<p>New Delhi: A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the state government on a plea filed by the Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society.</p> <p>"We have raised issues of legislative competence as well as excessiveness in terms of constitutional limitations," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the petitioner, said.</p> <p>The court pointed out that petitions raising similar issue were pending consideration before the top court.</p> <p>"We have raised an entirely different question," Dhavan said.</p> .Contamination of Jojari River: SC slams Rajasthan authorities for failing to control pollution.<p>"We will issue notice and call the other side and then we will hear you," the bench said and fixed the matter for hearing after four weeks.</p> <p>The court tagged the plea with the pending petitions raising similar issue.</p> <p>On November 3, the court agreed to hear two petitions challenging the validity of several provisions of the law against illegal religious conversions that came into force in Rajasthan.</p> <p>The court issued notice to the Rajasthan government seeking its response within four weeks on the pleas against the 2025 Act that was passed by the state Assembly in September.</p> <p>In September, another bench of the court sought the stand of several states on separate pleas seeking a stay on their respective anti-conversion laws.</p> .Rare Asiatic Caracal spotted at Ramgarh in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer.<p>The court had then made it clear that it would consider the prayer for staying the operation of such laws once the replies were filed.</p> <p>The court was then dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka.</p>
<p>New Delhi: A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta sought a response from the state government on a plea filed by the Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society.</p> <p>"We have raised issues of legislative competence as well as excessiveness in terms of constitutional limitations," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the petitioner, said.</p> <p>The court pointed out that petitions raising similar issue were pending consideration before the top court.</p> <p>"We have raised an entirely different question," Dhavan said.</p> .Contamination of Jojari River: SC slams Rajasthan authorities for failing to control pollution.<p>"We will issue notice and call the other side and then we will hear you," the bench said and fixed the matter for hearing after four weeks.</p> <p>The court tagged the plea with the pending petitions raising similar issue.</p> <p>On November 3, the court agreed to hear two petitions challenging the validity of several provisions of the law against illegal religious conversions that came into force in Rajasthan.</p> <p>The court issued notice to the Rajasthan government seeking its response within four weeks on the pleas against the 2025 Act that was passed by the state Assembly in September.</p> <p>In September, another bench of the court sought the stand of several states on separate pleas seeking a stay on their respective anti-conversion laws.</p> .Rare Asiatic Caracal spotted at Ramgarh in Rajasthan's Jaisalmer.<p>The court had then made it clear that it would consider the prayer for staying the operation of such laws once the replies were filed.</p> <p>The court was then dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka.</p>
