Six petitions have been submitted, including a new petition that disputed various provisions of the 1991 law, and all these people are pending in the Supreme Court. From the Bank of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, he told the requester on Tuesday that they did not want to hear any new pill under Article 32 of the Constitution. Pti, Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear a new petition that challenges the validity of the Puja Station (Special Purpose) Act 1991. This law makes it compulsory to maintain the religious character of a place of worship as August 15, 1947. Six petitions were submitted, including a new petition that disputed different provisions of the 1991 Act, and all this in the Supreme Court. The bank allowed the requester to submit an interim petition, from the Bank of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, to the submiter that they did not want to hear a new pill under section 32 of the Constitution. However, the bank allowed the requester to submit an interim petition. Noteworthy is that the 1991 law prohibits the repentance of any place of worship and that its religious character can retain on August 15, 1947. Section 4 (2) of the Act was disputed, but the dispute associated with the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is excluded. The requester demanded the Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders to ensure the original religious character of the place of worship. In this, Article 4 (2) of the Act is disputed, which prohibits the proceedings from changing the religious character and also prevents new matters from submitting new matters. The law does not prevent any scientific or documentary survey to find out the religious character of the place. Tripura told the Supreme Court that after the court’s decision on the DGP appointment, the Tripura government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it was after the 2006 ruling on the police reform and the process of appointing the director -general of the ordinary police on March 7. In this, the failure of the government was disputed in the decision of the Apex Court over the appointment of the DGP. The Supreme Court said in the earlier order, in the 2006 ruling, the Supreme Court said that the state should instead appoint temporary DGP, the state should appoint one regular DGP from the list of three senior IPs prepared by UPSC. Every latest news and accurate information from the country and the world, every moment on your phone! Download now- Jagran app
-
-
-
-
