Voice from the Rooftop

Justice for Priyanka Reddy was quick. She was a Hyderabad veterinarian who was raped and murdered by four criminals on 27/11/2019. On 6/12/2019 they were killed in an encounter. Cyberabad Police Commissioner Vishwanath Sajjanar headed the police team.
Priyanka Reddy’s rape and murder had caused national outrage. Jaya Bachchan in Rajya Sabha had said about criminals “These types of people need to be brought out and lynched. I think it is time… the people want the government to give a proper and definite answer.” After the encounter she said “Better late than never.”
Venkaiah Naidu questioned mercy to rapists and murderers. He said “We need to think about changes in the legal judicial system… why look at age when a person has done such a crime and say he is a juvenile… What has age got to do with such a heinous crime?… In my opinion we need to revisit the law.”
Cases of rape and murder drag on for years. Even after death sentence and rejection of mercy petition there is appeal against rejection and Supreme Court reduces death sentence to life sentence and criminals are out. When lawyers like Abhishek Manu Singhvi approach Supreme Court in a political case judges hear cases after midnight or on Sundays. People have lost faith in judiciary. Cases drag on for years. It is date after date. It is close to seven years after gang rape and murder of Jyoti Singh Pandey and criminals are yet to be hanged. One criminal got away because he was juvenile.
There was joy all over the country. People of Hyderabad were happy and showered rose petals on police. Women distributed sweets. Priyanka Reddy’s father said “It has been 10 days to the day my daughter died. I express my gratitude towards the police and government for this. My daughter’s soul must be at peace now.”
Jyoti’s mother said she was happy the parents did not have to wait for seven year for justice. Olympic silver medallist and former minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore tweeted: “I congratulate the Hyderabad police and the leadership that allows the police to act like police…” Meenakshi Lekhi said the police are not given weapons for show and that it is a case of reaping what one sows.
Mayawati said “Police should not treat people accused of such crimes like government guests. Instead, like the Hyderabad police has done, they should face strict legal action and this will lead to considerable control of such crimes.”
Haryana Home Minister Anil Vij said “Hyderabad gang rape accused killed. Whatever happened, howsoever it happened, but the right thing happened.”
Saina Nehwal tweeted “Great work #hyderabadpolice.. we salute u”.
P. V. Sindhu tweeted “Justice has been served! @TelanganaPolice.”

The Constitution of India adopted on 26/11/2019 is mostly copy of Government of India Act 1935 with additions from Irish, Australian, Canadian and American Constitutions. Federal Legislature became Parliament. Federal Assembly became House of the People. Federal Court became Supreme Court. Provinces became States. There have been 105 Constitution Amendment Acts apart from changes not considered amendments. Rajendra Prasad was President of Constituent Assembly. B. R. Ambedkar was Chairman of the Drafting Committee. Rajendra Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, K. M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnasami Ayyar, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, and G. V. Mavalankar, were Chairmen of other committees like Rules of Procedure, Union Power, Provincial Constitution and Credential.
Citizenship
Article 5 is similar to Article 3 of Irish Constitution. (1922). This was amended by Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986.
Fundamental Rights
Article 14 is similar to 14th Amendment of American Constitution.
Abolition of titles
Article 18 is similar to Article I Section 9(8) of American Constitution.
Freedom to manage religious affairs and attendance at religious instruction
Article 26 is similar to Article 44 (2) 5? of Irish Constitution.
Article 28 is similar to Article 44 (2) 4? of Irish Constitution.
Right to Property
Article 31 which was repealed by 44th amendment is similar to Section 299 of Government of India Act 1935.
Directive Principles
Article 38 is similar to Article 45 (1) of Irish Constitution.
Article 39 is similar to Article 45 (2) and (4) 2? of Irish Constitution.
Irish Constitution has Directive Principles of Social Policy. Constitution of India has Directive Principles of State Policy.
President
Article 53 is similar to Article II Section 2 of American Constitution.
Article 58 is similar to Article 12 (4) 1? and (6) 3? of Irish Constitution and Article II Section 5 of American Constitution.
