An overview of Ayodhya dispute Since, 1528 a mosque was built, purportedly at the same site by destroying the Janmabhoomi temple, by Mir baqi- A general of babur. After a long span of time, First time in 1850-85, riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims in the vicinity of the structure. Mainly, there was a dispute over a piece of land ad-measuring 1500squareyards in the town of Ayodhya. In which The Hindu community claims it as the birth-place of Lord Ram, and incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The Muslim community claims it as the site of the historic Babri Masjid built by the first Mughal Emperor, Babur. This Court was tasked with the resolution of a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself. Legal battle begins In January1885, Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthaninstituted a suit before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The relief which he sought was permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra situated in the outer courtyard, measuring seventeen feet by twenty-one feet. On 24 December 1885, the trial judge dismissed the suit On 18 March 1886, the District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court but struck off the observations relating to the ownership of Hindus of the Chabutra contained in the judgment of the Trial Court. On 1 November 1886, the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dismissed the second appeal, noting that the Mahant had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra. In 1934, there was yet another conflagration between the two communities. Controversy of Dec 1949 Read more- https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/11/ayodhya-dispute-inchoation-to-cessation.html

Ram Janmabhoomi is the name given to the birthplace of Lord Ram who is the 7th avatar of Hindu deity Vishnu and the site is considered to be one of the seven sacred sites to attain moksha. A section of Hindus claims that the exact site was the same where Babri Masjid once stood. As per the theory, the Mughals demolished the Hindu shrine and constructed a mosque in its place. Babri Masjid was constructed by the first Mughal emperor of India and the founder of the Mughal Empire, Babur. It is considered that on the orders from Babur, his general- Mir Baqui built Babri Masjid in 1528. The dispute began from 1850 over a nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi where Hindus attacked the Babri Masjid. Since then, Hindu groups have made occasional demands that the possession of the site should be given to them and they shall be allowed to build a temple on the site. This all was denied by the then colonial government. In 1946, an offshoot of the Hindu Mahasabha called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha started an agitation for the possession of the site. In 1949, a 9-day continuous recitation of Ramcharit Manas was organized by Sant Digvijay Nath who then joined the ABRM. On 22nd December, 194 Hindu activists broke into the mosque and placed idols of Ram and Sita inside. The people later were led to believe that the idols had ‘miraculously’ appeared inside the mosque. Jawaharlal Nehru insisted to remove the idols but the local official K. K. K. Nair known for his Hindu nationalist connections refused to carry out the orders and claimed that it would turn into a communal riot. This resulted in locking up the gates so that the public, neither the Muslim nor the Hindu could enter. However, the idols remained inside and only the priests were allowed to enter and perform daily worship. The mosque was now converted into a de facto temple. The Sunni Wakf Board and the ABRM filed civil suits in local court with their respective claims to the site. The land was announced under dispute and the gates were locked. In the 1980s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad belonged to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivar and launched a new movement to ‘reclaim’ the site for Hindus and to erect a temple in the name of infant Ram (Ramlala) at the spot. The remnants of Jana Sangh formed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980 and became the political face of the campaign. A major boost was provided by the government when a district judge ruled that the gates of the site would be reopened and Hindus shall be permitted to worship inside. In September 1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani started the ‘rath yatra’ to Ayodhya to generate support for the movement. The yatra resulted in communal riots and prompted the Bihar government to arrest Advani. A large number of Karsevaks reached Ayodhya and tried attacking the mosque but were stopped by Uttar Pradesh police and paramilitary forces. Later, BJP won the elections in Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly and on 6th December 1992, the VHP and its associates organized a rally involving 150,000 VHP and BJP sevaks at the site. The ceremony was followed by speeches by the BJP leaders such as Murli Manohar, Advani and Uma Bharti. The crowd got agitated during the speeches and attacked the mosque with several improvised tools. In a few hours, mosque was shattered. Riots broke out in major cities and resulted in many being killed. The Archaeological Survey of India in the years 1970, 1992 and 2003 has found evidence indicating that a large Hindu complex existed on the site. It has also found a structure that resembles temple under the mosque, however, it’s yet ascertained that it was a Ram temple. On 30th September 2010; the Allahabad High Court pronounced its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute. The land to be divided into three parts 1/3 goes to Ram Lalla, 1/3 to Sunni Wakf and 1/3 to Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Waqf Board moved to the Supreme Court challenging part of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict. Thereon, the hearing is going on in SC. The verdict is yet to come.    

