SC to examine plea to repeal Bodh Gaya temple law
The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bihar's Bodh Gaya, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the four holy areas related to the life of Lord Gautam Buddha.
Bodh Gaya is a place where Lord Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment.
The plea, which has also challenged the validity of the 1949 Act, came up for hearing before a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh.
The petitioner's counsel said a plea with identical prayers was pending in the apex court.
The bench issued notice to the Centre and others seeking their responses on the petition and tagged it for hearing along with the pending plea.
The plea has sought to declare the 1949 Act as unconstitutional alleging it was 'inconsistent' with Article 13 of the Constitution.
Article 13 relates to laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.The petition has also sought a direction to the authorities concerned to remove encroachments made in the premises of the Bodh Gaya temple for the exclusive worship of Buddhists around the world in order to manage, control and administer the religious, faith, belief and worship in the interest of justice.
On June 30, the apex court refused to entertain a separate plea challenging the vires of the 1949 Act and asked the petitioner to moved high court concerned. The 1949 Act relates to the better management of the temple.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Absurd to manage universities in state without permanent vice-chancellors
The Supreme Court had recently directed Kerala govt and the governor to appoint permanent vice-chancellors (VC) at Kerala Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences (DUK). All universities, except Kerala University of Health Sciences, are managed by interim VCs appointed as a stopgap arrangement. The question raised by the apex court, as to why students should suffer this type of litigation over the appointment of interim VCs, assumes greater significance in this context. Universities have an academic core and an administrative shell. The first is composed of faculty members responsible for the academic content (curriculum) and quality of the university. The VC, being the chief executive officer of the university, is the head of the administrative shell. He chairs all statutory bodies and should be the chief functionary for taking the university to greater heights. He is responsible for the management of the university as well as its interaction with external stakeholders like statutory and regulatory bodies and political institutions. Universities serve as stable, permanent and continuing generators of knowledge, learning and associated services and benefits to society. What matters to universities is sustained high performance in both. This is why we call universities quality engines. How can an interim VC, appointed for six months, take visionary decisions, even if he or she is an academic visionary? The role of the VC is crucial now as the country is implementing National Education Policy (NEP-2020). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like With temperatures hitting 95°F, this is the mini air conditioner everyone's buying in the U.S News of the Discovery Undo The only major initiative done by the universities in Kerala is the introduction of a four-year degree programme. However, the implementation is being done in a tardy manner as the philosophy of the four-year degree programme has not been conceived in the curriculum. It has just been thought of as an extension of the present three-year programme by having one more year of study. A curriculum should have been framed by exposing the students to industry, critical thinking and creativity with pedagogical innovations. Kerala should leverage NEP's policy guidelines in innovative ways to improve the quality of education and NEP gives enough leeway to do this and more. To start with, the need of the hour is to end the affiliation system in its present form and consolidate the number of colleges to transform them into universities with a large number of students. The private university bill, pending with the governor, is one step in this direction. Here we peer into the crystal ball and envisage a sustainable model of the higher education enterprise in Kerala using a simple Fermi estimation. We expect that by 2040, India's population will grow to 1.6 billion. At current ratios, Kerala would then have a population of around 43 million. If around 10% of this population falls within the college-going age group (18–23) and with a gross enrolment ratio GER of 50%, the number of college students in Kerala would be approximately 2.15 million. Following NEP to its logical conclusion, these students should be enrolled in 60 universities, with an average enrolment of 35,000 students. Only at this size will we have the scale and spread to compete with universities that are doing well in teaching, learning and research around the globe. How do we achieve the above if we don't have VCs to lead universities with vision and implement NEP? Are our universities, like the Dullahan in Irish folklore, ending progress? (The writer is the founder VC of Kerala Technological University)
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say
* Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say Justice Moraes placed ex-President Bolsonaro under house arrest * The order came amid dispute with Bolsonaro ally Trump * Bolsonaro faces trial on attempted coup charges By Luciana Magalhaes, Ricardo Brito and Lisandra Paraguassu SAO PAULO, - Brazil's Supreme Court was caught off-guard by Justice Alexandre de Moraes' decision late on Monday to place former President Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest, two sources at the court told Reuters on Tuesday. The order underscores Moraes' readiness to act on his own despite both polarization among Brazilians on the issue and rising tensions with the White House. It came just days ahead of the introduction of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods entering the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump imposed the levies as a reaction to what he has characterized as a "witch hunt" led by Moraes against Bolsonaro, who is standing trial under charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing and described Moraes as a "dictator." Moraes' ruling has sparked concern within the Brazilian government that Trump could retaliate by inflicting further damage to Brazil's economy, two sources close to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's inner circle told Reuters. But Brazilian officials are not planning to push back against Moraes. The two court sources, one of whom is a justice, told Reuters that the other Supreme Court justices were supportive of Moraes, while those close to Lula said the president has neither the willingness nor the ability to influence the Supreme Court. "It doesn't change our approach in the slightest," said the justice, who asked not to be named to discuss the matter candidly. The Lula administration is instead planning policies to support those industries likely to be hardest hit by Trump's tariffs and to keep diplomatic channels open with Washington, said the political sources. But the Moraes move could create obstacles for the Brazilian negotiators, said Fabio Medina Osorio, Brazil's former attorney general. "This decision can certainly make things difficult," he said. A POLARIZED COUNTRY The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a verdict within weeks on the charges that Bolsonaro and his allies plotted to overthrow democracy. It is widely expected to convict the former president. Moraes' house arrest order cited a failure to comply with restraining orders he had imposed on Bolsonaro for allegedly courting Trump's interference in the case. While domestically Moraes has received praise by some for defending Brazil's judicial independence, others have accused him of overreach. The latest order drew mixed reactions, according to a Quaest poll based on social media posts, with 53% in favor and 47% against the arrest. Newspapers that had written scathing editorials about the alliance between Bolsonaro and Trump also questioned Moraes' decisions. "Moraes was wrong to order the arrest of the former president for communicating with supporters in a rally organized by the right," an editorial by Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo said. "Brazil must acknowledge that Jair Bolsonaro has broad freedom to defend himself in court and to express himself wherever he chooses, including on social media." Former Supreme Court justices, too, offered differing views regarding the decision. "Alexandre de Moraes, in his ruling, not only upholds the country's sovereignty and independence but also the autonomy of Brazil's judiciary," said Carlos Ayres Britto, who left the Supreme Court bench in 2012. But former Justice Marco Aurelio Mello disagreed. "My perspective would be different given the constitutional principle of presumed innocence," he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Honest officers must be protected: SC on challenges to amend anti-graft Act
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said a provision in an anti-corruption law which mandates prior sanction before prosecuting public servants serves to protect honest bureaucrats from becoming victims of political vendetta after a regime change. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any 'enquiry or inquiry or investigation' against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority. 'Honest officers who do not toe the line after a change in government will be protected,' Justice K.V. Viswanathan, part of a Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by the non-profit organisation Centre for Public Interest Litigation, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging Section 17A. Mr. Bhushan argued the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, who was the 'competent authority'. The senior lawyer said the section made the government a judge in its own cause, and must be struck down. Mr. Bhushan submitted that only about 40% of the cases, that is involving the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), got prior approval under Section 17A for investigation. 'States are not granting sanction,' he submitted. He suggested giving the power of prior approval to an independent body. Strike a balance The Bench, however, said rather than 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', the court would examine if a balance could be struck. 'There are officers who give their life and soul to the country. How does we ensure that they do not become prey to frivolous prosecution for their official actions or recommendations made in the line of duty,' Justice Viswanathan observed. Justice Nagarathna remarked that the court cannot approach the issue with a preconceived notion that 'all officers were dishonest or all of them were honest'. 'Honest officers must be protected while dishonest ones must be investigated. The former must not do their work with a Damocles sword hanging over their heads. Their hands should not shake before taking an official decision or we would run the risk of complete policy paralysis,' Justice Nagarathna observed. The judge said a provision cannot be held bad in law because its implementation may lead to abuse. 'The implementation of a provision on the ground is quite different from the question of its constitutionality. Ultimately, a balance has to be struck,' Justice Nagarathna observed. Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said without the shield of Section 17A, anybody with a grudge against a public servant could rope in an NGO to file cases against the official. When Justice Viswanathan said sanction may not be forthcoming from the government against its 'blue-eyed boys and girls' in the officialdom, Mr. Mehta responded that it was true in all three branches of governance. He said that such cases could be challenged in court on a case-to-case basis. He urged the court not to legislate and strike down Section 17A. 'He [Bhushan] cannot ask the Supreme Court to assume legislative functions,' the top law officer submitted. The court reserved the case for judgment.