Article 59 is similar to Article 12 (6) and (11) of Irish Constitution.
Article 60 is similar to Article 12 (8) of Irish Constitution and last paragraph of Article II Section 1 of American Constitution.
Article 61 is similar to Article 12 (10) of Irish Constitution.
Article 73 is similar to Section 8 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 74 is similar to Section 9 of Government of India Act 1935. (Council of Ministers)
Article 75 is similar to Section 10 of Government of India Act 1935. (Ministers)
Article 76 is similar to Section 16 of Government of India Act 1935. (Attorney General)
Article 77 is similar to Section 17 of Government of India Act 1935.
Parliament
Article 79 is similar to Section 1, Chapter 1 of Australian Constitution Article I Section 1 of American Constitution.
Articles 80-84 are similar to Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of American Constitution.
Article 85 is similar to Section 19 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 88 is similar to Section 21 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 89 is similar to Section 22 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 99 is similar to Section 24 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 100 is similar to Section 23 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 101 is similar to Section 25 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 102 is similar to Section 26 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 104 is similar to Section 27 of Government of India Act 1935. Five hundred rupees in 1935 may be equal to one lakh rupees now.
Article 105 is similar to Section 28 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 106 is similar to Section 29 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 107 is similar to Section 30 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 108 is similar to Section 31 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 109 is similar to Article 21 of Irish Constitution.
Article 111 is similar to Section 32 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 112 is similar to Section 33 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 118 is similar to Section 38 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 121 is similar to Section 40 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 122 is similar to Section 41 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 123 is similar to Section 42 of Government of India Act 1935.
Supreme Court
Article 124 is similar to Section 200 of Government of India Act 1935. Federal Court becomes Supreme Court.
Article 125 is similar to Section 201 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 126 is similar to Section 202 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 127 is similar to Section 30 of Canadian Supreme Court Act.
Article 128 is said to be based on Section 8 of Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.
Article 129 and 130 are similar to Section 203 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 131 is similar to Section 204 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 132 is similar to Section 205 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 133 is similar to Section 207 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 138 is similar to Section 206 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 141 is similar to Section 212 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 142 is similar to Section 210 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 143 is similar to Section 213 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 144 is similar to Section 210 (1) of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 145 is similar to Section 214 of Government of India Act 1935.
Comptroller and Auditor General
Articles 148 and 149 are similar to Section 166 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 150 is similar to Section 168 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 151 is similar to Section 169 of Government of India Act 1935.
Governor
Article 154 is similar to Section 49 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 155 is similar to Section 48 (1) of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 162 is similar to Section 49 (2) of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 163 is similar to Section 50 of Government of India Act 1935. (Council of Ministers)
Article 164 is similar to Section 51 of Government of India Act 1935. (Ministers)
Article 165 is similar to Section 55 of Government of India Act 1935. (Advocate General)
Article 166 is similar to Section 59 of Government of India Act 1935.
State Legislature
Article 168 is similar to Section 60 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 172 is similar to Section 61 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 172 is similar to Section 61 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 174 is similar to Section 62 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 175 is similar to Section 63 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 177 is similar to Section 64 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 178 is similar to Section 65 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 188 is similar to Section 67 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 189 is similar to Section 66 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 190 is similar to Section 68 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 193 is similar to Section 70 of Government of India Act 1935. Five hundred rupees in 1935 may be equal to one lakh rupees now.
Article 194 is similar to Section 71 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 195 is similar to Section 72 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 196 is similar to Section 73 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 200 is similar to Section 75 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 201 is similar to Section 76 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 202 is similar to Section 78 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 203 is similar to Section 79 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 205 is similar to Section 81 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 207 is similar to Section 82 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 212 is similar to Section 87 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 213 is similar to Section 88 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 212 is similar to Section 87 of Government of India Act 1935.
High Court
Articles 215, 216, 217 and 219 are similar to Section 220 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 221 is similar to Section 221 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 223 is similar to Section 222 (1) of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 224 is said to be based on Section 8 of Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.
