The Consortium of National Law Universities has made a important announcement regarding CLAT 2024 admission. According to the notice, the CLAT 2024 exam will be held in offline mode on December 3, 2023 for admissions to the 5-year integrated B.A., LL.B (Hons.), and LL.M. programmes. The application form, syllabus, application, and counselling process details will be released soon. The applications will be submitted through the consortium’s official website, consortiumofnlus.ac.in. The CLAT 2024 application form is expected to be available in the first week of August. Candidates planning to take the CLAT 2024 should keep track of the application form deadline and the preparation date for the law entrance exam. CLAT 2024 will be held in over 130 exam centres across the country. According to reports, the CLAT 2024 syllabus and exam pattern will remain the same this year. Those who wish to take the Common Law Admission Test should begin preparing for it as soon as possible. There will be 150 multiple-choice questions on topics such as English, legal aptitude, logical thinking, arithmetic, and general knowledge, as well as current affairs.

On Thursday, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction that the new Parliament building be inaugurated by the President of India. It is argued that the not inviting the President for the ceremony is a humiliation and a violation of the Constitution. The petitioner also claimed that the Lok Sabha Secretariat broke the law by not inviting the President to the inauguration. This comes just days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the newly constructed Parliament building would be inaugurated on Sunday. Last Thursday, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and invited him to the inauguration of the New Parliament Building. According to a Lok Sabha release, the New Parliament Building in the national capital has been completed and symbolises the spirit of self-reliance in India. “As per the current requirements, there was a lack of space in the current building.” “There was also a lack of convenient arrangements for MPs to sit in both Houses, which was affecting the efficiency of the members’ work,” the release stated. The current Parliament building was completed in 1927, making it nearly 100 years old. The Centre has invited all current members of both houses of Parliament, as well as ministers, secretaries, chief ministers, and administrators of Union territories. However, as many as 20 parties have announced their intention to boycott the event, including the Congress, CPI, AAP, and Trinamool Congress. Opposition parties said in a joint statement, “The inauguration of a new Parliament building is a momentous occasion.” Despite our belief that the government is endangering democracy and our displeasure with the autocratic manner in which the new Parliament was constructed, we were willing to set aside our differences and commemorate this occasion. However, Prime Minister Modi’s decision to inaugurate the new Parliament building without President Murmu is not only a grave insult, but a direct assault on our democracy that requires a commensurate response.”

The Delhi High Court Thursday asked the Delhi government to examine and hold stakeholder consultation on the draft of the ‘Advocates Protection Bill’ which seeks to protect and ensure a safe atmosphere for legal professionals in the wake of the killing of a lawyer in April. The high court was informed that the Co-ordination Committee of District Courts Bar Associations in the national capital has prepared the draft of the bill and it has been sent to the Delhi chief minister and law minister. “Let the same be placed on record along with the index. Let steps be taken by the Delhi government for examination of the draft bill and let stakeholder consultation be held by it. “After the stakeholders consultation on examination of the draft bill, let the action taken report be filed. List on September 6,” Justice Prathiba M Singh said. Advocate K C Mittal, representing the Co-ordination Committee of District Courts Bar Associations, informed the court about the first draft of the bill having been sent to the chief minister and law minister for consideration. The high court was hearing a plea by lawyers Deepa Joseph and Alpha Phiris Dayal seeking enactment of a law for protection of advocates and ensuring a safe atmosphere for them. On April 12, the high court had asked the Centre and the city government to respond to the petition and also sought a status report from the Bar Council of Delhi and the coordination committee, which submitted it is already in the process of drafting an ‘Advocates Protection Bill’ and holding consultation with public officials. Advocate Robin Raju, representing the petitioners, had earlier informed the court that Rajasthan has already enacted a law for protection of advocates. Advocate Virender Kumar Narwal, 53, was shot dead in southwest Delhi’s Dwarka by two motorcycle-borne assailants on April 1. In their plea, the petitioners have said there has been an “alarming rise” in incidents of violence inside the court premises in the city and it was “high time now” for a decision to be taken for enacting a law to guarantee protection to the legal fraternity and help remove the fear that has got embedded in their minds. The petitioners have stated their concern about their own safety has been “aggravated by seeing the visuals and video of the cold-blooded murder of an influential and senior member of the Bar”, and if such a bill is not passed in Delhi, the audacity of criminals to commit crimes against lawyers will increase. “The scenario particularly post the death of advocate Virender Narwal has created an atmosphere that does not feel favourable to practice the profession without fear and hence it impinges upon the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violates Article 21 of the constitution that guarantees protection of life and personal liberty,” the petition said. It said Rajasthan has already passed a law which provides for police protection to any lawyer who is attacked or against whom criminal force and criminal intimidation has been used while prescribing a punishment for the offender.

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ही करेंगे नई संसद का उद्घाटन: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भारत के राष्ट्रपति द्वारा उद्घाटन की मांग वाली जनहित याचिका ख़ारिज की आज सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एक जनहित याचिका में सुनवाई की, जिसमें यह निर्देश देने की मांग की गई थी कि नए संसद भवन का उद्घाटन भारत के प्रधानमंत्री श्री नरेन्द्र मोदी के बजाय भारत कि राष्ट्रपति द्रौपदी मुरमू द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए। हालांकि, जस्टिस जेके माहेश्वरी और जस्टिस पीएस नरसिम्हा की पीठ ने एडवोकेट सीआर जया सुकिन द्वारा दायर जनहित याचिका पर विचार करने के लिए अनिच्छा व्यक्त की, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप मामले को वापस ले लिया गया। याचिकाकर्ता ने भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 79 का हवाला दिया, जो यह बताता है कि संसद में राष्ट्रपति और दो सदन शामिल हैं, यह तर्क देते हुए कि राष्ट्रपति को भवन खोलना चाहिए क्योंकि वह कार्यकारी प्रमुख हैं। याचिकाकर्ता की दलीलों के बावजूद खंडपीठ ने याचिकाकर्ताके मामले को वापस लेने के फैसले को रिकॉर्ड करने के बाद याचिका को खारिज कर दिया। यह जनहित याचिका 18 मई को लोकसभा सचिवालय द्वारा जारी एक बयान की प्रतिक्रिया थी, जिसमें घोषणा की गई थी कि नए संसद भवन का उद्घाटन 28 मई को प्रधान मंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी द्वारा किया जाएगा।याचिकाकर्ता ने दावा किया कि इस बयान ने संविधान का उल्लंघन किया क्योंकि इसमें राष्ट्रपति को आमंत्रित नहीं किया गया था। याचिकाकर्ता ने तर्क दिया कि राष्ट्रपति के बजाय प्रधान मंत्री को आमंत्रित करना एक अपमान और संविधान का उल्लंघन है, समावेश की भावना को कम करता है जिसने राष्ट्र को अपनी पहली महिला आदिवासी राष्ट्रपति का जश्न मनाया।विरोध के बावजूद पीठ याचिकाकर्ता की दलीलों से सहमत नहीं थी और याचिका खारिज करने की ओर बढ़ रही थी, तभी याचिकाकर्ता ने मामले को वापस ले लिया।

The AllahabadS. 18 (3) JJ Act | Magistrate has No Power to Retain the File After Declaring the Accused as Juvenile: Allahabad HC HC on Wednesday stated that the magistrate has no power to retain the file after declaring the accused as juvenile. The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav was dealing with the application filed to quash the impugned order passed by ACJM, Khurja, District Bulandshahar in connection with Criminal Case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. In this case, the opposite party no.2 lodged the FIR against unknown persons alleging that on false promise of obtaining NOC from Pollution Board, U.P. to run his cold storage, the informant/opposite party no.2 was duped of Rs.40 lakh by unknown person, who asked him to make deposit the said amount into some bank account, where after the OSD of Chief Minister was promised to help him.  The informant/opposite party no.2 issued three cheques. Total Rs. 40 lakh has been deposited by the informant/opposite party no.2. When the informant/opposite party no.2 has inquired about the said account, it was found that the said account is opened in the name of Narendra Singh s/o Anil Singh. Since then the informant/opposite party no.2 has contacted several times but the accused person has not responded. High Court looked into Sections 18 (3) and 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and observed that as per terms of Section 18 (3) of the Act, 2015, the Magistrate has no power to retain the file after declaring the applicant-accused as juvenile and the trial of any accused/delinquent juvenile, who is assessed to be tried as an adult, can only be held before the Children’s Court/ POCSO Court in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Act, 2015. The bench stated that the accused-applicant was 16 years 9 months and 7 days at the time of the commission of 5 of 7 alleged offence, hence, the accused-applicant was declared juvenile vide order dated 18.05.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board. After declaring the accused applicant a juvenile, the Principal Magistrate has rightly requested the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass appropriate order for sending the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board/Children’s court, but the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without giving any heed, rejected the same observing that as the file of the instant case has been transferred to his court, therefore, he will continue to hold the trial proceeding.

दिल्ली के एक उपभोक्ता फोरम ने एसबीआई कार्ड्स एंड पेमेंट सर्विसेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड को निर्देश दिया है। लिमिटेड को एक व्यक्ति को उसके कार्ड की अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी उसे बिल भेजने और शुल्क का भुगतान न करने पर उसे काली सूची में डालने के लिए 2 लाख रुपये का भुगतान करना होगा। नई दिल्ली जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद निवारण फोरम, जिसमें इसके अध्यक्ष मोनिका ए श्रीवास्तव और सदस्य किरण कौशल और उमेश कुमार त्यागी शामिल हैं, ने कंपनी को “सेवाएं प्रदान करने में कमी” के लिए एक पूर्व पत्रकार एम जे एंथनी को राशि का भुगतान करने का निर्देश दिया। फोरम ने नोट किया कि कंपनी ने उन्हें आरबीआई द्वारा बनाए गए विलफुल डिफॉल्टर्स के CIBIL सिस्टम में ब्लैकलिस्ट कर दिया था, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप क्रेडिट कार्ड के लिए उनके आवेदन को दूसरे बैंक से अस्वीकार कर दिया गया था, जहां उन्होंने लगभग दो दशकों तक नियमित खाता बनाए रखा था। “इस आयोग का विचार है कि एसबीआई कार्ड्स एंड पेमेंट्स सर्विसेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड शिकायतकर्ता को सेवाएं प्रदान करने में विफल रही है और हालांकि क्रेडिट रेटिंग के मामले में शिकायतकर्ता को हुई क्षति/हानि को अभी तक पैसे के मामले में नहीं मापा जा सकता है ओपी (विपरीत पक्ष) के खिलाफ दंडात्मक क्षति का आदेश दिया जाना चाहिए, इसलिए, ओपी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि वह इस आदेश की तारीख से दो महीने के भीतर मुआवजे के रूप में 2 लाख रुपये की राशि का भुगतान करके शिकायतकर्ता को मुआवजा दे, ऐसा न करने पर देय राशि 3 लाख रुपये होगी। “फोरम ने कहा। फोरम ने 20 मई को एंथनी की मुआवजे की मांग वाली शिकायत पर आदेश पारित किया, जिसमें दावा किया गया था कि उसने कंपनी से अनुरोध किया था कि वह अप्रैल 2016 में अपने कार्ड की समाप्ति से पहले रद्द कर दे और इसे नवीनीकृत न करे। उसने 9 अप्रैल, 2016 के बाद किसी भी लेन-देन के लिए कार्ड का उपयोग नहीं किया और नियमों के अनुसार कार्ड को नष्ट कर दिया, उन्होंने कहा कि कार्ड पर उस समय कोई भुगतान देय नहीं था।

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law does not have an indefeasible right in a “shared household” and that the in-laws cannot be excluded from the same. The court was hearing a plea moved by a daughter-in-law against her husband and in-laws who were senior citizens, challenging an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on March 31. After the in-laws preferred an eviction petition under the Senior Citizens Act, the District Magistrate in September last year directed the eviction of the daughter-in-law from a 3 BHK floor in the South Extension area. The Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside her eviction. However, the in-laws were also permitted to live on the property along with the daughter-in-law. Dispensing the plea, Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the stand of the daughter-in-law that the in-laws should not be allowed to live on their own property was “completely contrary to the settled understanding on the subject.” The court thus directed the daughter-in-law and her son to occup