AFFRAY Whether you will be tried under this offence or not? [Sec.159] Affray- It occurs if, Two or more persons must fight. They must fight in a public place By their fighting they must disturb the public peace. ‘A’ beats ‘B’ but ‘B’ did not retaliate, there is no fighting and therefore, no affray.[1] ‘A’ and ‘B’ were two brothers quarreling and abusing each other on a public road in a town and a large crowd gathered and the traffic was jammed but no actual fight took place. It was held no affray was committed.[2] Read More https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/10/affray-100-trial-7.html

  On August 24, 2017, a nine-bench judge of the Supreme Court unanimously passed a judgment that the right to privacy was a constitutionally protected right in India. The case was brought forward by 91 year old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy who challenged the proposed scheme of Government to have a uniform biometrics-based identity card which would be mandatory for access to government services and benefits. The challenge was initially made before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on the basis of violation of right to privacy. The Attorney General argued on behalf of the Union of Indian and stated that the Indian Constitution doesn’t have specific protection for the right to privacy. He cited the observation made in the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra(an eight-judge bench) and Kharak Singh v Uttar Pradesh (a five-judge bench). However, a bench of eleven-judge found that fundamental rights were not to be constructed as distinct, unrelated rights, thereby upholding the dissenting view in Kharak Singh. The Court also reasoned that privacy is an incident of fundamental freedom or liberty guaranteed under Article 21 which provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. This laid the foundation of later decisions by smaller benches of the Supreme Court which expressly recognized the right to privacy. In this context, it was decided that a Constitution Bench was set up and concluded that there was a need for a nine-judge bench to decide whether there was a fundamental right to privacy within the Constitution. The petitioner before the nine-judge bench placed its points that the right was an independent right, guaranteed by the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Respondent came with the point that the Constitution only recognize personal liberties which may incorporate the right to privacy to a limited extend. The court considered the detailed arguments on the nature of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation and the theoretical and philosophical bases for the right to privacy as well as the nature of this right. 

  Before diving it is good to understand what are Appealable Orders?   Meaning of Appealable: liable to be appealed against; capable of being appealed, basically that can be appealed against.   Meaning of Order: Authoritative direction. Injunction, mandate, a decision of the court or judge made or entered in writing.   Section 2(14) of Civil Procedure Code defines Order as below: Order means a formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree.   Sec 2 of Civil Procedure Code defines the Decree as below: A formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the court expressing it, conclusively determines the right if the party with regards to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final.                 It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include- Any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order or Any order of dismissal for default.   Types of Decree: Preliminary Decree: A Decree is said to be preliminary decree when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. Final Decree: A Decree is said to be final decree when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit.   What are Appealable Orders? The Court pronounces Orders on various Interlocutory applications. Against some of those Orders, aggrieved party may prefer an appeal which is known as Appealable Orders.   Appealable Orders are also known as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.   The Orders which are appealable are detailed under Order 43 and Section 104 of Civil Procedure Code.   Provisions regarding appeals are applicable to Appealable Orders are defined under Order-43, Rule -2 .    Appeals from Orders Section 104 and Rule 1 of Order 43 (XLIII) of Civil Procedure Code lays down the Appealable Orders.  