Structure Of An Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

Justice UU Lalit recuses himself from hearing the case after advocate Rajeev Dhawan pointed out that Justice UU Lalit had appeared for Kalyan Singh in contempt of court case linked to dispute.The then UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, had submitted an affidavit in July 1992 promising the following :Make all efforts to find an amicable resolution of the issueHold itself fully responsible for the protection of the Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi structures, pending a final solution,Fully implement the orders of the court in regard to land acquisition proceedings, andNot permit the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending to be violated.[1][1][1][1]But later SC found Shri Kalyan Singh was in breach of that undertaking and had wilfully disobed.Justice Lalit, who was a top lawyer before his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court, had appeared for Kalyan Singh.Hence, he had to recuse himselfOversight or Delay Tactic :Looking at the situation it looks like the Supreme Court is dragging its feet on Ram Mandir / Babri Masjid issue.Lalit should not have been on the bench in the first place. They are behaving like BJP and Congress lawyers. Deliberately overlooking the well-laid laws and then going back to fix the error. Now they want 19 days to reconstitute the bench.It is frankly depressing. If SC behaves acts like political organisations, we are really doomed.Footnotes[1] Why Justice UU Lalit Recused Himself from Ayodhya [1] Why Justice UU Lalit Recused Himself from Ayodhya [1] Why Justice UU Lalit Recused Himself from Ayodhya [1] Why Justice UU Lalit Recused Himself from Ayodhya

Is there scope in the judiciary to review the Supreme Court's verdict on Sabarimala, since it seems to have hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus considerably? What is the procedure for it?Ans: I am not a lawyer. But I am a graduate in Business law and tried a hand in learning constitutional law (dropped in-between due to personal reasons). I have an interest in understanding the legal aspects of various cases and tried my best to understand the nuances of the law. So within my limited knowledge, I believe, there is no much scope existing on this case.Many think this case came all of the sudden and the court made a hasty decision.That's, not the reality, however. The case went on in Supreme court for nearly 12 years. The case was filed in 2006 originally, first before a single bench which got immediately transferred to a double bench considering the seriousness of the case and then transferred to a 3 member bench.The case was originally heard by 2 Chief justices of India and other senior judges from 2015 onwards regularly.In this period, the court has given opportunities to many people to present their views.In the original case, the court has enlisted only Travancore Devaswom Board (owners of the temple), the head priest (Tantri) and Kerala Government as respondents. But as the matter’s scope got enlarged, more people were enlisted as respondents to this case. This includesNair Service SocietyAkhil Bhartiya Ayyappa Seva SanghamAyyappa Seva SamithiAyyappa Pooja Samithi;Dharma Sanstha Seva Samajam;Akhil Bharatiya Malayalee Sangh;Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam;Kerala Kshetra Samarak Shana Samithi;Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka Sangham;Sabrimala Custom Protection ForumSee, many of these respondents aren’t even natural stakeholders. Say what additional stake does NSS have over Sabarimala other than the tag of devotees? Nothing… But the court gave the opportunity to present their views.In between period, several individuals got intervened into the case seeking the court to hear their viewpoints too. They areNikita Azad (Arora)D. V. Ramana ReddyK. K. SabuKantaru Rajeevaru (Second Tantri)Rekha RatheethnamAthma Divine TrustRahul EaswarChetna Conscience of WomenIndira JaisinghVK BijuSupreme Court Observer - Sabarimala Temple EntryThe court gave the opportunity to these individuals to present their viewpoints over the matter.After listening to their viewpoints several times, the three-member bench referred the case to the highest bench of the Supreme court- The constitutional Bench as the petitioners including Tantri as well as many claimed constitutional protection for the customs and to the diety. So it went before a 5 member Constitutional bench and again the viewpoints and arguments were cross-checked on basis of constitutional rights.In this period, the court appointed two Amicus Curiaes who were leading lawyers of the country- Adv Raju Ramachandran and Adv K. Ramamoorthy. Both presented their views after visiting the shrine and understanding the local concepts etc.The judges asked Tantri to explain the concept of this custom on basis of scriptural basis. In short, he was asked to explain how the custom (rather, lack of it) affects the rites and rituals of the deity. He was asked to present the concept of rites related to this custom. Unfortunately, the tantri didn’t talk any of that. Rather merely cited that ladies may find hard to trek such deep forest and the deity is celibate. Beyond these claims, no scriptural records ever presented.One must understand, it's on basis of the request of this same Tantri and other stakeholders, the case was referred to the Constitutional bench to check whether the ritual has a constitutional protection.So the verdict of Supreme court was on basis of Article 25 of the Indian constitution. The base of the verdict is over this fundamental right of Indian citizensNow there is no more legal scope.Legally the only last option is a Judicial review of the verdict which many has filed in last 2 weeks. Many sought Supreme court to make an urgent review. The new Chief Justice of India- Ranjan Gogoi didn’t find any merit for an