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने माना है कि केवल एक मजिस्ट्रेट या उच्च न्यायालय के पास किसी मामले की आगे की जांच का आदेश देने की शक्ति है न कि किसी जांच एजेंसी के पास। जस्टिस कृष्ण मुरारी और जस्टिस संजय करोल की पीठ ने दोहराया कि समकालीन एक्सपोसिटो का सिद्धांत, जो कि उन मामलों की व्याख्या है जिन्हें लंबे समय से समझा और लागू किया गया है, कानून की इस व्याख्या का समर्थन करता है। विचाराधीन मामले में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 420 के तहत आरोपित एक अभियुक्त शामिल है। अपीलकर्ता ने दावा किया कि उचित प्रक्रिया के उल्लंघन में आगे की जांच का आदेश दिया गया था, और उच्च न्यायालय ने कार्यवाही को रद्द नहीं कर गलती की थी।राज्य ने तर्क दिया कि जिला पुलिस प्रमुख के आदेश के अनुसार ही आगे की जांच की गई थी। अदालत ने आगे की जांच के बीच अंतर किया, जो ताजा सामग्री की खोज के आधार पर पिछली जांच की निरंतरता है, और ताजा जांच, जो केवल अदालत द्वारा आदेश दिए जाने पर ही हो सकती है। अदालत ने कहा कि मजिस्ट्रेट ने आगे की जांच की अनुमति नहीं दी थी और दूसरी अंतिम रिपोर्ट बिना आधार के थी।इसके अलावा, यह दिखाने के लिए रिकॉर्ड पर कोई सामग्री नहीं रखी गई थी कि अपीलकर्ता का प्रतिनिधित्व झूठा था या वित्तीय लेनदेन का कोई सबूत था। नतीजतन, अदालत ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को रद्द कर दिया और अपीलकर्ता के खिलाफ आपराधिक कार्यवाही को और रद्द कर दिया।

India is known for its rich culture, traditions, and social values. However, in recent times, the country has witnessed a growing demand for same-sex marriage. While some people see it as a progressive step towards equal rights, others believe that it could erode India’s social and cultural systems. In this article, we will explore the various ways in which same-sex marriage in India can have an impact on its social and cultural systems. India’s social and cultural systems are deeply rooted in traditional family structures, and marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as the ideal family unit. The family is viewed as the basic unit of society and provides emotional and financial support to its members. In Indian culture, family members are expected to prioritize the interests of the family over their own interests. What is Same-Sex Marriage: Same-sex marriage is also known as gay marriage. It is the marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. What is Marriage: Marriage is a socially and ritually recognised institution, traditionally between a man and a woman. Marriage is an integral part of every person’s life. It is through marriage that humans have propagated future generations. Marriage is the most important institution of human society. It is a universal phenomenon and has been the backbone of human civilisation.  We can say that the Marriage is as old as the institution of the family. Both these institutions are vital for the society. Family depends upon the Marriage. Marriage regulates sex life of human beings, thereby giving them a chance to procreate, thus aiding the survival of human race. Marriage creates new social relationships and reciprocal rights between the spouses. It establishes the rights and the status of the children when they are born. Each society recognises certain procedures for creating such relationship and rights.The society prescribes rules for prohibitions, preferences, and prescriptions in deciding marriage. It is this institution through which a man sustains the continuity of his race and attains satisfaction in a socially recognised manner. Sociologists and anthropologists have given definitions of marriage.  Some of the important definitions are given below. Right ToMarry: Right of all members of family like Right to Respect for private and family life, right to marry and found family, is foundation of justice, freedom, and peace.The right to marry is a component of right to life under art 21 of Constitution of India which says, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. What is marriage in Indian Society: In Indian society, marriage has been considered a sacramental union and forms the basis of the family structure. Although variously defined, in its archaic form, marriage looks as the social union between a male and a female (by birth) forming a social institution for the establishment and regulation of a proper relationship between the sexes.  What IndianCulture says: According to the Hindu Law, Marriage is a body for the performance of religious duties. It is deemed as a holy union in Hindu Law and also considered to be a union of flesh to flesh and blood to blood. It is a religious sacrament and not a civil contract. The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Sec.5 provides right to marry under statutory condition. Hinduism is against Homosexuality and is unacceptable to most Hindus. Hinduism teaches that the ‘natural’ thing is for men and women to marry and have children. On the contrary, those who go against this natural relationship are violating their own dharma. In Sikhism, The Guru Granth Sahib only mentions marriage in relation to a man and a woman forming a spiritual union. According to the Muslim law, the Quran states “every person must marry.” Quran asserts that marriage is the only way to satisfy one’s desire. Marriage (nikah) is defined to be a contract which has for its object the procreation and the legalizing of children. The Quran mentions sex between men several times, in the context of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which some city inhabitants demand sexual access to the messengers sent by God to the prophet Lot. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin and perversions; hence it is ‘Haram,’ Islam has for centuries been much more tolerant than Christianity. The biblical emphasis upon the loving union of male and female, as an integral part of God’s creation ordinance, establishing family only by a man and woman. Government’s view: The Centre in the Supreme Court frowned upon same-sex marriage while invoking the “accepted view” that a marriage between a biological man and woman is a “holy union, a sacrament and a Sanskar” in India. The Union government has opposed same-sex marriage and said that judicial interference would cause “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws.” It also submitted that the SC had only decriminalised sexual intercourse between same-sex persons in its 2018 judgment, but had not legitimised this “conduct”. The court, while decriminalising homosexuality, had never accepted same-sex marriage as part of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. “The institution of marriage has a sanctity attached to it and in major parts of the country, it is regarded as a sacrament, a holy union, and a Sanskar. In our country, despite statutory recognition of the relationship of marriage between a biological man and a biological woman, marriage necessarily depends upon age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos, and societal values,” the Centre said in a 56-page affidavit filed on March 12. The government submitted that statutory recognition of marriage as a union between a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ is inextricably tied to acceptance of the heterogeneous institution of marriage and acceptance of Indian society based on its own cultural and sociological norms acknowledged by the competent legislatureThe affidavit came in response to the Court’s decision to examine petitions to allow solemnisation of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. Stating that same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes which cannot be treated identically, the Centre said that living together as partners by same-sex individuals was not comparable with the Indian family unit concept of husband, wife and children. It said that western decisions sans any basis in Indian constitutional law jurisprudence could not be imported in this context. The government also argued that statutory recognition of heterosexual marriage was the norm throughout history and were “foundational to both the existence and continuance of the state”. There was a “compelling interest” for the society and the state to limit recognition to heterosexual marriages only.  Centre says: There can be no fundamental right to recognise a particular form of social relationship. Statutory recognition of marriage as a union between a “man” and a “woman” is intrinsically linked to the recognition of heterogeneous institution of marriage and the acceptance of the Indian society based on its cultural and societal values, which are recognised by the competent legislature. Considerations of societal morality are relevant in considering the validity of the legislature. Further, it is for the legislature to judge and enforce such societal morality and public acceptance based upon Indian ethos. Considering its social value, the State has a compelling interest in granting recognition to heterosexual marriage, only to the exclusion of other forms of marriage/unions. Statutory recognition of marriage limited to heterosexual marriage is the norm throughout history and are foundational to both the existence and continuance of the State. While there may be various other forms of marriage or unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society, the State limits recognition to the heterosexual form. The State DOES NOT recognise these other forms of marriages or unions or personal understandings of relationships between individuals in a society, but the same are not unlawful. While other forms of union may exist in society, which would not be unlawful, it is open for a society to give legal recognition to the form of union, which a society considers to be the “quintessential building block” of its existence. On not granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage – In terms of Article 14, same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are clearly distinct classes, which cannot be treated identically. Hence, there is an intelligible differentia (normative basis) that distinguishes those within the classification (heterosexual couples) from those left out (same-sex couples). Citizens have a right to association under Article 19, but there is no concomitant right that such associations must necessarily be granted legal recognition by the State. The right to life and liberty under Article 21 cannot be read to include within it any implicit approval of same-sex marriage. The SC’s judgment decriminalising same-sex relationships cannot be treated as conferring a fundamental right to be recognised in a marriage under Indian personal laws, whether codified or otherwise. Even if such a right is claimed under Article 21, it can be curtailed by “a competent legislature on permissible constitutional grounds”, including “legitimate State interest”. The government’s affidavit states that the issue of same-sex marriage is a matter of “legislative policy” and that any decision on the matter should be made by the parliament, not the courts. The affidavit also argues that legalizing same-sex marriage could have “far-reaching consequences” for Indian society, and that any change in the law should be made only after “wide-ranging” consultations with all stakeholders. State’s view: The UP government has opposed recognition of same-sex marriage in the Allahabad HC on the ground that such “marriages are against Indian culture, traditions, customs and values and be invalid as per the Indian Laws. What is that the Supreme Court looking at? A five-judge Constitution bench, presided by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, said that it would “steer clear of personal laws” and can examine if the right can be conferred under the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954. The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, indicated that it may only confine to the interpretation of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) to include the term “person” instead of man and woman. “We are not willing to go into personal law issues. Remit will thus have to be restricted only to the extent we are willing to consider the issue,” it told the counsels appearing for petitioners and respondents, which include the Centre, religious bodies, and individuals. While the government, through Special Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, questioned the maintainability of petitions, the CJI said that the hearing’s scope would be limited to developing a notion of a “civil union” that finds legal recognition under the Special Marriage Act. Views of Bar Council of India: Various Laws that Regulate Marriages in India: These laws govern the various aspects of marriages in India, including the conditions of a valid marriage, registration of marriages, grounds for divorce, and other related matters. What is Special Marriage Act 1955: Impact of the Same-Sex Marriage on Indian Social and Cultural Systems: Individual Impact: Some individuals may feel uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage due to cultural or religious beliefs. Legalizing same-sex marriage may also create conflicts between individuals who hold different beliefs on the matter, leading to increased tension and division. Family Impact: Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to family conflicts and estrangement, particularly if families are not accepting of LGBTQ+ relationships. This could result in a breakdown of family units and cause emotional harm to family members. Community Impact: Legalizing same-sex marriage may lead to social tension and division within communities, particularly in conservative or religious communities. This could result in discrimination and marginalization of the LGBTQ+ community, leading to negative mental health impacts and decreased quality of life. Society Impact: Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to a breakdown of traditional family structures, which could have negative implications for society as a whole. This could include decreased birth rates, changes in cultural norms, and a shift in societal values. National Impact: Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to a backlash from conservative or religious groups, resulting in increased polarization and division within the nation. This could lead to a decrease in national unity and cohesion, potentially affecting economic and social development. Former Judges Views:  Leads to Erosion of Social and Cultural Values: Religious beliefs: India is a religiously diverse country, and religion plays a significant role in the lives of its people. Same-sex marriage could be seen as a challenge to traditional religious beliefs, which could lead to social unrest. Many religious leaders in India have already expressed their opposition to same-sex marriage, arguing that it goes against the teachings of their respective religions. This could lead to a conflict between those who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it, which could further divide Indian society. Traditional family structures: Family is the bedrock of our society. As India climbs up the world ladder, it will be the safety net of the family that will help our children take the country to greater heights and help achieve its destiny as the economic and cultural superpower of the world. Marriage is an important institution in Indian society, and it is viewed as a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage, however, challenges this traditional notion of marriage, which could lead to the erosion of traditional family structures. In Indian society, the family is the basic unit of society, and it is viewed as the cornerstone of Indian culture. The family provides emotional and financial support to its members and helps maintain social order. Same-sex marriage could disrupt this traditional family structure, which could have a negative impact on Indian society. Impact on children: One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that it could have a negative impact on children. Traditional family structures are seen as the ideal environment for raising children, and same-sex marriage could disrupt this ideal. Some people argue that children raised by same-sex couples could be subjected to confusion and may not receive the same level of emotional and social support as children raised by opposite-sex couples. This argument is often used to justify the ban on same-sex marriage, and it could further erode Indian society’s social and cultural systems. Legal and constitutional implications: The legalization of same-sex marriage could have legal and constitutional implications in India. The Indian constitution recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and any attempt to change this definition could be seen as a violation of the constitution. Moreover, India’s legal system is based on British common law, which does not recognize same-sex marriage. The legalization of same-sex marriage would require a significant overhaul of India’s legal system, which could have a negative impact on Indian society’s social and cultural systems. Impact on population growth: Another argument against same-sex marriage is that it could have a negative impact on population growth. In Indian society, marriage is viewed to procreate and carry on the family lineage. Same-sex marriage, however, does not have the same procreative potential as opposite-sex marriage. Some people argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to a decline in population growth, which could have long-term implications for Indian society. Views of Sociologists: First things first, the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining a societal equilibrium and in ensuring that new practices do not lead to the breakdown of our cultural ethos and societal values. The judiciary, or more precisely two judges, however, learned, and respected, cannot usurp this role. Any policy intervention that impacts the direction of our social institutions needs a thorough debate in Parliament and the society at large. Marriages are, after all, the most personal public institution and clearly straddle the divide between the individual and the state. Citing the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of our Constitution to allow same-sex marriage is a deeply-flawed argument because marital relations are more than personal: Humans are social beings whose humanity is expressed through their relationships with others. Entering a marriage, therefore, is to enter a relationship that has public significance as well. To attempt to infer that a marriage between “two persons” in the Special Marriages Act, includes couples of the same sex is fallacious because the same Act states that males should have attained the age of 21 years and females 18 years for marriage. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and various family laws and penal statutes, marriage is clearly defined as the union of a “man” and a “woman”. These laws without ambiguity refer to opposite sexes as “husband” and “wife” — a biological man marrying a biological woman. Muslim Personal Law also clearly defines mahr or other properties of a Muslim “woman” to be given to her at the time of divorce. Many statutory enactments will become unworkable and legislative intention will be defeated if we were to ignore this fundamental fact. Sections of the Indian Penal Code provide special rights to women who are part of the legally-recognised relationship of marriage. The Dowry Prohibition Act refers to dowry as being for the benefit of the “wife” while the Indian Evidence Act concerns itself with the abetment of suicide by a married “woman.” The Code of Criminal Procedure talks about the maintenance of “wives,” and the Domestic Violence Act defines the aggrieved person as any “woman”. There are numerous other issues related to the institution of marriage such as those for adoption, divorce, succession, the wife’s right to stay in a marital home, etc., that will go awry if the definition of husband and wife is anything other than a biological man and a biological woman. Even in the oft-cited judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which led to the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has clarified that an individual also has a right to a union under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has also been clarified that the reference to “union” does not mean the union of marriage. Therefore, while there exists no statutory bar to the cohabitation of same-sex couples, there cannot exist any fundamental right to claim a statutory recognition of relationships such as same-sex marriage under Indian laws. The social order in our Country is religion based which views procreation as an obligation for the execution of various religious ceremonies. Additionally, our society is very community oriented and individualism is not encouraged in the least, any expression of homosexuality is seen as an attempt to renounce tradition and promote individualism, thereby posing a threat to the order in Indian society. It is opined that if homosexual marriages are legalized it will destroy the concept of a traditional family and the sanctity of marriage will be lost. Views of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) on adoption by same-sex couples: Growing up in same-sex families stressful for children: The NCPCR has referred to studies that have found that children raised by heterosexual couples are emotionally more stable, and has argued that allowing same sex-couples to adopt is akin to “endangering the children,” the Live Law report said. Sources in the Commission had earlier that it has submitted “international studies and articles’’ showing that children “growing up in same-sex families have higher probability of suffering from mental and psychological issues, which could affect their growth and development.” Child cannot be a subject in an experiment: According to the Live Law report, the NCPCR has submitted that “Giving children to be raised by persons having issues would be like exposing children to struggle just for experimentation and the same is not in the interest of children as every individual has same human rights and it applies to children for being raised safely.” Therefore, the NCPCR has asked that “children may be saved by this Hon’ble Court from being subjected to experimentation or being treated as ‘subject.” Understanding of ‘gender roles’ will be affected: According to the NCPCR, children raised by same-sex parents will have limited exposure to “traditional gender roles,” and this will impact their understanding of “gender roles and gender identity,” the Live Law report said.This, the NCPCR has said, will limit the overall growth of their personality. Conclusion: In conclusion, the debate over same-sex marriage in India is complex and multifaceted, it could erode India’s social and cultural systems. The impact of same-sex marriage on Indian society’s social and cultural systems could be far-reaching, and it is important to carefully consider all the implications before deciding. Ultimately, any decision regarding same-sex marriage in India should be made after careful consideration of its impact on Indian society’s social and cultural systems. The legalization of same-sex marriage in India could have significant implications for Indian society’s social and cultural systems. It could challenge the traditional family structures and religious beliefs that have formed the basisof Indian culture for centuries. It could also have an impact on population growth, as marriage is viewed as a means of procreation and carrying on the family lineage. Of late, there is a movement towards disturbing the most fundamental element of our families — marriage. Through a flurry of judicial pleas, many are seeking to sanctify same-sex marriage under the garb of equality and freedom. This needs to be addressed head-on and urgently, not by the judiciary but by the legislature. Marriage is one of the universal social institutions established by the human society to control and regulate the life of man. It is a cornerstone of a society. It is in the family that children learn to become citizens; it is in the family that children learn about relationships; it is in the family that children learn about what is expected of them in society, how to act and how to be. Central to the nuclear family is the traditional idea of marriage, consisting of one man and one woman in a monogamous and permanent relationship. We need to promote and protect marriage to secure a healthier society. Marriage has legitimate recognition to get united. Society accepts union of two souls because primary object of marriage is to beget and bear offspring, and to them until they are able to take care of themselves. If same-sex marriage were to be accepted in India, there could be various conflicts in different domains, including: In addition, the acceptance of same-sex marriage may also challenge gender roles and norms in India, which could lead to further conflicts. For example, traditional gender roles dictate that men and women have specific roles in a marriage, and the idea of same-sex marriages may challenge these gender norms.Overall, the acceptance of same-sex marriage in India may challenge deeply ingrained social norms and values, leading to social and cultural conflicts. Author DR .B. RAMASWAMY LLM, MPhil, PGCL, PGIPR, PGAN, PhD.Central Govt Sr Standing Counsel :Income Tax, Madras High Court.Ministry of Education EdCIL – Supreme Court.AIU- Supreme Court.AGP -Puducherry for Madras High court .Panel Member – Arbitrator , Delhi High court 

बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने कहा कि हिरासत के आदेश को स्थाई नहीं बनाया जा सकता है और जीवन के विभिन्न चरणों में बच्चे की जरूरतों और कल्याण को ध्यान में रखते हुए इसे बदला जा सकता है। न्यायमूर्ति नीला गोखले की एकल पीठ ने 4 मई के आदेश में कहा कि बच्चों की अभिरक्षा के मामले संवेदनशील मुद्दे हैं जिनके लिए जीवन के बढ़ते चरणों में बच्चे की देखभाल और स्नेह की प्रकृति की सराहना और विचार की आवश्यकता होती है। यह आदेश 40 वर्षीय व्यक्ति द्वारा दायर एक याचिका में पारित किया गया था, जिसमें फैमिली कोर्ट द्वारा पारित एक आदेश को चुनौती दी गई थी, जिसमें हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम के तहत दायर उसके आवेदन को खारिज कर दिया गया था, जिसमें नाबालिग लड़के की संयुक्त हिरासत दोनों माता-पिता को देने के पहले के आदेश में संशोधन की मांग की गई थी। शख्स के मुताबिक, 2017 में तलाक की कार्यवाही में दाखिल सहमति की शर्तों में उसने और उसकी पूर्व पत्नी ने इस बात पर सहमति जताई थी कि अगर दोनों में से एक ने दोबारा शादी की तो दूसरे को बच्चे की पूरी कस्टडी मिलेगी. फैमिली कोर्ट ने इस आधार पर आदमी के आवेदन को खारिज कर दिया था कि उसे अभिभावक और वार्ड अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के तहत दायर करना चाहिए था न कि हिंदू विवाह अधिनियम के तहत।व्यक्ति ने अपनी दलील में कहा कि वह केवल तलाक की कार्यवाही में दायर सहमति शर्तों में संशोधन की मांग कर रहा था। उच्च न्यायालय ने पारिवारिक अदालत के आदेश को रद्द कर दिया और नाबालिग बच्चे की हिरासत से संबंधित सहमति शर्तों में संशोधन की मांग करने वाले व्यक्ति के आवेदन पर नए सिरे से सुनवाई करने का निर्देश दिया।

AIBE (XVIII) 18 पर बड़ा अपडेट- दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने बीसीआई को हर साल पूर्व निर्धारित टाइम टेबल जारी करने को कहा दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया (बीसीआई) को हर साल अखिल भारतीय बार परीक्षा (AIBE) के आयोजन के लिए पूर्व-निर्धारित कार्यक्रम या समय सारिणी की घोषणा करने पर विचार करने का निर्देश दिया है। न्यायमूर्ति प्रतिभा एम सिंह ने कहा कि प्रत्येक वर्ष कैलेंडर के हिस्से के रूप में एक पूर्व-निर्धारित कार्यक्रम या वार्षिक समय सारणी होने से उम्मीदवारों को आवश्यक व्यवस्था करने में बहुत मदद मिलेगी। अदालत ने बीसीआई को आदेश दिया कि वह प्रत्येक कैलेंडर वर्ष में उन महीनों की घोषणा करने पर विचार करे जिनमें एआईबीई आयोजित होने की संभावना है, क्योंकि बड़ी संख्या में संभावित उम्मीदवारों को परीक्षा देने के लिए शारीरिक रूप से उपस्थित होने की व्यवस्था करनी पड़ सकती है। अदालत ने वकील निशांत खत्री द्वारा दायर एक याचिका का निस्तारण किया, जिन्होंने 19 नवंबर, 2019 को बार काउंसिल ऑफ दिल्ली में दाखिला लिया था, जिसमें कहा गया था कि एआईबीई परीक्षा नहीं होने के कारण उन्हें अदालतों में प्रैक्टिस करने से वंचित नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। बीसीआई को AIBE परीक्षा के लिए पूर्व निर्धारित कार्यक्रम पर एक स्थिति रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने का निर्देश दिया गया था।बीसीआई के वकील ने प्रस्तुत किया कि प्री-सेट शेड्यूल की घोषणा करना मुश्किल हो सकता है क्योंकि परीक्षा की तारीख तय होने से पहले देश भर के विभिन्न हितधारकों से परामर्श करना होगा, यह कहते हुए कि अगली AIBE परीक्षा इस साल सितंबर में संभावित रूप से निर्धारित है। परीक्षा में देरी के आलोक में, HC ने स्पष्ट किया कि याचिकाकर्ता-वकील को उसके अनंतिम पंजीकरण पर भरोसा करने और अगले आदेश तक अदालतों में पेश होने से वंचित या अयोग्य घोषित नहीं किया जाएगा।

Wife Can Seek CCTV Footage of Hotel to Prove Adultery by Husband- No Violation of Right to Privacy of Husband: Delhi HC The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife’s right to seek redressal under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act should prevail over her husband’s right to privacy when it comes to allegations of adultery.  The court held that a woman has the right to seek evidence or documents to prove adultery in a divorce petition against her husband.  The court also noted that the right to privacy, although a constitutionally protected right, is not an absolute right.  In this case, the husband challenged two orders passed by a family court in relation to his alleged adultery. The wife had filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty, citing evidence of her husband’s presence in a hotel where he was allegedly engaging in an adulterous relationship. The family court had allowed her application for the preservation of CCTV footage from the hotel in question and the summoning of the hotel room’s records.  The husband moved to the High Court to challenge these orders. His counsel argued against the allegations of adultery and cruelty, claiming that his client was merely visiting a friend who was also staying at the hotel with her daughter. Moreover, he protested that the family court was carrying out a fishing and roving inquiry, and that the divulgence of private information sought by the wife would violate his right to privacy and that of the other individuals involved.  However, the court held that a wife’s plea for records pertaining to her legally wedded husband, who she was alleging was indulging in adultery, must be given priority over the husband’s right to privacy in a subsisting marital relationship.  The court also noted that there was no question of a violation of the right to privacy of the other lady, with whom the husband was allegedly living in adultery, and her minor child, as the family court had only sought records pertaining to the husband.