The procedure of appeal from Orders shall be the same as provided by Order 41 (XLI) of the code for the first appeal.    Appealable Order as Follows: An order under section-35 A, i.e. on compensatory cost in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences.     2. An order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in Section 91 or Section 92, as the case may be.     3. An order under section 95, i.e. Compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or Injunction on insufficient grounds.     4. An order under Section 104(h), i.e. imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree.     5. Section 104(i), i.e. Any order under rules from which appeal is expressly allowed by rules.     6. An order under Rule 10 of Order 7 returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court order passed in the Rule 10-A of Order 7.  Case law: where an order is made by the first court of appeal returning a plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 by the virtue of power conferred on it by Section 107, the order is appealable under this clause. (Logonathan v S.chenniya chattier AIR 1996 Mad 224, Union of India v New India Assurance AIR 1997 Del 54).     7. An order setting aside the dismissal of suit files under Rule 9 of Order 9. Case law: Rejection of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 irrespective of the fact whether that rejection is on merits or is default.(Kulakchandra v Nripendra Mohan, AIR 1970 Tri 56, Nathu Prasad v S.Kapur chand , AIR 1976 MP 136 (FB)).      8. An order under Rule 13 of Order 19 rejecting an application (in case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex-parte. Case Law: Rejecting an application for a Order to set aside a decree passed ‘ex-parte’ an appeal is provided (Gulam Mahommad Nurminya Kazi v Prakash Devendra Shantilal, AIR 1996 Guj 94). An order under Rule 21 of Order 11, Non-compliance with order of Discovery. Case Law: when an order purports to be passes under the rule, an appeal lies even though the Court might have been in error in acting under this rule (Ashreddy v VenkatReddy, AIR 1985 AP 450)    10. An order undet Rule 34 of Order 21, on an objection to draft of document or of an endorsement.    11. An order under Rule 72 or Rule 92 of Order 21 setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. Case law: An appeal is maintainable against an order under Order 21, Rule 90 refusing to set aside a sale     (Anjalina D’Souza v Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd , AIR 1995 Kant 30)    12. An order rejecting an application made under subrule (1) of Rule 106 of Order 21, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule(1) of Rule 105 of that order is appealable. Case Law: An appeal against an order adjudicating resistance to possession is maintainable. A revision is thus not maintainable (Sk. Saiful Nandlal v Sk. Akkas ali, AIR 1998 cal 137).   13. An order under Rule 9 of Order 22, referring to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. Case Law: Alphanso v Xaiver Dias , AIR 1971 Mys 79.  An order under Rule 10 or Order 22, giving or refusing to give leave. Case law: Jadunath v Murari, AIR 1931 cal 594    15. An order under Rule 2 of Order 25, rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of the suit.    16. An order under Rule 5 or Rule 7 of Order 33, rejecting an application for permission to sue as an Indigent person.  An order in Interpleader-suits under Rule 3, Rule 4 or Rule 6 of Order 35. Case law: Thresiamma v Jerome, AIR 1958 Ker 304: (1958) ILR Ker 23.    18. An order under Rule 2 , Rule 3 or Rule 6 of Order 38. Case law: Union Bank of India v Andra Technocrat Industries, AIR 1989 AP 408.    19. An order under Rule 1, Rule 3 , Rule 2-A , Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39. Case law: Kanhaiyalal Bhargava v Bansilal, AIR 1950 All 444.    20. An order under Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 40. Case law : Lachminarayan Modi v Naik & Co, AIR 1947 pat 5.    21. An order of refusal under Rule 19 of Order 41 to re-admit or under Rule 21 of Order 41 to re-hear an appeal. Case law: Syed Takhlesh hyder Zaidi v Naziruddin , AIR 2003 All 56.    22. An order under Rle 23 or Rule 23 A of Order 41 remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate court.    23. An order under Rule 4 of Order 47, granting an application for review.  