copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2023-08-12): Definitely, these couples have few rights or you can say the female partners in these relationships have certain rights. As the Indian judiciary recognises live-in relationships, it ensures protection to the parties in such cohabitations. These rights are provided in order to address the intimate partner violence which women have to go through during their time together. Taking into account their agonies, the Indian judiciary has made remarkable decisions in recent judgments. So what are the most important and basic legal rights of a female in a live-in relationship in India? [...] For the first time in 1993, Supreme Court granted legal validity to the children born from live-in relationships in the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan. In addition to that, the bench observed that if a man and a woman reside in the same house and cohabit for a significant period of time, there is a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ultimately, the children will be recognised as legitimate and will be eligible to receive a share in ancestral property. [...] Supreme Court Guidelines On Live-In Relationships In India
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2021-08-31): In India, live-in relationships are not only discouraged but also are not accepted by the members of society due to the sophisticated culture. The parents of a couple may also not allow for such a relationship, and may not allow the couple to reside in the same house. The couples also face issues when they seek residence on rent. Apart from the issue of the place of residence, the couple also faces issues at the workplace and other public places. [...] From the above judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court of India, it can be concluded that the Indian judiciary has most of the time practiced interpretation of laws while protecting the rights of women and children associated with live-in relationships and certainly the Indian legal mechanism lacks separate legislation which must deal with the cases of live-in relationship and must provide with codified laws, and punitive measures. [...] References - https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-(IJAR)/recent_issues_pdf/2019/December/legal-status-of-live-in-relationship-in-india_December_2019_1575104772_8511093.pdf - https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/PriyaV1C2.pdf - https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue7/Version-6/D019762529.pdf - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631831820974585 - https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Judicial-Interpretation-and-change-in-status-of-live-in-relationship-in-India-Sakshi-Shubham.pdf - http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.5(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%20title%20no5%20pdf).pdf - https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/live-in-relationships-in-india/
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2023-01-30): However,with changing social norms of legitimacy,the Indian judiciary has taken a lead to fill the gap that was created in absence of any specific statute relating to live-in relationships.The intention of Indian judiciary is to render justice to the partners of live-in relationships who,were earlier not protected by any statute when subjected to any abuse arising out of such relationships.In short,Judiciary is neither expressly promoting concept nor prohibiting such sort of relationships.The major concern is that there should not be any miscarriage of justice. [...] Some of the judgements on live-in relationships are briefly discussed below- - In the landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal ,the Supreme Court held that a living relationship comes within the ambit of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two major living together cannot be considered unlawful or illegal. [...] - In a landmark judgement of Dhannu Lal v. Ganeshram ,the Supreme Court decided that couples living in live-in relationships will be presumed legally married.It was also held that the woman in the relationship would be eligible to inherit the property after the death of her partner.
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2021-12-30): In Indian culture, practice of two individuals (heterosexual) "living together" has existed since time immemorial. However, concubines were kept by men apart from their formally wedded wives for the sole purpose of entertainment and relaxation. After Independence, bigamy was outlawed in India in line with the secular format of family laws.49 There is no specific law in India for dealing with the nuances of a live-in partnership in holistic manner. The provisions under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been expanded in scope to entitle an aggrieved person to maintenance and to secure legal protection against atrocities within domestic relationships.50 These provisions are neither designed nor adequately framed to define rights and duties of cohabiting partners or to deal with disputes that arise between them. The Indian judiciary over period of time, has assiduously addressed several allied issues but in the absence of legislation, piecemeal judicial approach has also impinged personal views of Judges causing legal conundrum, as deliberated in some of the landmark judgments. [...] The Indian Courts have further dealt with the issue of "relationship in the nature of marriage" to adjudicate disputes relating to live-in relations.59 The constitutional courts have reiterated that live-in, despite not being socially accepted in India, does not contemplate any offence under law. Consequently, two consenting adults are at liberty to live together and no person would be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.60 The High Court of Allahabad held61 that: (Payal Sharma case61, SCC OnLine All para 1)
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2012-04-25): A court order describing the conditions under which two married people will live separately.