सीबीआई ने आईआरएस अधिकारी समीर वानखेड़े और चार अन्य पर अभिनेता शाहरुख खान से 25 करोड़ रुपये की रिश्वत लेने का आरोप लगाया है। खबरों के मुताबिक, समीर ने 2021 के कथित ड्रग जब्ती मामले में अभिनेता के बेटे आर्यन खान की सहायता का अनुरोध किया। सीबीआई ने मुंबई, दिल्ली और कानपुर सहित अन्य में उनके 29 ठिकानों की भी तलाशी ली। वानखेड़े, NCB के दो पूर्व अधिकारी और कुछ निजी कर्मचारी, CBI के अनुसार, मांगे गए 25 करोड़ रिश्वत में से 25 लाख रुपये पहले ही वसूल कर चुके थे। वानखेड़े ने पहले नारकोटिक्स कंट्रोल ब्यूरो (NCB) के मुंबई ज़ोन प्रमुख के रूप में कार्य किया था, और क्रूज शिप ड्रग्स मामले में उनकी गिरफ्तारी से विवाद छिड़ गया था। एनसीबी में अपने कार्यकाल के दौरान वानखेड़े को कई आरोपों का सामना करना पड़ा, जिसके कारण उनका स्थानांतरण हुआ और उनके कुछ विवादास्पद मामलों की आंतरिक जांच का आदेश दिया गया। एनसीबी की एसआईटी (विशेष जांच दल), जिसने आर्यन खान मामले की फिर से जांच की, ने हाल ही में चार्जशीट दायर की, जिसमें आर्यन सहित 14 आरोपियों में से 6 को बरी कर दिया। एनसीबी ने “पर्याप्त सबूतों की कमी” के कारण आर्यन के नाम को मंजूरी दे दी थी। 3 अक्टूबर, 2021 को सबसे पहले आर्यन, उनके दोस्त अरबाज मर्चेंट और क्रूज गेस्ट मुनमुन धमेचा को गिरफ्तार किया गया था। बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने उन्हें महीने के अंत में जमानत दे दी थी। हालांकि, अभिनेता के बेटे के पास कोई ड्रग्स नहीं मिला।आर्यन को धारा 27 के तहत ड्रग्स का सेवन करने की कोशिश, धारा 8 (सी) (कब्जा), धारा 28 (उकसाने), और धारा 29 (साजिश) के तहत गिरफ्तार किया गया था।

For SC Advocates Below 45 years of Age Can be Designated as Senior Advocate Only in Exceptional Circumstances On Friday, the Supreme Court passed a detailed judgment on improving the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court and High Courts. A Bench of Justices SK Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar delivered the Judgment in the case of Ms Indira Jai Singh vs Supreme Court of India (M.A. Nos. 709/2022, 1502/2020) The Supreme Court has covered various aspects of the designation such as voting by secret ballot, Cut Off Marks, Points for publication, reported and unreported judgments, pro bono work, the domain expertise of an applicant under various branches of law, age, personal interview and other general aspects. Background ​​The designation of Senior Advocates in India is a prestigious title awarded to exceptional advocates who have made a significant contribution to the legal profession. This title is granted in recognition of an advocate’s standing and achievements in the field, which sets them apart as someone who can offer exceptional service to clients, the judiciary, and the public. The Advocates Act, 1961, provides for the designation of Senior Advocates in India through Section 16, which categorizes advocates into two groups: advocates and Senior Advocates. Under Section 16(2), the Supreme Court and the High Court are authorized to designate an advocate as Senior Advocate, with their consent. In the case of the Supreme Court, this power is provided in Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The system for designating Senior Advocates was challenged when Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate herself, filed a writ petition in 2015. She claimed that the existing system was flawed and not transparent or objective, meaning merit and ability were not always taken into account. She called for a permanent selection committee to be established, which would replace the current voting system. In response to this challenge, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued an elaborate judgment on October 12, 2017. The judgment put forth a series of guidelines to improve the designation process’s transparency and objectivity while still retaining the Court’s designation power. The guidelines provide for the creation of a Permanent Committee to be chaired by the Chief Justice and two of the most senior judges. The committee would also include the Attorney General/Advocate General of the State in question, with the fifth member being nominated from the Bar by the other members. Age of Advocates for Designation On the issue of age for designation, the Court said:We must also say that the Supreme Court rests on a different footing as the highest court of the land. Although designations in the Supreme Court in comparison to High Courts have usually taken place at the age of 45 plus, younger advocates have also been designated. While we would not like to restrict applications only to advocates who are above 45 years of age, only exceptional advocates should be designated below this age. We say no more and leave this aspect to the wisdom of the Permanent Committee and the Full Court. With respect to younger advocates the Court said: “Young Lawyers are naturally not precluded from applying for designation, particularly as the 2018 Guidelines do not require anything more than ten years of practice. However, we believe that such advocates would have to display that extra bit of ability to be designated.”

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the dismissal of ISRO scientist for unauthorized absence and publication of paper without permission. The bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition preferred by appellant against an order passed by the Executive Council of Goa University (Disciplinary Authority) accepting the Report of the Standing Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Place and imposing upon him, a major penalty of dismissal from services and disqualification from the future employment under Rule 11(IX) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which was duly upheld by the Governor and the Chancellor of Goa University, being the Appellate Authority. In this case, The appellant commenced his career in the respondent no. 2 – Goa University as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, in 1996.  It is the appellant’s version, which is strongly refuted by the other side, that aggrieved by the passing of a resolution by the Departmental Council of the Department of Political Science against them, two girl students along with their friends submitted a complaint to the respondent no.2 – University, alleging physical harassment at his hands. The Committee served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to explain the charges levelled against him in nine complaints and to appear before it for a personal hearing on 24th April, 2009, a date that was subsequently changed to 27 April, 2009.  Contemporaneously, the Registrar of the respondent no. 2 – University directed the appellant to hand over charge and proceed on leave till the conclusion of the inquiry. The High Court observed that the Committee had granted ample opportunities to the appellant to cross-examine the complainants and the witnesses, but he had deliberately elected not to appear before it. In such circumstances, the Committee could not be blamed for proceeding ex-parte against him and submitting its Report.  It was also held that the Committee was justified in discarding the medical certificates submitted by the appellant as he kept on making flimsy excuses to stay away from the enquiry proceedings.  The issue for consideration before the bench was: Whether the order passed by the High Court needs interference or not?  The bench observed that Article 309 does not by itself provide for recruitment or conditions of service of Government servants, but confers this power on the appropriate legislature to make the laws and on the President and the Government of a State to make rules relating to these matters. The expression “conditions of service” in Article 309 takes in its sweep all those conditions that regulate holding of a post by a person which begins from the time he enters the service till his retirement and even post-retirement, in relation to matters like pension, pending disciplinary proceedings, etc. This expression also includes the right to dismiss such a person from service. Supreme Court stated that principles of natural justice that are reflected in Article 311, are not an empty incantation. They form the very bedrock of Article 14 and any violation of these principles tantamounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Denial of the principles of natural justice to a public servant can invalidate a decision taken on the ground that it is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and would result in depriving a public servant of equal protection of law. The bench referred to the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India where it was held that “The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.” Supreme Court opined that to satisfy itself that no injustice has been meted out to the appellant, the High Court was required to examine the decision-making process and not just the final outcome. In other words, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings that cannot be faulted on account of procedural illegalities or irregularities that may have vitiated the process by which the decision was arrived at.  The bench stated that however salutary this enactment may be, it will never succeed in providing dignity and respect that women deserve at the workplace unless and until there is strict adherence to the enforcement regime and a proactive approach by all the State and non-State actors. If the working environment continues to remain hostile, insensitive and unresponsive to the needs of women employees, then the Act will remain an empty formality. If the authorities/managements/employers cannot assure them a safe and secure workplace, they will fear stepping out of their homes to make a dignified living and exploit their talent and skills to the hilt. It is, therefore, time for the Union Government and the State Governments to take affirmative action and make sure that the altruistic object behind enacting the PoSH Act is achieved in real terms. Supreme Court issued directions on implementation of Sexual Harrasment of women at Workplace Act: “To fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions :  (i) The Union of India, all State Governments and Union Territories are directed to undertake a timebound exercise to verify as to whether all the concerned Ministries, Departments, Government organizations, authorities, Public Sector Undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc. have constituted ICCs/LCs/ICs, as the case may be and that the composition of the said Committees are strictly in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act.  (ii) It shall be ensured that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of the ICCs/LCs/ICs, details of the e-mail IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily available on the website of the concerned Authority/Functionary/ Organisation/Institution/Body, as the case may be. The information furnished shall also be updated from time to time.  (iii) A similar exercise shall be undertaken by all the Statutory bodies of professionals at the Apex level and the State level (including those regulating doctors, lawyers, architects, chartered accountants, cost accountants, engineers, bankers and other professionals), by Universities, colleges, Training Centres and educational institutions and by government and private hospitals/nursing homes.  (iv) Immediate and effective steps shall be taken by the authorities/ managements/employers to familiarize members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs with their duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on receiving a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, from the point when the complaint is received, till the inquiry is finally concluded and the Report submitted. (v) The authorities/management/employers shall regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops, seminars and awareness programmes to upskill members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs and to educate women employees and women’s groups about the provisions of the Act, the Rules and relevant regulations.  (vi) The National Legal Services Authority(NALSA) and the State Legal Services Authorities(SLSAs) shall develop modules to conduct workshops and organize awareness programmes to sensitize authorities/managements/employers, employees and adolescent groups with the provisions of the Act, which shall be included in their annual calendar.  (vii) The National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies shall include in their annual calendars, orientation programmes, seminars and workshops for capacity building of members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs established in the High Courts and District Courts and for drafting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to conduct an inquiry under the Act and Rules.  (viii) A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secretaries of all the Ministries, Government of India who shall ensure implementation of the directions by all the concerned Departments, Statutory Authorities, Institutions, Organisations etc. under the control of the respective Ministries. A copy of the judgment shall also be transmitted to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories who shall ensure strict compliance of these directions by all the concerned Departments. It shall be the responsibility of the Secretaries of the Ministries, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of every State/Union Territory to ensure implementation of the directions issued. 

कानूनी पेशा अब पारिवारिक पेशा नहीं रह गया है, नए लोगों को वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता बनाने में प्रोत्साहित किया जाना चाहिए: सुप्रीम कोर्ट शुक्रवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट और हाईकोर्ट में वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं के पदनाम की व्यवस्था में सुधार पर विस्तृत फैसला सुनाया। जस्टिस एसके कौल, जस्टिस अहसानुद्दीन अमानुल्लाह और जस्टिस अरविंद कुमार की खंडपीठ ने सुश्री इंदिरा जय सिंह बनाम सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऑफ इंडिया (M.A. Nos. 709/2022, 1502/2020) के मामले में फैसला सुनाया। न्यायालय ने कहा: हम यह भी मानते हैं कि विविधता के हित में विशेष रूप से लिंग और पहली पीढ़ी के वकीलों के संबंध में उचित विचार किया जाना चाहिए। इससे मेधावी अधिवक्ताओं को प्रोत्साहन मिलेगा जो यह जानकर क्षेत्र में आएंगे कि शीर्ष पर पहुंचने की गुंजाइश है। इस पेशे में समय के साथ एक प्रतिमान बदलाव देखा गया है, विशेष रूप से नए कानून विद्यालयों जैसे कि राष्ट्रीय कानून विश्वविद्यालयों के आगमन के साथ। कानूनी पेशे को अब पारिवारिक पेशा नहीं माना जाता है। इसके बजाय, देश के सभी हिस्सों से और अलग-अलग पृष्ठभूमि वाले नए लोग आए हैं। ऐसे नवागंतुकों को प्रोत्साहित किया जाना चाहिए। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने पदनाम के विभिन्न पहलुओं को कवर किया है जैसे कि गुप्त मतदान द्वारा मतदान, कट ऑफ मार्क्स, प्रकाशन के लिए अंक, रिपोर्ट किए गए और अप्रतिबंधित निर्णय, निशुल्क कार्य, कानून की विभिन्न शाखाओं के तहत एक आवेदक की डोमेन विशेषज्ञता, आयु, व्यक्तिगत साक्षात्कार और अन्य सामान्य पहलू। पृष्ठभूमि ​​भारत में वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं का पदनाम असाधारण अधिवक्ताओं को दिया जाने वाला एक प्रतिष्ठित खिताब है, जिन्होंने कानूनी पेशे में महत्वपूर्ण योगदान दिया है। यह शीर्षक क्षेत्र में एक वकील की स्थिति और उपलब्धियों की पहचान के लिए दिया जाता है, जो उन्हें किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति के रूप में अलग करता है जो ग्राहकों, न्यायपालिका और जनता को असाधारण सेवा प्रदान कर सकता है। वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं को नामित करने की प्रणाली को चुनौती दी गई थी, जब सुश्री इंदिरा जयसिंह, जो स्वयं एक वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता थीं, ने 2015 में एक रिट याचिका दायर की थी। इस चुनौती के जवाब में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन-न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने 12 अक्टूबर, 2017 को एक विस्तृत निर्णय जारी किया।

वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता बनाने की प्रक्रिया हर साल की जानी चाहिए, व्यक्तिगत साक्षात्कार समग्र मूल्यांकन की अनुमति देता है: सुप्रीम कोर्ट शुक्रवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट और हाईकोर्ट में वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं के पदनाम की व्यवस्था में सुधार पर विस्तृत फैसला सुनाया। जस्टिस एसके कौल, जस्टिस अहसानुद्दीन अमानुल्लाह और जस्टिस अरविंद कुमार की खंडपीठ ने सुश्री इंदिरा जय सिंह बनाम सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऑफ इंडिया (एम.ए. संख्या 709/2022, 1502/2020) के मामले में फैसला सुनाया। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने पदनाम के विभिन्न पहलुओं को कवर किया है जैसे कि गुप्त मतदान द्वारा मतदान, कट ऑफ मार्क्स, प्रकाशन के लिए अंक, रिपोर्ट किए गए और अप्रतिबंधित निर्णय, निशुल्क कार्य, कानून की विभिन्न शाखाओं के तहत एक आवेदक की डोमेन विशेषज्ञता, आयु, व्यक्तिगत साक्षात्कार और अन्य सामान्य पहलू। पृष्ठभूमि ​​भारत में वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं का पदनाम असाधारण अधिवक्ताओं को दिया जाने वाला एक प्रतिष्ठित खिताब है, जिन्होंने कानूनी पेशे में महत्वपूर्ण योगदान दिया है। यह शीर्षक एक अधिवक्ता के क्षेत्र में खड़े होने और उपलब्धियों की पहचान के लिए दिया जाता है, जो उन्हें ऐसे व्यक्ति के रूप में अलग करता है जो ग्राहकों, न्यायपालिका और जनता को असाधारण सेवा प्रदान कर सकता है। वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं को नामित करने की प्रणाली को चुनौती दी गई थी, जब सुश्री इंदिरा जयसिंह, जो स्वयं एक वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता थीं, ने 2015 में एक रिट याचिका दायर की थी।इस चुनौती के जवाब में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन-न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने 12 अक्टूबर, 2017 को एक विस्तृत निर्णय जारी किया। व्यक्तिगत साक्षात्कार अधिवक्ताओं के व्यक्तिगत साक्षात्कार पर, यह प्रस्तुत किया गया था कि यह बड़ी संख्या में उम्मीदवारों के साक्षात्कार के व्यावहारिक मुद्दे को ध्यान में रखते हुए पदनाम की प्रक्रिया में देरी करेगा। इसके अलावा, एक साक्षात्कार से बहुत कम उद्देश्य पूरा होगा क्योंकि उम्मीदवारों का पहले से ही न्यायालय के समक्ष उनकी उपस्थिति से मूल्यांकन किया जा रहा था। खंडपीठ ने कहा: हम उपरोक्त आलोचनाओं से अवगत हैं। हमारा मानना है कि एक साक्षात्कार प्रक्रिया उम्मीदवार की अधिक व्यक्तिगत और गहन परीक्षा की अनुमति देगी। एक साक्षात्कार अधिक समग्र मूल्यांकन को भी सक्षम बनाता है, विशेष रूप से वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता पदनाम असाधारण अधिवक्ताओं को दिया जाने वाला सम्मान है। एक वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता को एक निश्चित समय सीमा के भीतर बहुत स्पष्ट और सटीक होने की भी आवश्यकता होती है, जो ऐसे मूल्य हैं जिनका साक्षात्कार के दौरान आसानी से मूल्यांकन किया जा सकता है। इसी भावना से हमने साक्षात्कार प्रक्रिया को अधिक व्यावहारिक बनाने का प्रयास किया है। इस प्रकार, हमने एक निश्चित समय पर नामित किए जाने वाले वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं की संख्या को ध्यान में रखते हुए साक्षात्कार की संख्या को स्थायी समिति द्वारा व्यवहार्य समझी गई उचित मात्रा तक सीमित कर दिया है। जैसा कि हमने नामित किए जाने वाले उम्मीदवारों की संख्या के संदर्भ में साक्षात्कार की संख्या को सीमित करके प्रक्रिया को सुव्यवस्थित किया है, हमारा मानना है कि एक सार्थक अभ्यास किया जा सकता है। इस प्रकार, हम इस श्रेणी के तहत दिए गए अंकों को कम करने या कम करने के लिए इच्छुक नहीं हैं, विशेष रूप से इस अभ्यास को और अधिक सार्थक बनाने के लिए वर्तमान आदेश द्वारा किए गए फाइन-ट्यूनिंग को देखते हुए। पदनाम प्रक्रिया हर साल न्यायालय ने नोट किया: वर्तमान में, 2018 के दिशानिर्देशों के अनुसार, पदनाम की प्रक्रिया वर्ष में दो बार अर्थात प्रत्येक वर्ष जनवरी और जुलाई के महीने में की जानी है। हालांकि, श्रीमती माधवी दीवान, एएसजी ने प्रस्तुत किया कि यदि उपरोक्त विस्तृत रूप में अभ्यास किया जाना है, तो प्रक्रिया को वर्ष में दो बार करना बहुत मुश्किल होगा। इस संबंध में कोर्ट ने कहा कि साल में कम से कम एक बार यह प्रक्रिया पूरी की जाए ताकि आवेदन जमा न हों। न्यायालय ने नोट किया: इस संबंध में, कुछ उच्च न्यायालयों से कुछ परेशान करने वाले उदाहरण सामने आए हैं जहां पदनाम का प्रयोग कई वर्षों से नहीं किया गया है। नतीजतन, मेधावी अधिवक्ता प्रासंगिक समय पर पदनाम के लिए विचार किए जाने के अवसर से चूक जाते हैं।

कंज्यूमर कोर्ट ने एयरपोर्ट को फ्लाइट में सीढ़ी चढ़ने पर रेन कवर नहीं देने पर यात्री को ₹16,000 का मुआवजा देने का आदेश दिया केरल की एक अदालत ने हाल ही में फैसला सुनाया कि कोचीन इंटरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट लिमिटेड (CIAL) को उड़ान भरने के लिए सीढ़ी पर रेन कवर उपलब्ध नहीं कराने के लिए यात्री को ₹16,000 का मुआवजा देना होगा।यात्री बारिश में भीग गया जिससे शारीरिक परेशानी और मानसिक पीड़ा हुई। जिला उपभोक्ता निवारण आयोग ने माना कि सीआईएएल द्वारा आरोप का खंडन करने के लिए सीसीटीवी फुटेज प्रदान करने में विफलता ने यात्री के दावे को मजबूत किया। आयोग ने कहा कि ग्राहक कल्याण के प्रति लाभ कमाने वाली संस्थाओं द्वारा इस तरह की उदासीनता अस्वीकार्य है, और सीआईएएल को कार्यवाही की लागत के लिए ₹8,000 का भुगतान करने का आदेश दिया। सीआईएएल की खराब सेवा के कई मामलों का सामना करने वाले एक फ्रीक्वेंट फ्लायर की शिकायत पर यह आदेश पारित किया गया। CIAL ने तर्क दिया कि शिकायत ने उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम की आवश्यकताओं का पालन नहीं किया था, लेकिन आयोग द्वारा खारिज कर दिया गया था, जिसमें कहा गया था कि यात्री सुविधा एक भुगतान सेवा है।आयोग ने पाया कि सीआईएएल आरोपों को गलत साबित करने के लिए सीसीटीवी फुटेज उपलब्ध कराने में विफल रही, जो उसकी ओर से लापरवाही दर्शाता है। निर्णय ग्राहक कल्याण को प्राथमिकता देने और सेवा की कमियों को दूर करने के लिए लाभ कमाने वाली संस्थाओं की आवश्यकता को दर्शाता है। ऐसी संस्थाओं को शिकायत निवारण के लिए आयोगों से संपर्क करने वाले उपभोक्ताओं को जवाब देना चाहिए।

Same Sex Marriage | Can Society Not Draw Few Red Lines to Say Thus Far & No Further? J Sai Deepak Argues in SC In a significant development in the ongoing proceedings before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the recognition of same-sex marriage, Advocate J. Sai Deepak presented compelling arguments representing a women’s forum that opposes the batch of pleas seeking such recognition. His insightful remarks shed light on the nuanced legal and societal considerations at play. Addressing the Bench, J Sai Deepak began by highlighting the distinction between fetters and powers, asserting, “The central position effectively placed before my lords is with respect to the distinction between fetters and powers.” He emphasized the need to discern whether the matter at hand falls within prohibited areas or areas suitable for the court’s adjudication. This distinction forms the crux of the central issue in question. J Sai Deepak then delved into the question of legislative competence and its connection to the separation of powers. However, he further advanced the argument by focusing on the society’s right of agency in participating in discussions on changing heteronormative attitudes. He expressed, “This is not a question of separation of territories between different organs of the state but fundamentally hinges on the right of the agency of the society to participate in this particular discussion.” Stressing the importance of social conservatism, J Sai Deepak questioned whether the constitution allows for the society to draw certain red lines to limit the scope of societal change. He noted, “Does it mean society does not have the right to draw a few red lines to basically say thus far and no further? That is the central question.” As a representative of a women’s organization, Deepak argued against the individualization of marriage, stating, “The nature of the prayers raised in the petition has the consequence of ‘individualizing’ a socio-centric institution such as marriage.” He cautioned against undermining the social character of marriage and demeaning its significance by reducing it to a mere transaction between consenting individuals. Highlighting the issue of legislative prerogative,  J Sai Deepak pointed out the significance of Article 111 of the Constitution, which pertains to the President’s power to recommend amendments to legislation. He emphasized the need for societal participation and deliberation when addressing matters that aim to reshape the heteronormative attitudes embedded in legislations. J Sai Deepak further drew attention to the relevance of Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, noting its direct impact on personal laws. He argued that the debate surrounding the Act should involve the broader society, rather than being limited to those who adhere to the Act’s values. 

Mumbai Court Grants a Woman Custody of Her 18-Month-Old Child, Citing the Importance Of ‘Mother’s Milk’ The Sessions Court of Mumbai has made an important decision concerning women’s rights. In which the sessions court upheld the lower court’s decision to place an 18-month-old child in the custody of his mother. According to the court’s decision, mother’s milk is critical for a child’s physical and mental development. Shrikant Y. Bhosle, a Sessions Court Judge, rendered this decision. The court denied the 37-year-old father custody of the child, stating that the child is one year and six months old and in desperate need of breastfeeding. Judge Shrikant Y Bhosale stated that the child has been in the custody of the husband for the past year and is not receiving mother’s milk, which is essential for her physical and mental development. As a result, the child should remain with his or her mother. In November 2021, she gave birth to a son The child’s parents, according to the information, had an arranged marriage in 2020. Following that, the woman filed a domestic violence complaint with the magistrate’s court in 2022. In November 2021, the woman gave birth to a son. She claimed that her husband and his family tortured her. He stated that he was evicted from the house on March 8, 2022.

Refusal For DNA Test After Allegation Of Adultery Can't Lead To Inference Of Adulterous Relationship As Conclusive Proof Absent: Patna High Court In a recent judgment, the High Court of Patna partially allowed a criminal revision application and set aside the maintenance allowance granted to the child in a case involving allegations of adultery. The judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. Anshuman on May 11, 2023. The case, bearing Criminal Revision of 2016, revolved around a petitioner seeking to overturn an order issued by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya. The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- to the wife (respondent No. 1) and Rs. 2,000/- to the child (respondent No. 2) under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). According to the petitioner, the child was not biologically related to him, and he alleged that his wife was engaged in an adulterous relationship. The Family Court had ordered a DNA test, which the wife initially consented to but later refused. The petitioner argued that the wife’s refusal to undergo the DNA test should lead to an adverse inference, barring her from seeking maintenance. After examining the facts and arguments presented, the High Court observed that certain elements were admitted by the petitioner himself, including the existence of a marriage between the parties and the petitioner’s residence in Delhi. The Court also acknowledged the wife’s refusal to undergo the DNA test but emphasized that conclusive evidence of her alleged adultery was lacking. While acknowledging the adverse inference resulting from the wife’s refusal, the Court held that it only impacted her claim for maintenance and did not establish her adultery. As per Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband. Considering the timeline of the case and the relatively modest amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month, the Court declined to interfere with the maintenance allowance granted to the wife.