Note: According to Section 105(1) , no appeal shall lie from any order made by a court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction: but when the decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in the order, affecting the decision of the case may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal.  Limitation: An appeal from an order can be filed in a High court with in 90 days and in the other court within 30 days from the date of the order (Article 116, Limitation Act 1963).   Meaning for “from no order “under Section 104: Following orders have been held to be not-appealable   An order under Order 1 , Rule 3 holding that the suit is bad for multifariousness and asking the plaintiff to elect (RamKrishna Das v Bindeshwar Prasad, AIR 1951 pat 364)   An order holding that the court has jurisdiction to try the cause. (Manash Ranjan Chakravatry v Tropical Accumulators Ltd, AIR 1957 cal 135:60 cal WN 591)   An order appointing a commissioner to ascertain mesne profit. (Re Badrajala Naidu, (1958) 1 MLJ 99).   An order under Order 37, Rule 3 granting or refusing to grant, leave to defend. (Bunwarhal Roy v Sohan lal Daga (1955) 1 cal 299)   An order made in Execution proceeding on objection raised by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, rule 90 (Uma Datt v R.K Sardana, AIR  1979 Del 56)   An order passed under Section 151, since such an order is not included in the category of appleable order (Nandal M V & co v Gordhandas, AIR 1956 cal 547)    An order disposing of miscellaneous appeal (Kamta Prasad v Behari lal, AIR 1977 All 109)   Interlocutory order passed under Order 22, Rule 10 in a revision, Substituting party in Executing proceeding. (Rameshwar Nath Sinha v Narsingh Sahai, AIR 2002 All 113)   Order declining to review the final order passed by single judge in writ proceedings. (BF Pushpaleela Devi v State of Andra Pradesh, AIR 2002 Andra pra 420 (FB)).   Order granting or rejecting injunction (Motilal Ramdev v Bhandari, AIR 2002, Chhatisgarh 6)   Interlocutory order in civil miscellaneous appeal v/s 104 of code of civil procedure (Sree Narayana Dharma Samajan v VP Mohandas, AIR 2001 Ker 56)   Some Important Case laws:   What categories of Interlocutory judgment would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘judgment’? (Ashutosh Shrotriya v Vice-chancellor Dr. B.R Ambedkar University , 2015 8 ) ADJ 248: 2015 (6) ALJ 383:2016 (116) ALR 310: (2015) ILR 3 All 1062)   Under the code specific order mentioned in Section 104 and Order 43, rule 1 only are appealable and no appeal lies from any other orders, An order made in the Section 151 is not included in the category of appealable orders. (Keshardeo v Radhakishen, AIR 1953 SC 23: (1953) 4 SCR 136)   Order allowing or refusing injunction is appealable order under section 104 read with Order 43. (Krushna pandurang wankhede v Sitaram panjaji Wankhede, 1984 Mah LR 143)   If Interlocutory order passed upon a writ petition under Article 226 of constitution is otherwise judgement within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letter Patent , the appeal against such orders would be maintainable. (Shalini v Praash, (19193) & Mah LR 423 at 427 (DB))   Correction of the order passed thereon could be challenged in the appeal against the main decree. (Janardhana Raj v Thailammal, AIR 1993 176 at 179)   Erroneous Interlocutory order which affects the decision of the case may be attached in a appeal from the ultimate order or decree in the suit. (Sabitri Debi v Baikuntha Das , AIR 1979 ori 140)   Non- allowance of any order by court in the absence of any valid notice. (Gauri shankar v Hindustan Trust Pvt Ltd, AIR 1972 SC 2091 at 2095)   Order of abetment not a decree and no appeal lie against such order (Munney Khan v Kaushilaya Devi, AIR 1981 All 240)   Order under Order 21, Rule 9 is appealable as an order would not be a decree and therefore no second appeal would lie against that order such appeal liable to be rejected as Incompetent (Madan Naik v (Mst) Hansubala, AIR 1983 SC 676)    Expression “any order” is general and there is nothing that restrict it to appealable or non-appealable order. (Sankara Menon v GouriKutty Amma, AIR 1978 Ker 211 (DB) )   Whether after a plaint is returned in terms of Order VII rule 10 and Rule 10 A, CPC , should the trail in the court where the plaint is now filed start de novo or from such stage at which the plaint was ordered to be retuned? The Supreme Court has referred to larger bench. (M/S EXL Carrers & Anr v Frakfinn Aviation Services SC 16893/2018).