urgent review, so it will take its own sweet time.CJI Rejects Plea For Urgent Listing Of Sabarimala Review Petition | Live LawNow, even so, the review has to be made before the same constitutional bench. The review request is done to highlight deficiency of the verdict mainly highlighting the deficiency in process of justice which resulted in a verdict. In 90% of cases, review petitions are normally dismissed as Supreme court takes every case with utmost seriousness and the claim of deficiency in the process never gets entertained at first place. Only in 10% of cases, the Supreme court actually agrees to review the case, if the petitioners prove there are sustainable NEW reasons to highlight the deficiency of verdict. In this case, the current petitioners (NSS and similar organizations) are repeating their stances which they made in the original affidavit. They are not presenting any new reasons to highlight the wrongness of the verdict.They still keep on chanting the old claims of diety being celibate etc which can’t be proved on basis of any scriptures or records. The court has already given many chances to prove that the rite has a scriptural sanction, which couldn’t be done as it was mere inherited tradition/custom that has nothing to do with scriptures or way the poojas being done.So in all chances, the review is likely to be dismissed. There are few cases where the Supreme court has taken a partial change in the stance when the review was made. But they are mostly individual cases.But there is no precedent of change of stance made by the highest bench of the country- The Constitutional Bench till date AFAIK. So I don’t think SC will review its stance, that too made by senior judges on careful analysis of the case for nearly 12 years.Can Sabarimala Verdict be Reviewed or Would it be Ismail Faruqui 2.0?What else?Nothing much. The most heard slogan is legislating an ordinance much like Jallikkattu issue. In my opinion, that option doesn’t exist at all.Normally no state or govt can pass a legislation against judicial verdicts. Rather they can pass or amend any legislation that change the context or the base law upon which the Supreme court has made its verdict. For example, in Jallikattu case, Supreme court struck down a law - Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act No 27 of 2009 based on provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), 1960. What government did was, they amended provisions of PCA-Act so as the base upon which SC verdict came got demolished. So when a new law was made, it now has enough legal foundation which SC can’t question. Supreme court cannot make laws, but can only interpret laws on basis of existing legislation. Once the base law got changed, the verdict itself got disappeared.This provision cannot happen in Sabarimala case, as the base of this verdict is over the Constitution of India. Kerala State govt cannot pass a law contrary to the Constitution. So it means, it needs a constitutional amendment which only central govt can do.Political stands:Its here, the interesting part comes up. Though in Kerala, the state BJP is trying to cash the opportunity of polarizing Hindus under its flag for upcoming elections, at the national level, BJP is supportive to Supreme court verdict. No BJP leaders at national level criticized SC verdict, rather wholeheartedly welcomed it. Most of the BJP leaders at the national level want to see this verdict being implemented. So why should they go for a constitutional amendment? Even their ideological masters- RSS wants the verdict to be implemented.Again, the constitutional amendment has to pass both houses of Parliament. BJP has no absolute majority in Rajya Sabha, so it needs Congress support. Congress Party at national level welcomed SC verdict and wants that to be implemented unlike the views of KPCC unit. So it's an extraordinary situation where leading national parties want the verdict to happen. So where the urgency to pass an amendment?Then for every constitutional amendment, it must be ratified by half of the Indian states as religious shrines management comes under Concurrent list. That means 15 states of India has to ratify the amendment. Barring 5 southern states, which states in India have a belief in Lord Ayyappa or its tradition? What's the priority for Gujarat or Assam or Bengal or UP to pass a legislation for the constitutional amendment? Nothing!!! Again, as BJP is ruling in the majority of states, unless BJP National unit makes a political decision, none of these states are going to follow on the same.The most interesting part is that, even if BJP national unit agrees for a constitutional amendment along with Congress party, they can’t bring an amendment in this case, as the SC verdict is based on Fundamental rights of Indian citizen as per Art 25.In the famous verdict of Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala, the Supreme court of India brought the famous doctrine- Basic structure doctrine.This means, while Parliament can amend the constitution, they cannot amend the basic structure of the Indian constitution. They cannot amend some areas like Fundamental rights or any key part of the constitution. When SC made this clause, Indian parliament tried to pass a law that empowers Parliament even to amend basic structure of Constitution. But again SC struck down that law thro’ Minerva Mills v. Union of India. Again in 2007, the Supreme court reaffirmed its ultimate authority to review any act of Parliament, if the basic structure of the Indian constitution gets diluted.India court opens laws to reviewSo that means, there is no way for Indian Parliament to amend Art 25 to allow an exception for discriminatory customs for shrines like Sabarimala or any other.So ultimately, all have to comply with this verdict of the court. There is no other way to go unless Supreme court amends its own verdict which anyway will be too rare.