सूत्रों ने गुरुवार को कहा कि सरकार उच्च न्यायालय के तीन मुख्य न्यायाधीशों और दो उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीशों के नामों को मंजूरी दे सकती है, जिनकी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में नियुक्ति के लिए सिफारिश की गई है।पिछले साल 13 दिसंबर को, सुप्रीम कोर्ट कॉलेजियम ने राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति पंकज मिथल; न्यायमूर्ति संजय करोल, मुख्य न्यायाधीश, पटना उच्च न्यायालय; न्यायमूर्ति पी वी संजय कुमार, मुख्य न्यायाधीश, मणिपुर उच्च न्यायालय; पटना उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायमूर्ति अहसानुद्दीन अमानुल्लाह; और इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायमूर्ति मनोज मिश्रा को शीर्ष अदालत के न्यायाधीश के रूप में नियुक्त करने के लिए सरकार से सिफारिश की थी।न्यायिक नियुक्तियों की जानकारी रखने वाले सूत्रों ने पीटीआई को बताया कि सरकार द्वारा उनकी नियुक्तियों को हरी झंडी दिए जाने की संभावना है।पांचों के शीर्ष अदालत के न्यायाधीश के रूप में शपथ लेने के बाद इसकी कार्य संख्या 32 हो जाएगी।शीर्ष अदालत की स्वीकृत शक्ति भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश सहित 34 है। इसकी वर्तमान कार्य शक्ति 27 है। 31 जनवरी को, सुप्रीम कोर्ट कॉलेजियम ने शीर्ष अदालत के न्यायाधीशों के रूप में पदोन्नति के लिए दो और नामों की सिफारिश की थी – न्यायमूर्ति राजेश बिंदल, मुख्य न्यायाधीश, इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय और न्यायमूर्ति अरविंद कुमार, मुख्य न्यायाधीश, गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय।उनके नामों की सिफारिश करते हुए, एससी कॉलेजियम ने कहा था कि 13 दिसंबर 2022 को उसके द्वारा सुझाए गए नामों में “सुप्रीम कोर्ट में नियुक्ति के लिए वर्तमान में अनुशंसित दो नामों पर वरीयता होगी।”“इसलिए, 13 दिसंबर 2022 को अनुशंसित पांच न्यायाधीशों की नियुक्तियों को अलग से अधिसूचित किया जाना चाहिए और इससे पहले इस प्रस्ताव द्वारा अनुशंसित दो न्यायाधीशों के समक्ष,” इसने कानून मंत्रालय को बताया था।यह भी ध्यान दिया जाना चाहिए कि हाल ही में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट कॉलेजियम ने भी इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश न्यायमूर्ति राजेश बिंदल और गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय के मुख्य न्यायाधीश अरविंद कुमार को सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में पदोन्नत करने के लिए सिफारिश की है।

हाल ही में, उड़ीसा हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि पत्नी क्रूरता के कारण वैवाहिक घर छोड़ने के बाद उस स्थान पर प्राथमिकी दर्ज कर सकती है जहां वह रहती है।न्यायमूर्ति जी. सतपथी की पीठ उस याचिका पर सुनवाई कर रही थी जहां याचिकाकर्ताओं ने एस.डी.जे.एम., संबलपुर के न्यायालय के क्षेत्रीय अधिकार क्षेत्र को चुनौती दी और सीआरएलएमसी यू/एस दायर किया। 482 सीआर.पी.सी. न्यायालय में लंबित अपराधों एवं आपराधिक कार्यवाही का संज्ञान लेते हुए आदेश को निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना करते हुए।इस मामले में, याचिकाकर्ताओं की वकील सुश्री दीपाली महापात्रा ने कहा कि प्राथमिकी में बताए गए सभी आरोप बिहार राज्य के धनबाद में एक दूर के स्थान पर लगाए गए थे और इस तरह, पूर्वोक्त आरोप पर संबलपुर में एक प्राथमिकी दर्ज की गई धनबाद में यातना का मामला क्षेत्राधिकार के अभाव में न्यायालय की प्रक्रिया का दुरुपयोग है।श्री एस.एस. प्रधान, ए.जी.ए. रूपाली देवी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य और अन्य के मामले पर भरोसा करने के बाद, प्रस्तुत किया कि चूंकि धनबाद में याचिकाकर्ताओं पर अत्याचार के आरोप का परिणाम संबलपुर में मानसिक प्रताड़ना का परिणाम है, संबलपुर में ऐसी प्राथमिकी दर्ज करना अधिकार क्षेत्र के बिना नहीं माना जा सकता है और, इस प्रकार, CRLMC को अयोग्य होने के कारण खारिज करने की आवश्यकता है। पीठ ने कहा कि “इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं हो सकता है कि IPC की धारा 498-A में विचार किए गए” क्रूरता “का कार्य या तो मानसिक या शारीरिक और शारीरिक हो सकता है। अत्याचार के शिकार व्यक्ति की मानसिक क्षमता पर क्रूरता के कृत्यों का निश्चित प्रभाव पड़ता है। इसलिए, अपने वैवाहिक घर में पत्नी के साथ की गई शारीरिक क्रूरता का उसके माता-पिता के घर में पत्नी के मानसिक स्वास्थ्य पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव और प्रभाव पड़ेगा, खासकर जब अपराध U/S IPC का 498-ए एक निरंतर अपराध है और अलग-अलग जगह पर पत्नी को दी जाने वाली यातना भी पत्नी को लंबी अवधि के लिए मानसिक रूप से प्रताड़ित करेगी ………”हाईकोर्ट  ने प्राथमिकी को देखने के बाद संबलपुर में प्रथम दृष्टया मानसिक प्रताड़ना का आरोप लगाया, क्योंकि प्राथमिकी के अंतिम भाग में मुखबिर ने कहा है कि वह पति, सास और ननद की प्रताड़ना सह रही थी और अब जब ज्यादा प्रताड़ित किया तो वह थाने में रिपोर्ट कर रही है। इसके अलावा, शादी के प्रस्ताव के लिए अलग-अलग लड़कियों को एसएमएस भेजने के पति-याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ आरोप प्रथम दृष्टया मुखबिर पर मानसिक प्रताड़ना का खुलासा करते हैं और इस तरह की मानसिक प्रताड़ना को संबलपुर में होना कहा जा सकता है।पीठ ने रूपाली देवी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य और अन्य के मामले पर भरोसा करने और याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ लगाए गए आरोपों को ध्यान में रखते हुए कहा कि एस.डी.जे.एम., संबलपुर को इस मामले में क्षेत्रीय अधिकार प्राप्त है और इस तरह, याचिकाकर्ताओं द्वारा सीआरएलएमसी कोई योग्यता नहीं है। उपरोक्त के मद्देनजर, हाईकोर्ट  ने याचिका खारिज कर दी।केस का शीर्षक: श्रीमती। गीता तिवारी व अन्य बनाम उड़ीसा राज्य व अन्यबेंच: जस्टिस जी. सतपथीकेस नंबर: CRLMC No.2596 of 2015याचिकाकर्ता के वकील: सुश्री डी. महापात्राविरोधी पक्ष के वकील: श्री एस.एस. प्रधान और श्री बी.सी. मोहराना

बंबई उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा है कि घरेलू हिंसा से महिलाओं की सुरक्षा अधिनियम (डीवी अधिनियम) के प्रावधानों के तहत तलाक के बाद भी महिला भरण-पोषण की हकदार है। न्यायमूर्ति आर जी अवाचट की एकल पीठ ने 24 जनवरी के आदेश में एक सत्र अदालत द्वारा पारित एक मई 2021 के आदेश को बरकरार रखा, जिसमें एक पुलिस कांस्टेबल को निर्देश दिया गया था कि वह अपनी तलाकशुदा पत्नी को प्रति माह 6,000 रुपये का रखरखाव का भुगतान करे। पीठ ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि याचिका में यह सवाल उठाया गया है कि क्या तलाकशुदा पत्नी डीवी एक्ट के तहत भरण-पोषण का दावा करने की हकदार है। उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने आदेश में उल्लेख किया कि ‘घरेलू संबंध’ शब्द की परिभाषा दो व्यक्तियों के बीच संबंध का सुझाव देती है, जो किसी भी समय (ज्यादातर अतीत में) एक साझा घर में एक साथ रहते थे या रहते थे, जब वे सगोत्रता, विवाह या विवाह की प्रकृति के संबंध के माध्यम से संबंधित। अदालत ने कहा, “याचिकाकर्ता पति होने के नाते अपनी पत्नी के भरण-पोषण का प्रावधान करने के लिए वैधानिक दायित्व के तहत था। चूंकि वह ऐसा प्रावधान करने में विफल रहा, इसलिए प्रतिवादी/पत्नी के पास डीवी अधिनियम के तहत आवेदन दायर करने के अलावा कोई विकल्प नहीं था।” न्यायमूर्ति अवाचट ने आगे कहा कि वह व्यक्ति “सौभाग्यशाली” था कि जब वह पुलिस सेवा में था और प्रति माह 25,000 रुपये से अधिक का वेतन प्राप्त कर रहा था, तो उसे प्रति माह केवल 6,000 रुपये का भुगतान करने का निर्देश दिया गया था। याचिका के अनुसार, पुरुष और महिला ने मई 2013 में शादी की थी लेकिन वैवाहिक विवादों के कारण जुलाई 2013 से अलग रहने लगे। बाद में इस जोड़े का तलाक हो गया। तलाक की कार्यवाही के दौरान महिला ने डीवी एक्ट के तहत गुजारा भत्ता मांगा था। पारिवारिक अदालत ने उसके आवेदन को खारिज कर दिया था, जिसके बाद उसने सत्र अदालत का दरवाजा खटखटाया, जिसने 2021 में उसकी याचिका स्वीकार कर ली। व्यक्ति ने उच्च न्यायालय में अपनी याचिका में दावा किया कि चूंकि अब कोई वैवाहिक संबंध अस्तित्व में नहीं है, इसलिए उसकी पत्नी डीवी अधिनियम के तहत किसी भी राहत की हकदार नहीं थी। उन्होंने आगे कहा कि शादी के विघटन की तारीख तक भरण-पोषण के सभी बकाया चुका दिए गए थे। महिला ने याचिका का विरोध किया और कहा कि डीवी अधिनियम के प्रावधान यह सुनिश्चित करते हैं कि एक पत्नी, जिसे तलाक दिया गया है या तलाक ले चुकी है, भी रखरखाव और अन्य सहायक राहत का दावा करने की हकदार है।

Adani-Hindenburg: SC Orders Setting Up of Panel Headed by Ex-Judge AM Sapre To Probe Recent Share Crash The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered setting up of a six- member committee headed by former apex court judge A M Sapre to look into various regulatory aspects for stock markets, including the recent Adani Group shares crash triggered by the Hindenburg Research’s fraud allegations.A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said the panel will make an overall assessment of situation, suggest measures to make investors aware and strengthening of existing regulatory measures for stock markets.The bench also directed the Centre, financial statutory bodies and the SEBI chairperson to render all cooperation to the panel which will have to submit its report within two months.Former judges OP Bhat and JP Devdatt are also part of the probe committee. The court also named Nandan Nilekani, KV Kamath and Somasekharan Sundaresan as three other members of the committee.While reserving its order, the top court on February 17 had refused to accept in a sealed cover the Centre’s suggestion on a proposed panel of experts.Till now four PILs have been filed in the top court on the issue by lawyers M L Sharma, Vishal Tiwari, Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Mukesh Kumar, who claims to be a social activist.Adani Group stocks have taken a beating on the bourses after the Hindenburg Research made a litany of allegations, including fraudulent transactions and share-price manipulation, against the business conglomerate. The Adani Group has dismissed the charges as lies, saying it complies with all laws and disclosure requirements.

Can Passport Renewal Be Refused on the Ground of Pendency of a Criminal Case? Answers Andhra Pradesh.HC Recently, The Andhra Pradesh HC answered an important issue that whether the renewal of a passport can be refused on the ground of pendency of a criminal case for trial in a criminal court. The bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari was dealing with the petition directing the action of respondents as arbitrary in refusing to renew the petitioner’s passport on the ground that FIR u/s 498 A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the petitioner. In this case, The petitioner was issued a Passport to work in a private company in Kuwait and returned to India in 2011 and got married. Thereafter, he was issued a passport valid up to 21.04.2023. Since the validity of the passport is due to expire, he approached the concerned authorities in Kuwait for renewal of his passport. He was informed through a letter that he is an accused in FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was pending trial in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoti and hence he was not recommended for renewal of his passport. The issue for consideration before the bench was: Whether Section 6 applies also to the renewal of a passport? Whether renewal of the passport shall be refused on the ground of pendency of a criminal case for trial in a criminal court in India, in view of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act? Whether for renewal of passport the applicant against whom a criminal case is pending for trial in a criminal court in India, has to produce an order from the concerned court, in terms of the notification dated 25.08.1993, so as to be exempted from the operations of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act? The bench looked into Section 5 of the Passport Act, of 1967 and observed that on receipt of an application under Section 5(1), the Passport authority after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of the Act, by order in writing, issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, as per clauses (a) & (b) or shall refuse to issue the passport or travel document or as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement as per clause (c). High Court noted that the Central Government by means of Notification, granted exemption from the operation of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act if such an applicant produces order from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India. In other words, even if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant for the passport are pending before the criminal Court in India the passport authority shall not refuse to issue the passport if such applicant produces the order from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India. The bench stated that “………………..there is no specific provision for renewal, in the Act. If it is to be considered that Sections 5, 6 (2) of the Passports Act do not apply to the renewal of a passport, then there would be no provision entitling the holder of the passport for its renewal. If renewal is not permitted, then the holder of the passport will have to apply for issue of the passport afresh. If that be the case, Sections 5 & 6 of the Act & Rule 5 with specified forms under the Rules shall again be applicable, consequently, there is no warrant for the view that Section 6 would not apply to an applicant for renewal of passport. In fact, from a combined reading of the Act, Sections 5 & 6 in particular, and the Rule-5 along with the contents of the Forms prescribed, the expression “issue” as used in Section 5 of the Act has been used not only for issuance of the passport for the first time, but also for its renewal………………” High Court observed that Section 6 (2) (f) would apply in the cases of those applicants and their applications for renewal of the passport shall be rejected. Whereas, those applicants for renewal of the passport in whose cases Section 6 (2) (f) is applicable but they are in India, if they produce an order from the concerned Court in terms of the notification, then their applications for renewal of the passport would not be rejected as they would avail the benefit of the exemption granted by the notification The bench opined that the applicants seeking renewal of the passport may be in India or maybe outside India, in order to get the renewal, where Section 6 (2) (f) applies, in view of the notification of the Central Government asking for submission of an order from the concerned Court where a criminal case is pending, on furnishing of such order from the Court concerned would be entitled to exemption from the applicability of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Act. In the end, the High Court stated that “………………….while considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for “the first time”, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to the renewal of the passport, as well……………..” Further, the bench opined that in the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfilment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6. In view of the above, the High Court rejected the petition. Case Title: Kadar Valli Shaik v. The Union of India Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari Case No.: WRIT PETITION Nos. 1392 & 2896 of 2023 & 38869 of 2022 Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Sree Ramulu Naidu Counsel for the respondent: Sri G. Arun Showri