ABETMENT Whether you will be tried under this offence or not? [Sec. 107 ] Abetment- It occurs, i- By instigating any person to commit an offence; or ii- By engaging himself in a conspiracy or iii- By providing intentional aid. A woman prepared herself to become sati in the presence of the accused persons. They followed her upto the fire & stood by her stepsons, crying “ram ram”, one of the accused also admitted that he told the woman to say “Ram Ram”. It was held that all of those that followed her to the fire and stood by her crying would be guilty of abetment as they actively connived & countenanced the act of becoming ‘sati’.[1] ‘A’ hands ‘B’ a paper bag containing some poison to put into C’s food but suddenly changing his mind tells him not to do so, ‘A’ would be liable for abetment. Kindly read https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/09/abetment-100-trial-1.html

In the previous two blogs of Article 370, the history and timeline was discussed. The third blog tells briefly of what the current situation is regarding the article and Kashmir. The present status of Article 370 states that 10 petitions before the bench have raised legal challenges to the amendment of the Constitution and changes to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The plea has been filed by a variety of persons, including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats, and politicians. The petitions have alleged that the Article 370 amendment could not have been done without the concurrence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision to substitute the "Governor" as the authority to recommend and ratify proposals to change the legal status of the State, according to the petitioners, was "illegal and unconstitutional." Former Home Minister appointed interlocutor for Kashmir, Radha Kumar, retired air vice Marshal Kapil Kak, and other retired bureaucrats and ex-military personnel in their plea, raised the issue that fundamental rights of the Kashmiri citizens have been effected without the "sentiments of the people being considered." National Conference leader Akbar Lone in his plea had raised the issue that the elected representatives of the state were not consulted. Ex-IAS officer and now Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (JKPM) leader Shah Faesal and others of his party have also moved a plea claiming that the Center has violated the federal structure of the Constitution of India. The plea by lawyer Soayib Qureshi also raised the question of whether the President had the authority to have extended the Governor's rule in the state without approval by Parliament and whether the legal basis of the Governor's rule itself was illegal. The Center, through the Attorney General KK Venugopal, told the Apex court that the situation is "sensitive" in Kashmir and cautioned against taking any steps on these petitions, as "whatever statement is made here is being sent to the UN." The solicitor general argued that "any move in this issue will have cross border repercussions." "Any move in this issue is being projected in other parts of the world as something else. Enemy countries are taking advantage" said the SG. The court has for now not passed any orders on the petitions but has issued a notice to the government to respond to the pleas by October. A five-judge constitution bench is now expected to hear the Article 370 issue from the first week of October.

In the previous two blogs of Article 370, the history and timeline was discussed. The third blog tells briefly of what the current situation is regarding the article and Kashmir. The present status of Article 370 states that 10 petitions before the bench have raised legal challenges to the amendment of the Constitution and changes to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The plea has been filed by a variety of persons, including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats, and politicians. The petitions have alleged that the Article 370 amendment could not have been done without the concurrence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision to substitute the "Governor" as the authority to recommend and ratify proposals to change the legal status of the State, according to the petitioners, was "illegal and unconstitutional." Former Home Minister appointed interlocutor for Kashmir, Radha Kumar, retired air vice Marshal Kapil Kak, and other retired bureaucrats and ex-military personnel in their plea, raised the issue that fundamental rights of the Kashmiri citizens have been effected without the "sentiments of the people being considered." National Conference leader Akbar Lone in his plea had raised the issue that the elected representatives of the state were not consulted. Ex-IAS officer and now Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (JKPM) leader Shah Faesal and others of his party have also moved a plea claiming that the Center has violated the federal structure of the Constitution of India. The plea by lawyer Soayib Qureshi also raised the question of whether the President had the authority to have extended the Governor's rule in the state without approval by Parliament and whether the legal basis of the Governor's rule itself was illegal. The Center, through the Attorney General KK Venugopal, told the Apex court that the situation is "sensitive" in Kashmir and cautioned against taking any steps on these petitions, as "whatever statement is made here is being sent to the UN." The solicitor general argued that "any move in this issue will have cross border repercussions." "Any move in this issue is being projected in other parts of the world as something else. Enemy countries are taking advantage" said the SG. The court has for now not passed any orders on the petitions but has issued a notice to the government to respond to the pleas by October. A five-judge constitution bench is now expected to hear the Article 370 issue from the first week of October.