Searching for Drugs ExplainedI have executed over five hundred search warrants in my career and can address the subject with some knowledge of what actually occurs. A search warrant will specifically describe the area to be searched and the items to be seized.The broadest searches are for drugs because they can and are hidden almost anywhere. If you're searching for a stolen Corvette, you could only look in the garage or a place which might hold a car. When it comes to drugs, it's just the opposite. Drugs can be and are hidden virtually everywhere.Once an entry is made, the persons in the residence are secured in a single room. I will speak to either the owner of the home or the target of the investigation. The conversation will go like this:Me: “Sir, Here is a copy of a search warrant for the premises. We are specifically searching for the items described in the warrant. I would prefer not to dismantle and disturb the contents of your home. If you direct me to the area where these items are kept, we will seize the items and charge you with their possession. However, if we have to search every inch of your residence to locate contraband in its secreted locations, we will still seize the property, and we will charge every adult living here who has had access to the items. We will take all necessary steps to locate the hidden items including dismantling items within your home which may include parts of the physical structure.”Some people would be decent and take us to the contraband. We would still conduct a limited search to make sure we recovered all the contraband, but we would do our best not to destroy items in the home. Some people had an immediate change of heart when I introduced the presence of a drug-sniffing dog.If the person still refused to cooperate, then it was up to us to locate whatever hiding place the people felt confident we couldn’t locate. Some were quite imaginative. I have found narcotics in the following locations: Inside false electrical outlets, inside frozen food in the freezer. Inside hollowed-out table legs, inside sprinkler pipes, inside fuel oil tanks. Under floorboards covered by rugs, inside walls recently repaired. Buried under basement floors, in attics and crawl spaces, sewn into seat cushions and sewn into mattresses.These are just a few of the locations where dealers hide their drugs. So how can a house be searched without dismantling a lot of the furnishings, the floorboards, patched walls, false bottom drawers, hidden compartment furniture? The list goes on and on. People are given the opportunity to cooperate. If they refuse, then any damage is on them.If the intelligence is good, the drugs will be in the house, and it’s the narcotics officer’s job to find them. At least twice, different officers experienced in locating hidden drugs, will search every area of every home. We go to school for things like finding hidden compartments in homes and vehicles.I would not condone or accept any officer being destructive, just because they could. We would not cut open mattresses unless they showed signs of being repaired or hand sewn.Drug dogs are good, but not perfect. I have had houses cleared by a drug dog only to continue searching until drugs were found.In my career, I can count the times we came up empty on one hand. I would continue to investigate and would usually find the underlying cause of the problem. It usually had to do with an informant who was playing both sides and tipped the dealer off before the raid occurred. In one case, I sent in a different informant after a dry hit, and the dealer bragged about being tipped off and moving his product.Before I executed a search warrant, controlled purchases are made from within the residence. The informant would be searched before they went into the residence. The controlled buy would be made, and they would be watched during their travel to and from the location, and the drugs would be recovered. If I had any second thoughts, I would send a different informant in on a different night to make another purchase. This would all be documented in an affidavit and sworn to, before a judge.It's not about respect or disrespect. If you or your tenant is using a property to distribute narcotics, then narcotics officers will do what is necessary to locate the drugs and arrest the dealer. The damage to your property is the cost of being a drug dealer.If you feel you were unfairly targeted, file a petition to review the affidavit. Remember a judge agreed that probable cause existed to believe that the residence was being used to either store or distribute drugs. You might have a case only if the officer lied in the affidavit or the judge erred in his finding of probable cause.