Georgia Tech looks to break out of funk, meets Alabama A&MAll India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi expressed concerns over the calls to survey or demolish some religious structures. Speaking during the debate commemorating the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Indian Constitution in the Lok Sabha on Saturday, December 14, Owaisi asked, “I am being asked whether a mosque existed 500 years ago. If I dig up the Parliament and discover something is found, would it become mine?” Owaisi referred to Article 25 and its provisions while commenting on the Supreme Court’s recent statement that no places of worship would be surveyed until the hearing of pleas challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, is concluded. “Read Article 26, it gives religious denominations the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. Prime Minister Modi says that Waqf has nothing to do with the Constitution. Who is teaching the PM? Make him read Article 26. The goal is to snatch away Waqf properties. You want to snatch it away on the basis of your strength,” Owaisi said. Further, Owaisi alleged that the Centre was trying to finish the Urdu language by promoting Hindutva culture. Stating that it was in Urdu the call for freedom, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ was made, he said, “Read Article 29, it gives freedom of language. Urdu, a language in which our freedom fighters gave the slogan of ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ , has been finished.” “Ask them (BJP) about culture, they will say it is our cultural nationalism. In reality, it is not BJP’s cultural nationalism, it is the cultural nationalism of Hinduvta which has no connection with the nationalism of India,” he added.

Nikita Hand said the Dec. 9, 2018, assault after a night of partying left her heavily bruised and suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. McGregor testified that he never forced the woman to do anything against her will and said she fabricated the allegations after the two had consensual sex. His lawyer had called Hand a gold digger. The fighter, once the face of the Ultimate Fighting Championship but now past his prime, shook his head as the jury of eight women and four men found him liable for assault after deliberating about six hours in the High Court in Dublin. He was mobbed by cameras as he left court but did not comment. He later said on the social platform X that he would appeal the verdict and the "modest award." Hand's voice cracked and her hands trembled as she read a statement outside the courthouse, saying she would never forget what happened to her but would now be able to move on with her life. She thanked her family, partner, friends, jurors, the judge and all the supporters that had reached out to her online, but particularly her daughter. "She has given me so much strength and courage over the last six years throughout this nightmare to keep on pushing forward for justice," she said. "I want to show (her) and every other girl and boy that you can stand up for yourself if something happens to you, no matter who the person is, and justice will be served." The Associated Press generally does not name alleged victims of sexual violence unless they come forward publicly, as Hand has done. Under Irish law, she did not have the anonymity she would have been granted in a criminal proceeding and was named publicly throughout the trial. Her lawyer told jurors that McGregor was angry about a fight he had lost in Las Vegas two months earlier and took it out on his client. "He's not a man, he's a coward," attorney John Gordon said in his closing speech. "A devious coward and you should treat him for what he is." Gordon said his client never pretended to be a saint and was only looking to have fun when she sent McGregor a message through Instagram after attending a Christmas party. He said Hand knew McGregor socially and that they had grown up in the same area. She said he picked her and a friend up in a car and shared cocaine with them, which McGregor admitted in court, on the way to the Beacon Hotel. Hand said she told McGregor she didn't want to have sex with him and that she was menstruating. She said she told him "no" as he started kissing her but he eventually pinned her to a bed and she couldn't move. McGregor put her in a chokehold and later told her, "now you know how I felt in the octagon where I tapped out three times," referring to a UFC match when he had to admit defeat, she said. Hand had to take several breaks in emotional testimony over three days. She said McGregor threatened to kill her during the encounter and she feared she would never see her young daughter again. Eventually, he let go of her. "I remember saying I was sorry, as I felt that I did something wrong and I wanted to reassure him that I wouldn't tell anyone so he wouldn't hurt me again," she testified. She said she then let him do what he wanted and he had sex with her. A paramedic who examined Hand the next day testified that she had never before seen someone with that intensity of bruising. A doctor told jurors Hand had multiple injuries. Hand said the trauma of the attack had left her unable to work as a hairdresser, she fell behind on her mortgage and had to move out of her house. Police investigated the woman's complaint but prosecutors declined to bring charges, saying there was insufficient evidence and a conviction was unlikely. McGregor, in his post on X, said he was disappointed jurors didn't see all the evidence prosecutors had reviewed. He testified that the two had athletic and vigorous sex, but that it was not rough. He said "she never said 'no' or stopped" and testified that everything she said was a lie. "It is a full blown lie among many lies," he said when asked about the chokehold allegation. "How anyone could believe that me, as a prideful person, would highlight my shortcomings." McGregor's lawyer told jurors they had to set aside their animus toward the fighter. "You may have an active dislike of him, some of you may even loathe him – there is no point pretending that the situation might be otherwise," attorney Remy Farrell said. "I'm not asking you to invite him to Sunday brunch." The defense said the woman never told investigators McGregor threatened her life. They also showed surveillance video in court that they said appeared to show the woman kiss McGregor's arm and hug him after they left the hotel room. Farrell said she looked "happy, happy, happy." McGregor said he was "beyond petrified" when first questioned by police and read them a prepared statement. On the advice of his lawyer, he refused to answer more than 100 follow-up questions. The jury ruled against Hand in a case she brought against one of McGregor's friends, James Lawrence, whom she accused of having sex with her in the hotel without consent.It was the last decade of the 20th century and communal tensions were at their peak all over the country. The apple of discord was the mosque situated in the holy city of Ayodhya, the conflict between the two largest religious communities of the country had seemingly reached the “no-return” point. The thinking among the rulers was that it was too late in the day to try to stop the ongoing tug of war tarnishing the age-old reputation of India as a multi-religious, spiritual and highly tolerant nation. But there were reasonable apprehensions that the fire might engulf many other old mosques across the country. They, therefore, decided to enact a law that could apply brakes to all such aspirations and plans. Picking a suitable title for the proposed law was a hard nut to crack. The thought process about it got unduly prolonged, but it was soon realised that time was running out. The proposed law was eventually passed in September 1991 under the cryptic title Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act. The idea of keeping its title vague might have been taken from a law enacted three years earlier by the equally ambiguous title of Religious Places (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. The preamble of the new law described itself as an Act “to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August 1947”. And it was to be “deemed to have come into force” retrospectively on July 11, 1991. The operative provision of the Act read as, “it is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August 1947 shall continue to be the same, as it existed on that day” (section 4). Before declaring this, a ban was imposed on efforts to create an Ayodhya-like situation elsewhere. Section 3 of the Act said, “No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.” And if somebody dared to defy the statutory ban and did what it prohibited, there would be a penalty — imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also, a fine (amount not specified). The continuing Ayodhya tussle was, of course, exempted from the application of the entire Act by a conspicuous assertion “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the place of worship commonly known as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya in the State of Uttar Pradesh.” Nearly a year later, emboldened by the exclusion of the disputed shrine of Ayodhya from the purview of the newly adopted law, a huge army of devotees was to march to the holy city to perform the traditional kar seva around the place that was by now officially described not as a mosque or temple but as the vivadit dhancha (disputed structure). Alarmed by a highly probable chance of the move resulting in dastardly consequences, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court seeking an order to stop the obviously risky move. But the court was in a quandary. As the newly enacted law of 1991 was totally inapplicable to the case, it had to be explored under which existing law such a direction could be issued. The writing on the wall was clear, but the court naively accepted the solemn assurance given by the state government that kar seva was a peaceful religious practice that could do no harm to the mosque. It was a rare instance of judicial overconfidence, though not warranted by the circumstances. What happened in the coming days is well-known history. When the Ayodhya case was finally decided by a Constitution bench of the apex court in November 2019, the bulky judgment included, inter alia, a reference to and detailed analysis of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act that had been put on the statute book nearly three decades earlier. The court cited at length parliamentary debates on the Bill that had led to the passing of the Act and noted, seemingly with appreciation, official observations on the objects and purposes of the law in the making. Within a few months after this judgment was delivered, a learned lawyer, who indeed deserves a place in the Guinness Book of Records for rushing to the apex court on every debatable social issue, challenged the constitutional validity of the 1991 Act. The plea was admitted, and notice was issued to the government as per procedure to seek their response. The rulers of the day, however, adopted the proverbial “silence is gold” policy. In the years to come, new petitions and intervention applications kept pouring in the court, but there was hardly any progress in the case. Violators of the Act were having a field day all around but the shebait of the temple of justice preferred to wait and watch. At last, came a gentle and soothing breeze to cool the warm air. Stop the madness going on all around, a three-judge bench of the apex court headed by a new Chief Justice has, in effect, warned the people. “As the matter is sub-judice before us, we deem it appropriate to direct that, though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered, and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this court” — assertively said the court’s interim order of December 12. Indicating deep concern, the court has further directed that “in the pending suits no court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders including orders directing surveys, etc. till the next date of hearing/further orders of this court.” The next hearing will be on February 17, 2025. For at least a couple of months, the society will expectedly remain peaceful. There are people here and there who have shown that they could care least even for the apex court directives, but the lower courts will have no choice but to strictly abide by the discipline of the established judicial hierarchy. The apex court’s concern and wisdom deserve the deepest appreciation. But it is for us, citizens of this great country, to understand that the archaeological heritage of the nation — good or bad, unpleasant or cruel, in whatever way it may be seen — cannot be wiped out by using modern technology and digging out the soil wherever so one desires. Tahir Mahmood is professor of law and former member of the Law Commission of India.The views expressed are personal