In the previous two blogs of Article 370, the history and timeline was discussed. The third blog tells briefly of what the current situation is regarding the article and Kashmir. The present status of Article 370 states that 10 petitions before the bench have raised legal challenges to the amendment of the Constitution and changes to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The plea has been filed by a variety of persons, including lawyers, artists, bureaucrats, and politicians. The petitions have alleged that the Article 370 amendment could not have been done without the concurrence of a duly elected Constituent Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision to substitute the "Governor" as the authority to recommend and ratify proposals to change the legal status of the State, according to the petitioners, was "illegal and unconstitutional." Former Home Minister appointed interlocutor for Kashmir, Radha Kumar, retired air vice Marshal Kapil Kak, and other retired bureaucrats and ex-military personnel in their plea, raised the issue that fundamental rights of the Kashmiri citizens have been effected without the "sentiments of the people being considered." National Conference leader Akbar Lone in his plea had raised the issue that the elected representatives of the state were not consulted. Ex-IAS officer and now Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (JKPM) leader Shah Faesal and others of his party have also moved a plea claiming that the Center has violated the federal structure of the Constitution of India. The plea by lawyer Soayib Qureshi also raised the question of whether the President had the authority to have extended the Governor's rule in the state without approval by Parliament and whether the legal basis of the Governor's rule itself was illegal. The Center, through the Attorney General KK Venugopal, told the Apex court that the situation is "sensitive" in Kashmir and cautioned against taking any steps on these petitions, as "whatever statement is made here is being sent to the UN." The solicitor general argued that "any move in this issue will have cross border repercussions." "Any move in this issue is being projected in other parts of the world as something else. Enemy countries are taking advantage" said the SG. The court has for now not passed any orders on the petitions but has issued a notice to the government to respond to the pleas by October. A five-judge constitution bench is now expected to hear the Article 370 issue from the first week of October.

In the first part of the blog of Article 370, a brief of the history of the ancient happenings was covered. In the second part, a timeline of all the events that have happened during the course of time needs to be focused. The timeline gives a clear perspective of the events from 1846 till 2019.   1846: Maharaja Gulab Singh, a Dogra ruler, bought the region of Jammu & Kashmir from the East India Company after signing the Treaty of Amritsar.   1930s: Kashmiri Muslims were unsatisfied with the then Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule and felt his policies were prejudiced. J&K’s first major political party, the National Conference (NC), was born and its founder, Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah’s made a political debut. The Quit Kashmir movement against the maharaja was launched.   August 1947: India gained independence from the British empire, Pakistan was created as a Muslim-majority country. Indian, then home minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel worked to convince the undecided princely states to join India.   October 1947: Armed tribesmen from Pakistan infiltrate J&K, Hari Singh realized that he needed Indian help. He reached out to prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel who agreed to send troops on the condition that the maharaja signs an instrument of accession (IoA) in favour of India. January 1948: India took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations (UN), raising concerns over Pakistan’s forced occupation of parts of Kashmir.  March 1948: Hari Singh appointed an interim government in J&K. Sheikh Abdullah named the prime minister. January 1949: The UN-mediated a ceasefire between Indian and Pakistan—also known as the Karachi Agreement—allowing the two countries to retain control over territories held at the time. July 1949: Hari Singh abdicated in favour of his son Karan Singh. Sheikh Abdullah and three colleagues joined the Indian constituent assembly to discuss provisions of Article 370 under the Indian constitution that is still being drafted. 1950: The Indian constitution came into force. Under this, Article 1 defines J&K as a state of India, Article 370 accords special status to J&K. 1951: The constituent assembly of J&K, the body was responsible for creating the state’s constitution, convenes. All members belong to Sheikh Abdullah’s NC. 1952: Kashmiri leaders discussed their relationship with the union of India in the J&K constituent assembly. This led to a comprehensive Delhi Agreement that defined the relationship of the state with the union. 1953: Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed as prime minister allegedly because he had lost the support of his cabinet. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad took his place. 1954: A presidential order extended several provisions of the Indian constitution to J&K’s constitution. 