Article 225 is similar to Section 223 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 227 is similar to Section 224 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 228 is similar to Section 225 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 229 is similar to Section 228 of Government of India Act 1935.
Union and States
Article 245 is similar to Section 99 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 246 is similar to Section 100 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 250 is similar to Section 102 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 252 is similar to Section 103 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 253 is similar to Section 106 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 254 is similar to Section 107 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 255 is similar to Section 109 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 256 is similar to Section 122 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 257 is similar to Section 126 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 258 is similar to Section 124 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 261 is similar to Article IV Section 1 of American Constitution.
Article 263 is similar to Section 135 of Government of India Act 1935.
Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits
Article 272 is similar to Section 140 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 277 is similar to Section 143 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 279 is similar to Section 144 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 283 is similar to Section 151 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 285 is similar to Section 154 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 289 is similar to Section 155 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 290 is similar to Section 156 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 292 is similar to Section 162 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 293 is similar to Section 163 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 296 is similar to Section 174 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 298 is similar to Section 175 of Government of India Act 1935.
Article 300 is similar to Section 176 of Government of India Act 1935.

Bibliography
https://ia800300.us.archive.org/2/items/constitutionofin029189mbp/constitutionofin029189mbp.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1935/2/pdfs/ukpga_19350002_en.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-26/page-2.html#h-443296

On 9/11/2019 Supreme Court delivered 1,045 pages verdict in Ayodhya Dispute. The verdict has two parts. First part is main verdict and ends on page 929 and has names of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. Second part is an Addenda that has 116 pages and ends on page 1045. Fonts of two parts are different; it seems first part was printed on a laserjet or similar printer and second part was printed on a dot matrix printer. First part is unanimous. Second part is by one of the five whose name is not mentioned. He has recorded separate reasons on whether disputed structure is the birth place of Ram.
Persons familiar with Supreme Court verdicts say main part was written by Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Addenda by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
The verdict gave disputed 2.77 acres to Hindus and ordered 5 acres of land in a prominent place in Ayodhya be given to Muslims to build a mosque. It declared placing of idols on night of 22-23 December 1949 in Babri Mosque and demolition of Babri Mosque on 6 December 1992 as illegal.
In a separate verdict Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition of Shia Central Board of Waqf U P versus Sunni Central Board of Waqf, SLP (Civil) Diary Number 22744 of 2017, due to inordinate delay of 24964 days against the final judgment dated 30 March 1946 of the Civil Judge, Faizabad.
The verdict had different reactions. Narendra Modi said the verdict should not be seen as win or loss for anybody. Congress said it respects the decision and was in favour of construction of Ram Temple. Akhilesh Yadav said the verdict is an important step in the right direction of strengthening secularism, rule of law and democracy. Mayawati said everyone should respect the verdict. Lal Krishna Advani said “I stand vindicated…”
Tushar Gandhi said “If the Gandhi murder case was retried by the Supreme Court today, the verdict would have been Nathuram Godse is a murderer but he is also a desh bhakt.” “Please all is not justice. Please all is politics.”
All India Muslim Personal Law Board expressed grave dissatisfaction and called the verdict neither equity nor justice. About 5 acres for mosque, AIMPLB lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said “You can not exchange land for a mosque.” Asaduddin Owaisi said Supreme Court is supreme but not infallible. He regretted victory of faith over facts. Kamal Farooqui said “It was never about land. They can take 100 acres from us if they want.” Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid of Delhi, accepted the verdict and said the matter should not be stretched further. Faizan Mustafa and Aymen Mohammed said the verdict is a setback to evidence law with differential burden of proof being demanded from different parties.
AIMPLB will decide on 17/11/2019 about filing review petition against the verdict. Maulana Mehmood Madani said “The Honourable five judges of the apex court despite admitting that the placing of idols and destruction of Babri Masjid were serious violations of the rule of law, it gave the land to those who had committed such crimes…”
If there is no review petition the matter will end. If there is a review petition the dispute will continue for some time. There is not much probability of reversal of verdict after review petition. We do not know how things will proceed from here. CJI Ranjan Gogoi retires soon, 17/11/2019 is his last day as CJI.