Claim: A recent judgement by an Indian Court allows both the wife and girlfriend to live in the same house (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-05-25)
Evidence (2023-12-18): The Indiana Supreme Court hereby adopts the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, as drafted by the Judicial Administration Committee and adopted by the Board of the Judicial Conference of Indiana and all subsequent amendments thereto presented by the Domestic Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana, as the Child Support Rules and Guidelines of this Court.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2023-02-19): These statements were not made by Dr Subramanian Swamy. In fact, Swami accused Adani of not repaying the loans and using nepotism to obtain stake in Mumbai Airport. Also, Adani Group has 74% stake in Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, post the stake purchase transaction, with 50.5% being bought from GVK Group and 23.5% Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and Bidvest Group. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2020-08-31): "The Adani Group will also take steps to complete the acquisition of a 23.5 per cent equity stake from ACSA (Airports Company of South Africa) and Bidvest in MIAL for which it has obtained Together with 50.50 per cent stake of GVK, Adani's total holding in Mumbai airport will be 74 per cent after completion of the transaction.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2021-02-08): Home / Companies / News / Adani completes purchase of 23.5% stake in Mumbai International Airport Adani completes purchase of 23.5% stake in Mumbai International Airport [...] Adani Group has completed the purchase of 23.5 per cent stake in Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) from two South African entities, marking the first step towards acquiring a majority control in the country’s second-busiest airport.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2022-04-06): NewsMeter checked on the official website of Adani Enterprises and found a media statement. As per that, in July 2020, GVK sold its 50.5% stake in Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) to Adani Group's Adani Airport Holdings Limited (AAHL). Adani Group has also agreed to repay GVK's debt (its share in MIAL loans) to other companies. Further, we checked GVK's official website and found that earlier, Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) won the contract for Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA), the second airport to be built in Mumbai. However, after the acquisition, Adani has taken over the construction of NMIA. [...] It further read that Adani Group has concluded financing of the Navi Mumbai airport as the public sector lender State Bank of India underwrote the entire debt requirement of Rs 12,770 crore for the project.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2021-01-16): Adani Group denied allegations levelled by Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy claiming that the corporate group has outstanding loans to the tune of Rs 4.5 lakh crore. The ports-to-energy conglomerate claimed in a tweet that it has maintained "an impeccable record of not a single NPA" in its 30-year-long history. [...] Swamy, on Friday, had tweeted: "Trapeze Artist Adani now owes Rs. 4.5 lakh crore as NPA to banks. Correct me if I am wrong. Yet his wealth is doubling every two years since 2016. Why can't he repay the banks? May be like with the six airports he has bought he might soon buy out all the banks he owes money."
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2021-07-13): Adani Group on Tuesday said it has taken over the management of Mumbai International airport from the GVK group. The Group last August had announced that it would acquire GVK Group's stake in Mumbai airport. Adani Group will have 74 per cent stake in Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, post the stake purchase transaction, with 50.5 per cent being bought from GVK Group and 23.5 per cent from minority partners including Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and Bidvest Group, it had said. [...] Later in a statement, Adani Airport Holdings Ltd (AAHL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Ltd, said it has taken over the management control of Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) from the GVK Group following the MIAL Board Meeting earlier in the day.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2021-07-14): Adani Group takes over Mumbai airport management, now controls 33% of India's air cargo traffic The Adani Group has formally taken over the management of the Mumbai International Airport from the controls of the GVK Group. [...] Adani Group will have 74% stake in Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, post the stake purchase transaction, with 50.5% being bought from GVK Group and 23.5% from minority partners including Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and Bidvest Group.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2020-08-31): NEW DELHI: Paving the way for billionaire Gautam Adani’s group acquiring controlling interest in the Mumbai Airport from the GVK Group, the two corporates on Monday announced reaching an agreement for Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) as well as the upcoming Navi Mumbai airport. Adani Group will acquire 74% in MIAL — the entire 50.5% of GVK;, Airport Company of South Africa (ACSA’s 10%) and South African Bidvest’s 13.5%. [...] In a BSE filing, the Adani Enterprises Ltd Monday said: "Adani Airport Holdings Limited (AAHL), the flagship holding company of Adani Group for its airports business (and a subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited) has entered into an agreement to acquire the debt of GVK Airport Developers Limited (GVKADL). GVK ADL is the holding company through which GVK Group holds 50.50% equity stake in MIAL, which in turns holds 74% equity stake in Navi Mumbai International Airport Limited (NMIAL). According to the agreement, AAHL will acquire the debt of GVKADL from its airport lenders."