BIG Change in Legal Profession: Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms Can Now Practise in India- BCI Notifies Rules The Bar Council of India (BCI) has agreed to open up law practise in India to foreign lawyers, foreign law firms. The statutory body of lawyers has issued guidelines for the registration of foreign lawyers and law firms in India. Foreign lawyer or foreign law firms shall not be entitled to practice in India unless registered with Bar Council of India. The Registration fees is USD 50,000 and Renewal fees is USD 20,000. Foreign Lawyers or Law Firms will be entitled to engage and procure legal expertise/advise of one or more Indian Advocates Registered as foreign lawyers. The most recent rules allow foreign lawyers and law firms to practise international law and international arbitration in India. The rules are based on the “principle of reciprocity in a well-defined, regulated, and controlled manner,” according to the BCI notification. In a notification, the Bar Council of India said, “Opening up of law practise in India to foreign lawyers in the field of practise of foreign law; diverse international legal issues in non-litigious matters and in international arbitration cases would go a long way in helping legal profession/domain grow in India to the benefit of lawyers in India too”. The apex body also stated that if done in a limited, well-controlled, and regulated manner, the move will have no impact on legal practise in India. The Bar Council of India initially opposed the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into India in any form. However, it was authorised by the legal fraternity of the Country in the years 2007-2014 in Joint Consultative Conferences between BCI, State Bar Councils across the country and other stakeholders to explore the potential and prospects of opening the law practise in India to foreign lawyers.

ठाकरे गुट ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट  से 2022 में फ्लोर टेस्ट के लिए महाराष्ट्र के राज्यपाल के आदेश को रद्द करने की मांग की, कहा लोकतंत्र खतरे में है शिवसेना के ठाकरे गुट ने गुरुवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष महाराष्ट्र के तत्कालीन राज्यपाल बी एस कोश्यारी के जून 2022 के मुख्यमंत्री उद्धव ठाकरे को फ्लोर टेस्ट लेने के आदेश को रद्द करने के लिए एक भावपूर्ण याचिका दायर की, जिसमें कहा गया था कि अगर इसे पलटा नहीं गया तो लोकतंत्र खतरे में पड़ जाएगा। .ठाकरे ब्लॉक का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले वरिष्ठ वकील कपिल सिब्बल ने मुख्य न्यायाधीश डी वाई चंद्रचूड़ की अध्यक्षता वाली पांच-न्यायाधीशों की संविधान पीठ से आदेश को रद्द करने का आग्रह किया, जिसके एक दिन बाद शीर्ष अदालत ने विश्वास मत के लिए कोश्यारी के आचरण पर केवल मतभेदों के आधार पर सवाल उठाया था। शिवसेना के विधायकइसने बुधवार को कहा था कि राज्यपाल की ऐसी कार्रवाई एक निर्वाचित सरकार को गिरा सकती है और किसी राज्य का राज्यपाल किसी विशेष परिणाम को प्रभावित करने के लिए अपने कार्यालय को उधार नहीं दे सकता है।अपनी प्रत्युत्तर दलीलों को समाप्त करते हुए, सिब्बल ने पीठ से कहा, जिसमें जस्टिस एमआर शाह, कृष्ण मुरारी, हिमा कोहली और पीएस नरसिम्हा भी शामिल हैं, यह इस अदालत के इतिहास में एक ऐसा क्षण है जब लोकतंत्र का भविष्य निर्धारित होगा।“मुझे पूरा यकीन है कि इस अदालत के हस्तक्षेप के बिना हमारा लोकतंत्र खतरे में पड़ जाएगा क्योंकि किसी भी चुनी हुई सरकार को जीवित नहीं रहने दिया जाएगा। इसी उम्मीद के साथ मैं इस अदालत से इस याचिका को अनुमति देने और आदेश को रद्द करने का अनुरोध करता हूं।” राज्यपाल के फ्लोर टेस्ट का), सिब्बल ने कहा।शीर्ष अदालत जून 2022 के राजनीतिक संकट के दौरान सामने आई घटनाओं पर बहस सुन रही है, जो एकनाथ शिंदे के वफादार विधायकों द्वारा तत्कालीन अविभाजित शिवसेना में विद्रोह से उत्पन्न हुई थी।सिब्बल ने कहा कि अगर शिवसेना के विधायकों का सरकार से भरोसा उठ गया होता तो सदन में जब धन विधेयक लाया जाता तो वे इसके खिलाफ मतदान कर सकते थे और इसे अल्पमत में ला सकते थे।उनका तर्क बुधवार को बेंच द्वारा व्यक्त किए गए विचारों के अनुरूप था, जब यह याद आया कि विधानसभा का मानसून सत्र प्रासंगिक समय पर शुरू होने वाला था। अपने बहुमत को परखने का पक्का तरीका तब होता जब सरकार अनुपूरक मांगों को सदन के समक्ष रखती। उसने कहा था कि अगर वह धन विधेयक को पारित कराने में नाकाम रही होती तो वह बाहर हो जाती।“ऐसा नहीं है कि सरकार अल्पमत में नहीं चल सकती है। पूर्व प्रधान मंत्री पीवी नरसिम्हा राव ने अल्पमत सरकार चलाई थी। राज्यपाल के पास उन (बागी) विधायकों को पहचानने और फ्लोर टेस्ट के लिए बुलाने की कोई गुंजाइश नहीं है। यहां, वे क्या चाहते हैं सिब्बल ने कहा, सरकार को गिराने और मुख्यमंत्री और डिप्टी सीएम बनने और उसके लिए राज्यपाल के पद का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए। मैं इससे ज्यादा कुछ नहीं कहना चाहता, सब कुछ पब्लिक डोमेन में है।सिब्बल ने कहा, “मेरे पास मेरा राजनीतिक अनुभव है और आधिपत्य के पास उनका न्यायिक अनुभव है, जो इसे समझने के लिए काफी है। मैं कह सकता हूं कि हमने खुद को इस स्तर तक गिरा दिया है कि हमारा मजाक उड़ाया जाता है। लोग अब हम पर विश्वास नहीं करते हैं।” राज्यपाल के फ्लोर टेस्ट के आदेश को रद्द करने की मांगवरिष्ठ वकील ने जोर देकर कहा कि राज्यपाल केवल गठबंधनों और राजनीतिक दलों से निपट सकते हैं, व्यक्तियों से नहीं, अन्यथा यह “कहर पैदा करेगा”। “राज्यपाल ने अपने फैसले को शिवसेना के विधायी बहुमत द्वारा किए गए दावे पर आधारित किया। किस संवैधानिक आधार पर राज्यपाल बहुमत परीक्षण कराने के लिए अल्पसंख्यक या बहुसंख्यक गुट को मान्यता दे सकते हैं?” उन्होंने कहा।उन्होंने कहा कि जब राज्यपाल को मुख्यमंत्री नियुक्त करना होता है तो गुटबाजी के लिए कोई जगह नहीं होती है।उन्होंने कहा, “अब, अगर पूरी शिवसेना भाजपा में चली जाती, तो क्या राज्यपाल अभी भी फ्लोर टेस्ट के लिए बुलाते। यह ‘आया राम-गया राम’ सिद्धांत है जिसे हमने बहुत पहले छोड़ दिया था। यह लोकतंत्र के लिए विनाशकारी है, विधायक की कोई पहचान नहीं है।” राजनीतिक दल के प्रतिनिधि होने के अलावा,” सिब्बल, जिनकी सहायता वकील अमित अनंत तिवारी ने की थी, ने कहा।“जब हम इस अदालत में प्रवेश करते हैं तो हम एक अलग आभा में होते हैं, हम आशा, उम्मीदों के साथ आते हैं। यदि आप सभ्यताओं के इतिहास को देखते हैं, तो सभी अन्याय शक्ति पर आधारित होते हैं। आप (शीर्ष अदालत) 1.4 अरब लोगों की आशा हैं और आप इस निर्मम और भद्दे अंदाज में लोकतंत्र को अस्थिर नहीं होने दे सकते।”सुनवाई के दौरान सिब्बल ने इंदिरा गांधी द्वारा लगाई गई इमरजेंसी का भी जिक्र किया।सिब्बल ने कहा, “एडीएम जबलपुर (1976 के फैसले) जैसे मौके आए हैं, जो इस अदालत ने वर्षों से जो किया है, उससे असंगत है। यह हमारे लोकतंत्र के जीवित रहने के लिए समान रूप से महत्वपूर्ण मामला है।”25 जून 1975 से 21 मार्च 1977 तक आपातकाल के दौरान पीएन भगवती द्वारा दिया गया विवादास्पद 1976 का फैसला, यह माना गया कि किसी व्यक्ति के गैरकानूनी रूप से हिरासत में न लेने के अधिकार (यानी बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण) को राज्य के हित में निलंबित किया जा सकता है।शिवसेना में खुले विद्रोह के बाद महाराष्ट्र में राजनीतिक संकट पैदा हो गया था और 29 जून, 2022 को शीर्ष अदालत ने महाराष्ट्र के राज्यपाल द्वारा 31 महीने पुरानी एमवीए सरकार को विधानसभा में फ्लोर टेस्ट लेने के निर्देश पर रोक लगाने से इनकार कर दिया था। बहुमत साबित करने के लिए।आसन्न हार को भांपते हुए, उद्धव ठाकरे ने एकनाथ शिंदे के मुख्यमंत्री बनने का मार्ग प्रशस्त करते हुए इस्तीफा दे दिया था।ठाकरे ब्लॉक को एक और झटका देते हुए, चुनाव आयोग ने 17 फरवरी को शिंदे गुट को असली शिवसेना घोषित किया और उसे बालासाहेब ठाकरे द्वारा स्थापित पार्टी का मूल धनुष और तीर चुनाव चिह्न आवंटित किया।23 अगस्त, 2022 को, तत्कालीन मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन वी रमना की अध्यक्षता वाली शीर्ष अदालत की तीन-न्यायाधीशों की पीठ ने कानून के कई प्रश्न तैयार किए थे और सेना के दो गुटों द्वारा दायर पांच-न्यायाधीशों की पीठ की याचिकाओं का उल्लेख किया था, जिसमें कई संवैधानिक प्रश्न उठाए गए थे। दल-बदल, विलय और अयोग्यता।

गुजरात हाईकोर्ट ने लिव-इन समझौते के आधार पर अपने पति से अपनी प्रेमिका की कस्टडी मांगने वाले एक व्यक्ति पर 5,000 रुपये का जुर्माना लगाया। यह मामला बनासकांठा जिले का है। उस व्यक्ति ने HC से संपर्क किया और कहा कि वह उस महिला के साथ रिश्ते में था जिसकी कस्टडी वह मांग रहा था। उसे उसकी मर्जी के खिलाफ किसी और से शादी करने के लिए मजबूर किया गया था और यह जोड़ा साथ नहीं मिला। महिला ने अपने पति और ससुराल को छोड़कर उसके साथ रहने लगी। वे साथ रहे और लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप एग्रीमेंट भी साइन किया। कुछ देर बाद महिला के परिजन व ससुराल पहुंचे और उसे उसके पति को लौटा दिया। वह व्यक्ति एचसी गया और अपनी प्रेमिका के लिए बंदी प्रत्यक्षीकरण याचिका दायर की, जिसमें दावा किया गया कि वह अपने पति की अवैध हिरासत में थी और उसकी इच्छा के विरुद्ध आयोजित की जा रही थी। उन्होंने अनुरोध किया कि पुलिस महिला को उसके पति से हिरासत में ले और उसे उसके हवाले कर दे। राज्य सरकार ने याचिका का विरोध करते हुए दावा किया कि इस व्यक्ति के पास याचिका दायर करने का अधिकार नहीं है। यदि महिला अपने पति की हिरासत में है, तो वह अवैध हिरासत में नहीं है।मामले की सुनवाई के बाद जस्टिस वी एम पंचोली और एच एम प्राच्छक की बेंच ने कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता की महिला से शादी अभी तक नहीं हुई है और उसका अपने पति से तलाक भी नहीं हुआ है। “इसलिए हमारी राय है कि प्रतिवादी संख्या 4 (महिला) की प्रतिवादी संख्या 5 (उसके पति) के साथ हिरासत को अवैध हिरासत नहीं कहा जा सकता है, जैसा कि याचिकाकर्ता ने आरोप लगाया है, और याचिकाकर्ता के पास वर्तमान याचिका दायर करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं है।” तथाकथित लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप एग्रीमेंट के आधार पर,” उन्होंने कहा, और याचिकाकर्ता पर 5,000 रुपये का जुर्माना लगाया, उसे राज्य कानूनी सेवा प्राधिकरण के पास पैसा जमा करने का निर्देश दिया।

