all the surviving 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case last week, several journalists and academicians reminded me of an essay I had written for India Legal magazine in December 2017 which possibly has more relevance today than the time it was written
AN important PIL, which could have far-reaching implications on adoption rules, was placed before the Supreme Court in late August. It sought the removal of anomalies in the grounds for adoption and guardianship, to make them uniform for all citizens and also to make them gender and religion neutral.
The consecration of the Temple has ended a prolonged legal battle where faith was pitted against law, Hinduism against Islam and religious convictions against rationality. Retracing the century-old legal battle shows how the highly contentious and controversial issue finally arrived at a lawful conclusion