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2024-09-12): Subramanian Swamy (born 15 September 1939) is an Indian politician, economist and statistician. Before joining politics, he was a professor of Mathematical Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.[1] He is known for his Hindu nationalist views.[2] Swamy was a member of the Planning Commission of India and was a Cabinet Minister in the Chandra Shekhar government. Between 1994 and 1996, Swamy was Chairman of the Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade under former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. Swamy was a long-time member of the Janata Party, serving as its president until 2013 when he joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).[3] He has written on foreign affairs of India dealing largely with China, Pakistan and Israel. He was nominated to Rajya Sabha on 26 April 2016 for a six-year term, ending on 24 April 2022.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2021-02-08): Adani Group has completed the acquisition of 23.5% interest in Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) from two South African firms. [...] By GlobalDataAdani Enterprises, in a stock exchange notification, stated that its airports unit had bought 13.5% interest from Bidvest and a 10% stake from Airport Company of South Africa, for a consideration of Rs16.85bn ($312m). [...] With the conversion of the debt into equity, Adani gains a controlling stake in the Mumbai Airport.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2023-02-09): "The rules were changed by the government and Adani was given six airports. After that India's most strategic, profitable airport — the Mumbai airport was taken away, and hijacked from GVK by agencies. By exerting CBI, ED pressure the Indian government handed the airport into Adaniji's hands," Rahul Gandhi had said. [...] The other charge made by Rahul Gandhi was that GVK was armtwisted and coaxed to sell the Mumbai International Airport to the Adani Group. MIAL had four stakeholders with GVK holding 50.5 percent, two South African investors — Bidvest and Airport Company of South Africa (ACSA) — together holding 23.5 percent and the remainder held the Airports Authority of India. [...] While opposition parties claim that GVK was arm-twisted to sell Mumbai Airport to Adani, GV Sanjay Reddy, Vice Chairman of GVK, strongly denied the allegations.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2020-09-01): Home / Companies / News / Adani Group acquires 74 per cent stake in Mumbai International Airport Adani Group acquires 74 per cent stake in Mumbai International Airport [...] The Gautam Adani-led Adani group has acquired a 74 per cent stake in Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), a joint venture between the Airports Authority of India and GVK Industries. MIAL operates the Mumbai airport — the largest in the country after Delhi.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2022-03-29): "The achievement of financial closure signifies the commitment of the Adani Group to mobilise the required resources and complete, within the set timelines, the NMIA Project which was taken over pursuant to the acquisition of Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (MIAL) by the Group through Adani Airport Holdings Ltd. (AAHL), in July 2021," NMAIL added.
Claim: Subramanian Swamy stating that Adani did not acquire the 74% shares of Mumbai Airport from the Indian government, but instead purchased them from multiple foreign partners who Congress sold in 2006 (SOCIAL MEDIA POST, 2023-02-19)
Evidence (2023-02-27): A social media post featuring an image of former BJP MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy claims that he made a statement regarding Adani’s Mumbai Airport acquisition. The post alleges that Swamy said, "The truth is that Adani did not buy these 74% shares from the Indian government but bought 74% from multiple foreign partners which Congress had sold in 2006!". Let’s verify the claim made in the post. [...] Fact: These statements were not made by Dr Subramanian Swamy. In fact, Swami accused Adani of not repaying the loans and using nepotism to obtain stake in Mumbai Airport. Also, Adani Group has 74% stake in Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, post the stake purchase transaction, with 50.5% being bought from GVK Group and 23.5% Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and Bidvest Group. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE. [...] Coming to Adani’s Mumbai Airport acquisition, as per the media reports, Adani Group has a 74% stake in Mumbai’s Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, post the stake purchase transaction, with 50.5% being bought from GVK Group and 23.5% from minority partners including Airports Company South Africa (ACSA), and Bidvest Group.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2018-05-26): In an infographic published by the government, certain claims were made regarding provisions of the ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’. Here is a fact check of those claims.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2021-07-27): About: The Act replaces the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It fulfills the obligations to the United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which India is a signatory. It came into force from 19.04.2017. Under this Act, Disability has been defined based on an evolving and dynamic concept. The types of disabilities have been increased from existing 7 to 21 and the Central Government will have the power to add more types of disabilities.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2016-12-25): The types of disabilities have been increased from existing 7 to 21 and the Central Government will have the power to add more types of disabilities. [...] The New categories of disabilities also included three blood disorders, Thalassemia, Haemophilia and Sickle Cell disease. [...] - Expands the list of disabilities from seven to 21.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2020-01-09): - Disability has been defined based on an evolving and dynamic concept. [...] The act added mental illness, autism, spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, chronic neurological conditions, speech and language disability, thalassemia, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, multiple disabilities including deaf blindness, acid attack victims and Parkinson’s disease which were largely ignored in earlier act. In addition, the Government has been authorized to notify any other category of specified disability. [...] - A large number of disabilities are preventable, including those arising from medical issues during birth, maternal conditions, malnutrition, as well as accidents and injuries.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2024-07-16): According to The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), Persons with disabilities are the ones who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments, which hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. [...] Expansion of Disabilities- The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has expanded the types of disabilities from 7 (under the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995) to 21. The act also provides the Union Government the power to add more types of disabilities.
Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21. (Govt. of India, 2018-05-26)
Evidence (2023-09-04): Many people still feel confused about what types of disabilities are covered under the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act). We published a full article and an infographic about RPWD Act — but we are still getting queries on what disability conditions are covered under the act. So, we decided to publish another infographic on this matter. [...] The number of recognized disability conditions has been increased from 7 to 21 in the RPWD Act 2016. The new list of recognized disabilities include three blood disorders and acid attack survivors have also been included in the list. [...] - Locomotor Disability - Dwarfism - Intellectual Disability - Mental Illness - Autism Spectrum Disorder - Cerebral Palsy - Muscular Dystrophy - Chronic Neurological conditions - Specific Learning Disabilities - Multiple Sclerosis - Speech and Language disability - Thalassemia - Hemophilia - Sickle Cell disease - Multiple Disabilities including deaf-blindness - Acid Attack victim - Parkinson’s disease