1956: J&K adopted its constitution and defined itself as an integral part of India. 1957: The J&K held its first legislative elections.  1960: Both supreme court and election commission of India extended jurisdiction over J&K through an amendment in its constitution. 1962: China gained control of the Aksai Chin region in J&K after a war with India. May 1965: Titles of the prime minister and sadr-i-riyasat officially changed to the chief minister and governor, respectively. June 1965: Abdullah’s NC merged with the Indian National Congress. August 1965 to January 1966: War between India and Pakistan. Indian prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani President Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Declaration marking the end of the war. 1966: There was a revival of a demand for a referendum in J&K. These include the Plebiscite Front and the Jammu & Kashmir National Liberation Front (JKLF). 1971: A third war erupted between India and Pakistan. 1972: India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement which ratified the ceasefire line as the Line of Control. 1975: Prime minister Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah signed Kashmir Accord, emphasizing Article 370, and J&K as an integral part of India.  1977: Congress-JKNC split. Congress withdrew support for Sheikh Abdullah’s government, paved way for the central rule. July 1977: Elections held in J&K, Sheikh Abdullah re-elected. 1977 to 1989: J&K saw a steady rise of militant outfits, several unstable governments, and arrests and killings of militant youth. 1990: Kashmiri youth went to streets to protest against Indian administration and hundreds of them died in clashes with Indian troops. Central rule declared just as outfits like JKLF gain strength. Kashmiri Pandits (Hindu Brahmins) flee their hometowns in Kashmir valley in the face of rising militancy. The central government imposes the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, giving armed forces unprecedented powers to counter armed militancy. 1990s: Militant insurgency on the rise.  1995: Prime minister PV Narasimha Rao made a statement in parliament assuring that Article 370 will not be abrogated.  February 1996: India bans JKLF. September 1996: Assembly elections held in J&K. JKNC’s Farooq Abdullah formed a government. 1997: The national human rights commission sets up a J&K chapter to investigate human rights violations there. 1998: India and Pakistan test nuclear weapons. February 1999: Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Pakistan. June 1999: India and Pakistan go to war over Pakistan’s infiltration in Kargil. December 1999: Indian Airlines flight, IC-814, from Delhi to Kathmandu was hijacked by militants. India released three militants in exchange for the flight and the passengers on board to be brought back safely to Delhi. October 2001: The legislative assembly in Srinagar was attacked. December 2001: Armed militants attacked the Indian parliament in New Delhi. 2004: Indo-Pakistani relationship stabilized after decades of instability. Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh met Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. 2005 to 2008: Clashes between armed forces, militants, and protesting civilians continued in J&K. November 2008: Terrorists affiliated to the Lashkar-e-Taiba attacked various public places, including prominent luxury hotels. 2010: Protests erupted in J&K over a young militant’s killing. 2011: J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah pardoned 1,200 stone pelters. 2013: Afzal Guru hanged for his role in the 2001 attack on parliament. March 2015: The BJP formed a government in J&K with the People’s Democratic Party for the first time. April 2016: Mehbooba Mufti became chief minister after the death of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, her father. July 2016: Burhan Wani, another young militant, killed in a shootout with armed forces. J&K state erupted in massive protests. September 2016: Armed militants attacked the Indian Army base in Uri, J&K. The army retaliated with surgical strikes across the LoC. July 2017: Thousands of residents of J&K take to the streets to commemorate Burhan Wani’s death. Militants attacked pilgrims on their way to the revered Hindu shrine of Amarnath. June 2018: BJP government pulled out of the alliance with PDP. November 2018: Governor Satya Pal Malik dissolved legislative assembly. December 2018: Central rule declared in the state. February 2019: A vehicle loaded with explosives crashed into an Indian paramilitary convoy, killing 40 personnel.  May 2019: The BJP returned to power for the second time in India. July 2019: US President Donald Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. August 2019: Reports suggested a large number of Indian troops have been moved into J&K. Pilgrims to Amarnath asked to return.  August 4: Prominent Kashmiri leaders, including former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, placed under house arrest. Internet and mobile services curtailed, and section 144, which prevented a gathering of more than four people in public spaces, imposed. August 5: Home minister Amit Shah proposed a presidential order to repeal Article 370 and 35A. J&K to be bifurcated as two union territories of Ladakh (centrally administered) and J&K (with its legislative assembly). Opposition parties protest in parliament; complete shutdown in Kashmir valley.

