- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Strongly Condemns Uttar Pradesh Minister Mukut Bihari Verma's ‘Supreme Court Is Ours’ Comment
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has taken a strong view on the recent statement of an Uttar Pradesh Minister that the ‘Supreme Court is ours” with reference to the Ayodhya case and cautioned against his irresponsible conduct.Uttar Pradesh minister Mukut Bihari Verma has stated recently that the Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya since “the Supreme Court is ours”.Addressing...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has taken a strong view on the recent statement of an Uttar Pradesh Minister that the ‘Supreme Court is ours” with reference to the Ayodhya case and cautioned against his irresponsible conduct.
Uttar Pradesh minister Mukut Bihari Verma has stated recently that the Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya since “the Supreme Court is ours”.
Addressing a press conference in the state's Bahraich recently, he had stated, “Construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya is our resolve. The Supreme Court is ours. The judiciary, this country and the temple are ours too”.
This statement was pointed out to the Supreme Court by Sunni Waqf Board's counsel and senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who said that the minister also said that they “own” the disputed site and the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi strongly condemned the minister’s statement. “This should not be happening in the country. We deprecate such statements. Both sides are free to put their arguments before court without any fear,” he said.
Dhavan also told the Supreme Court that even his law clerk has been issued a threat in the premises of the Supreme Court adding, “Let me make it absolutely clear that I don't argue against the Hindu faith”.
As soon the hearing began, Dhavan told the Supreme Court that a week ago, he had received a threatening message on Facebook warning that “they will see him outside the court”.
Dhavan stated that some people had also messaged him asking which side he was on or whether he is against Lord Ram, adding that these things did not create a good atmosphere due to which he is under pressure.
After the court asked Dhavan whether he wants security and protection, the senior counsel said that he did not need these as the court's assurance is enough for him.
Dhavan said he had been non-partisan when it comes to arguing a case, which he did while arguing the Kashi and Kamakhya cases in the past.