Ayodhya tangle: Let the buck stop here

Apparently, the longest litigation in Indian history, the Ram Temple case has had all the trappings of a melodrama with punches, satires, acrimony, emotions and socio-politico-religious fervour.

The grand finale in the Supreme Court witnessed the bonhomie atmosphere with the warring parties almost in tears, though the septuagenarian lawyer representing a litigant lost his cool and tore off a copy of map given to him by his counterpart representing another litigant. Rightly, the advocates at large, were quick to demand 'stern' action against the arrogant, short-tempered and undisciplined senior lawyer.

Now all eyes are set on the apex court which is likely to pronounce verdict in the first fortnight of November. Peacemakers and all other well-meaning people are doing their best by issuing appeals to the people to accept the court verdict honourably and maintain peace in the aftermath of the judgement.

Let's hope that the people would heed to the appeals for peace. The large number of Hindu population which has to its credit appreciable history of tolerance amidst all odds, will expectedly remain calm and composed irrespective of the fact whether the judgement would be of its liking or not.

But the same cannot be said about the Muslims, particularly, Mullas, Moulvis and communal politicians as has been their history. Shah Bano's verdict was opposed tooth and nail by these fanatic elements so also the verdict on Triple Talaq. The history is replete with the instances of Muslim intolerance. Further, these fringe elements get financial, moral and logistic support from Pakistan, IS and other terrorist groups.

Therefore, post-Ayodhya verdict period will be an acid test for the country. In fact, this will provide a rare opportunity to the nationalist forces to unite and stand like a rock before divisive, terrorist, fanatic and anti-national elements. Under no circumstances, sinful polarisation of such elements should be allowed.

Judges' result, love all: Gujarat HC

Believe it or not, but it is true! In the recently held written examination for the recruitment of 40 district judges in Gujarat, out of 119 working judges and 1,372 advocates who appeared for the written examination, not even one could qualify for the next step in recruitment, that is interview and the Gujarat High Court was constrained to declare the result as Nil.

This speaks volumes for the sorry state of affairs in the legal field. The common man considers the lawyers and judges as the last ray of hope for justice. The falling standards of judiciary has been debated time and again from different fora.

Even the former Chief Justice T S Thakur had expressed the view that legal profession should not become the dump yard for the good for nothing fellows among students. On the other hand, the legal education should produce future lawyers and judges with high intellect and knowledge on par with those produced by medical and engineering colleges. The Bar Council of India too, has often expressed its concern for the high quality of education and training of law students.

Hope, the Gujarat story would become the eye-opener for all stake holders in the field of legal education and judiciary and drastic remedial measures would be taken without losing time.

Extension of time no proof of readiness: SC

Mere extension of time cannot ipso facto be construed as demonstrating readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff, the apex court observed while dealing with an appeal against the judgement of the High Court thereby setting aside the concurrent findings of courts below which decreed the suit for specific performance of sale agreement.

In Ravi Setia vs. Madan Lal and others, the bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee noted that the trial court and the first appellate court found 'readiness and willingness' on the part of plaintiff from his singular plea that he was present at the Sub-Registrar's Office on the date specified in the agreement for execution of deed.

That apart, no other evidence was adduced to prove his contention. The Supreme Court dealing with this aspect, observed: "Undoubtedly, the time for deposit could be extended under Section 28 of the Act. But the mere extension of time for deposit does not absolve the plaintiff of his obligation to demonstrate readiness and willingness coupled with special circumstances beyond his control to seek such extension" and added, "the failure of the plaintiff to offer any explanation why the balance consideration was not deposited within the time granted, the filing of the application for extension of time after expiry of the prescribed period with the frivolousness of the grounds taken in the application for extension that the money would lie in the bank without earning interest, are all but evidence of incapacity on part of the plaintiff to perform his obligations under the agreement and reflective of lack of readiness and willingness."

No writ lies against church: HC

The Kerala High Court has held that a writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights against a Church who refused to solemnise marriage between two members of the diocese since the Church performs no public duty or public function in the matter of solemnisation of marriages.

The court agreed with the objection taken by the Church that unless and until it is demonstrated that fundamental right is violated or the Church falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ can be issued against the Church.

'Rowdy-sheet only against habitual offenders'

Holding that opening of rowdy sheet in the name of the petitioner and continuance of the same thereafter is in violation of the life liberty (rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India, more so when after 2014 no fresh crimes are registered against the petitioner, the High Court of Telangana quashed the rowdy sheet opened in the name of the petitioner by Dabeerpura police station inHyderabad.

Justice P Keshava Rao in his judgement dated September 30 in W.P No. 31462 of 2015 filed by one, Mir Saber Ali after quoting a catena of judgements held that once there is a long interval between involvements in different criminal cases, such a person cannot be termed a 'habitual offender' within the meaning of Standing Order 601 of A.P Police Manual Standing Orders.