Talk:Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Madhya Pradesh / Politics Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Madhya Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Ram Janmabhoomi

What started out as a side reference to Rajiv Gandhi's politics during the period has been augmented to an unnecessary detailing. Should be condensed to stay relevant to this article. Nshuks7 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

Article currently has following sentences: The Congress government, lead by Rajiv Gandhi, panicked at the reaction of the Muslims. With elections around the corner, the Congress government did not want to lose the Muslim Vote Bank.

I propose something like "The Congress government, led by Rajiv Gandhi, passed an Act of Parliament which said (whatever). Critics strongly contend that this was done as an appeasement measure (etc)".

Words like "panic" are strong POV, and ""did not want to" is projection. I agree that this case evokes strong emotions, but please let's keep the Wikipedia article as neutral as possible. --12.210.203.64 22:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. It's a looooot less POV than it used to be --Ankur 14:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is wrong, it neglects the facts and the proviso given in the MWPRDA of 1986 which allows Muslim wives to be given maintenance until death or remarriage. See Ali v Sufaira 1988 (2) KLT 94. If we can keep this topic from being politicised it is paramount to look at the facts! Especially the contribution from the KLT! This is not POV I am submitting, it is the legal reality. 82.35.57.169 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)BROWN[reply]

Proposed merge with The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986

No consensus to merge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe so for the following reasons:

Both the articles revolve around the same legal issue in India and its the Shah Bano judgment which led to this Act.
Discussion of one with the other is incomplete.
The challenge to the constitutional validity of this act in Daniel Latifi case has to be discussed in the Shah Bano article as well.
The political situation around this act is also based on the Shah Bano Article.Mohit Singh (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment as the articles currently stand, I would support a merger, but I am yet unconvinced that they cannot both be built into stand alone articles. Yes, there would be a lot of overlap, but they are distinct topics. Thoughts? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I think they deserve independent articles. Although related they are not identical topic. Jyoti (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum - This is just the case law & part of the act now.

You are right that Shah Bano judgment which led to this Act. Therefore I think this article (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum) may become the part of " The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 is having broader criteria & Scope . Though the Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum is just one of the case of great importance and become the part of thiS act now. so ...

Do You really think that an act become the part of case law ? or case law become the part of the act? Priyadarshivishal23 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23[reply]

A merger of the two articles would be great since one was the causal link of the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.86.166 (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231221811/http://www.revolutionersrising.org/shah-bano-one-woman-who-inspired-the-nation/ to http://www.revolutionersrising.org/shah-bano-one-woman-who-inspired-the-nation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Converting InfoBox from SCICase to Courtcase

Since the discussion of 20 March 2021, there has been a consensus on merging [Template:Infobox SCI Case] with [Template:Infobox court case]. I'm new but I'm going to try to convert each existing SCI Case to the Courtcase infobox without altering appearance first to try to further the merge. Any suggestions or advice? Semanticz0 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]