The land of Kashmir was first called in ancient literature as Kashyapmar, which later went on corrupting and became Kashmir. It is said that a rishi named Kashyap takes the fame of setting Kashmir as he is the one who successfully reclaimed Kashmir from a huge lake that existed where the Kashmir Valley is located now. We’ve jotted down the ancient history of Kashmir and how Article 370 came into existence through a series of blogs. The first part, however, briefs of the situation through the 14th Century.   Maurya emperor Ashoka founded the city of Srinagar and along with this brought Buddhism to Kashmir which saw several ruling dynasties till the middle of the fourteenth century.  While Ashoka explored around, a Tibetan Buddhist refugee named Rinchana established the first Muslim dynasty in Kashmir who later converted to Islam.  Later when Akbar became the Mughal emperor, he annexed Kashmir to his empire.   Under Ranjit Singh, the state of Jammu and Kashmir acquired its modern shape. Ranjit Singh established a Sikh confederation and annexed Kashmir from the Mughal empire in the early 19th century.  The administration of J&K was given to a local chieftain from the Dogra community, who expanded it by capturing Ladakh and Baltistan for the Sikh empire. By this time, the British rule of East India Company started getting stronger in India. The company had successfully challenged the advance of the Sikh empire, whose leader Ranjit Singh was forced to sign a Treaty of Amritsar in 1809, which was formalized in 1846 after the first Anglo-Sikh war. This treaty then decided on the fate of J&K.   The British trader-rulers "sold" the dominion of J&K to Dogra king Gulab Singh for Rs 75 lakh. The Dogra king ruled over the regions of Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Ladakh. The arrangement continued till 1947 when the British divided the Indian subcontinent into two countries - India and Pakistan.   Jammu and Kashmir ruler Hari Singh appeared to chart out his way without acceding to India or Pakistan.  It signed a standstill treaty with Pakistan, which breached the agreement by invading J&K in October 1947. India did not intervene till Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession with India and sought help from New Delhi. Hari Singh sought special privileges for his people on the lines of a 1927 law that denied outsiders the right to own property in the state. This law restricted the right to own property in Jammu and Kashmir in line of inheritance only. This had been brought apparently to keep the Britishers away from the salubrious Valley of Kashmir. The Jawaharlal Nehru government agreed to Hari Singh's condition subject to future final settlement.    The matter was placed before the Constituent Assembly of India, which was dealing with the task of framing the Constitution of India. After a lot of deliberation, Article 370 was inserted in the Constitution's twenty-first part that proclaimed it to be "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provision." That’s when “Article 370” provided for special status to J&K, which was granted to it through the Presidential Order of 1954.

Acid attack is not something old in India. It has dismayed the conscience of our nation with mutilated faces, unvanquished survivors returning upfront to share terrible stories, and families being bankrupt by the supporting recovery prices of the victim. The Indian Penal Code was modified in 2013 for the first time to add regulations directed to acid attacks. Acid attack is inevitably the worst infliction on another human that leads to complete debilitation, loss of income and opportunity, and even social sequestration. This suggests that the present evil remains quite accessible to most and therefore the causes agitating malice. Acid attacks can overwhelmingly be classified as gender violence as 85% of victims are women. For the 15% male victims, the primary cause of the attack is a property dispute. Before insertion of Sections 326A-326B of the Indian Penal Code, the acid attack could only be prosecuted as violence against women. The Indian penal code amendment on the 2nd of April 2013 included provisions for prosecution of perpetrators, treatment, and rehabilitation of the victims, the right to self-defense against acid attack and control of acid sales. The laws but, obviously are ‘too late’, may additionally be ‘too little’ in their current state.The case of an acid attack came up for hearing before the High Court at Calcutta by Piyali Dutta who wrote to the Chief Secretary, WB requesting for interim compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The court observed that, a per the WB Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, the State or the District Legal Services Authority has the right/authority to decide an application for grant of compensation under Section 357A(4) and thereafter on 7th July, 2017 the court passed a judgment in accordance with the appropriate authority in favor of Piyali for the compensation.