You’ve probably heard, seen, and read about a boy raping a girl, but a surprising story has emerged from Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The Indore court sentenced a girl to ten years in prison for the first time after finding her guilty of raping a minor boy. The accused girl had fraudulently taken the teenager to Gujarat and had forcible physical relations with him several times there.According to the information, on November 5, 2018, a woman filed a complaint at Indore’s Banganga police station that her 15-year-old son had gone to a nearby shop to buy milk for kheer on November 3, 2018, but had not returned after a long time. He never returned home. The woman looked everywhere for her son, including relatives, but she found nothing. Following this, the woman pleaded with police to find her son, fearing that he had been abducted. Following this, the police began searching for the missing adolescent. After a few days, the police apprehended the teenager, and a young woman was also apprehended with him.The girl used to carry the boy’s phone.When the police interrogated him, he told them that a 19-year-old girl from Rajasthan had fraudulently taken him to Gujarat with her. He hired Kishore to work in a tile factory there. The victim adolescent claimed that the girl repeatedly forced him to engage in physical relations. The boy stated that the girl used to keep his phone with her so that he could not communicate with his family The police arrested the accused girl and charged her under the POCSO Act based on the victim boy’s statements. The police obtained a medical examination for the girl, and when they examined the accused on the girl, they were also found to be correct.District Prosecution Officer Sanjeev Srivastava told that this girl had called the minor boy that I had a fight with my family members, you come with me. She enticed the minor, took him to Gujarat, and forced him to work in a company. The girl used to live with the boy in a rented house and put pressure on him to have a physical relationship with her. According to the District Prosecuting Officer, this is the first case in which a girl has been sentenced under the POCSO Act.The girl was also fined by the court.On March 15, the court handed down its decision in this case, sentenced the guilty girl to ten years in prison and a fine of three thousand rupees. In addition, the court has recommended that the victim teenager receive Rs 50,000 in compensation.

CBI Registers FIR Against Gang Involved in Lodging of False FIRs of Rape and SC-ST Act Against Lawyers The Special Crime Branch of CBI Lucknow has registered an FIR against the gang which filed false cases of rape and SC-ST Act. The Special Crime Branch of CBI Lucknow has registered 3 cases in this matter on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. This gang was blackmailing people including lawyers in Prayagraj by implicating them in fake cases. On the basis of fake cases related to rape and SC-ST filed by advocate Sunil Kumar in the year 2016, the CBI on Friday registered a case against a woman in Prayagraj’s Mauaima police station in the year 2018, a woman in Daraganj police station in the year 2021 and Shivkuti police station in the year 2016. But new cases have been registered at the CBI police station. The CBI team will soon reach Prayagraj to investigate and conduct a fresh investigation. The blackmailing gang by implicating them in false cases came to light when an alleged victim filed a petition in the High Court seeking an order for speedy disposal of a rape case. In this case, an accused lawyer submitted a list of 51 such cases in the High Court to the High Court. In which people were implicated in rape and SC-ST act. Out of this, 36 cases were registered in Mauv Aima police station alone. How are innocent people implicated? The lawyer told the court that a very vicious gang is active in Prayagraj, which includes some women and lawyers. This gang files fake cases against innocent people through women and then blackmails them demanding huge amount in the name of withdrawing the case. Taking this fact seriously, the High Court had directed the CBI on March 18, 2022 to conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit the report. After this, the CBI registered an FIR after investigating the matter.

Recently Madras High Court directed the police to arrest the fake lawyer practicing using a fake LLB degree and asked that the photo of this person should be printed in the newspapers so that the people who were duped by this person can be traced. Is. A bench of Justices S Vaidyanathan and AD Jagadeesal observed that “cases of forgery in the nature of job forgery and fabrication of false documents are increasing nowadays and such persons involved in crimes should be crushed with iron hands and allowed to be set free.” will not be given." In this case, the fourth respondent produced a degree certificate, allegedly issued by Bharathidasan University, which turned out to be fake. The habeas corpus petition was filed for the production of the adopted son of the petitioner, who is said to have been illegally detained by the third and fourth respondent, before the Court. The court found that he has produced a fake degree certificate which has been made outside the court premises and claimed that he is a law graduate. The bench observed that this is indeed a case requiring registration of a criminal case and appropriate action is required against the persons involved in the production of documents. In view of the above, the bench directed the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police to depute an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (CCB), Chennai to produce a fabricated document before the court and conduct a thorough investigation. Diya, who will register a case and arrest the fourth respondent. The next hearing in the matter will be on 10.08.2022. Bench: Justices S Vaidyanathan and AD Jagadish Citation: HCPNo.728 of 2022

The difference between Section / Rule / Article / Act has been listed below: - Section A section refers to a distinct portion or provision of a legal code or set of laws, often establishing a particular legal requirement. For example- Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act. Article When any fundamentally critical document is framed or drafted which might be a grundnorm (a fundamental norm to support all other legal norms according to Kelsian pure theory of law) of that system at political, national or international level, then for the most part, it is separated from the customary municipal laws by referring to its provisos as articles rather than sections. For example - United Nations Charter,International Conventions, Constitution of a country, and so on, from where different laws or rules originate. Otherwise, municipal laws normally contain sections. Rule A Rule is a subsidiary enactment that helps in governing law. They are secondary in nature, meaning thereby that they don’t have an independent existence of their own.They are made to make the parent Act function. The rules provide for the details that have not been provided for in the Act, however, Rules by no means can go beyond the power conferred by the ACT, or extend the same. Act An Act is a law that is passed by the legislature. It is also known as a statute. However,most laws are not complete code in themselves, i.e. certain provisions as to their application or enforcement, etc. are deliberately left out by the legislature due to which rules come into the picture. For example- Companies Act 2013 is an Act. It has several rules governing its operations such as Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014. Sections comes under the Act whereas it makes us enable us to understand underwhich act it comes from. Likewise, articles and rules are also different but makes it easy to know under which article we have to make an application. An act is a bill which has passed through the various legislative steps required for it and which has become law. So, simply put, an act is the formally codiedresult of deliberation by a legislative body. An article is a separate and distinct part of a written instrument, such as a contract, statute, or constitution, that is often divided into sections. A written instrument, containing a series of rules and stipulations that are each designated as an article. A section is the distinct and numbered subdivisions in legal codes, statutes, and textbooks.The basic difference between an act, an article and a section would thus be that one is the sub-division of the other. It goes as Act (the biggest) which has articles that are divided into sections. In general, terms, when a Bill is proposed to be enacted, it shall be presented before the respected legislatures (law making bodies) for approval. After it is approved, the bill is presented before the president. The bill, with the consent of the president, shall come into force as an Act, a Law, or a Statute. An Article or a section which are numbered are meant to indicate or reflect a specific provision of an Act or a Law

Case Title: Mohan Singh Vs State Of UP And Another Bench: Justice Gautam Choudhary Citation: Application u/s 482 No. – 1621 of 2022 The Allahabad High Court on Saturday ruled that DNA testing can be ordered routinely and only in deserving cases where a strong prima facie case is made out. A division bench of Justice Gautam Choudhary was hearing a petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge. In this case an FIR was registered by Hardev Singh in a case filed under Section 302 of IPC that Mohan Singh (applicant) misbehaved and shot his mother. The accused filed an application under section 233 CrPC stating that the prosecution may be directed to provide the blood sample of the family members of the victim and to conduct a DNA test of the blood collected from earth May be sent to a forensic laboratory, to ensure whether the two are identical. But the said application was rejected. The applicant's counsel Shri Gaurav Kakkar submitted that a DNA test cannot be done where there is a violation of the right to life or privacy of a person and it should be used after weighing and satisfying all the pros and cons of whether testing is warranted or not. It was further argued that in the instant case the right to life would be violated or any stigma would be imposed on the privacy of the family members of the deceased and hence there is an extreme need for a DNA test to prove the innocence of the applicant. The issue before the bench for consideration was: Shri Amit Singh, the counsel for the opposite side, submitted that, if a person refuses to undergo a DNA test, he cannot be compelled/forced to do so as the informant or his family members are also required to test for DNA. cannot be forced. The following questions were before the court: • Can scientific knowledge be used to find the truth? • If instructed is given to do a DNA test what will be its effect • Can the test give life or privacy right be violated? Considering the first issue, the High Court observed that the rejection of an application for DNA test and providing an opportunity to produce documentary or oral evidence in respect of his innocence by the Court below is nothing but an age-old practice, notwithstanding his In front of the availability of scientific methods available and therefore the scientific method should be used to find out the truth because justice is best served by truth. Considering the second issue, the bench observed that "If the DNA is directed to be conducted and the DNA matched, the accused can be convicted. If the DNA does not match, ten convicts are released, following the established and basic principles that no innocent should be convicted, in order to arrive at a just and impartial decision of the case. If the DNA sample is not matched, the argument of innocence of the applicant will be proved and he is being falsely implicated in the present case. Responding to the third question, the High Court observed that the DNA test has not been asked to establish the link between the applicant and the informer, but has been requested to prove the innocence of the applicant, therefore, there will be no impediment to his personal Freedom and right to privacy of the informer or his family members. The bench observed that "DNA testing should not be routinely directed and such direction can be given only in deserving cases where a strong prima facie case is made out". Since the life of the applicant is at stake as he is accused of an offense under section 302 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to ascertain and examine the veracity of the case. In view of the above, the High Court set aside the impugned order and said that it would be in the interest of justice that DNA test can be done.

Title: Sadat Hussain Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir Case No. OWP No. 934/2022 The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently said that the police should not act like the super boss of public administration. According to a division bench of Justice Rahul Bharti, if a public servant has been subjected to surveillance by an officer of a rank on the pretext of receiving a complaint against him, then without first putting the complaint into the formal process, the public servant must act in confidence and perform his duty. I will be subject to paralysis. The bench made the observation while hearing a petition in which the petitioner, who was working as a junior engineer in the PHE department, had questioned the action of the Doda Superintendent of Police and an anonymous complaint filed against him and the action of the SHO. But the question was raised. Before the court, the petitioner submitted that the anonymous letter was written against him due to vested political interests. He further said that the police had no legal basis to entertain it and the police seized the case without registering an FIR. Initially, the court said that the police had not put on record anything about how they came to know about the tip or why they chose to take action, instead of going to the petitioner's head of department. The court also noted that the police had initiated action against the petitioner even without registering an FIR. Therefore, the Bench allowed the petition of the petitioner and quashed the communication issued by the concerned police officer to the Executive Engineer, PHE Division, Doda.

According to the UP Bar Council, only advocates who have obtained a Certificate of Practice (COP) number from the UP Bar Council are eligible to vote in the Bar Association elections. Advocates registered with the Bar Association of any other State or with COP Number issued by the Bar Council of any other State are not eligible to vote in elections to any Bar Association in Uttar Pradesh. A lawyer has the right to vote only once UP Bar Council President Madhusudan Tripathi has clarified that a lawyer can vote in a Bar Association only once. No advocate can be a member and voter of more than one union at the same time. According to Madhusudan Tripathi, there are many lawyers in Uttar Pradesh who are not registered with the UP Bar Council but are registered with the Bar Council of any other state. Such lawyers are not eligible to vote in the Uttar Pradesh Bar Association elections. He has also directed all the Bar Associations of the State to prepare a list of registered Advocates practicing in other States and submit it to the Council.

The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023 will be held offline on December 18, 2022, in the middle of the academic year for students taking their 12th boards. The Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) announced today that registration for the exam is now open. Prospective applicants can register by visiting the Consortium’s official website. The application deadline is November 13, 2022 The Consortium will introduce new features for students in this edition of CLAT, including the scheduling of two rounds of ‘open campus visit days,’ where registered students will have the opportunity to visit the campuses of the 22 participating NLUs. Furthermore, the Consortium has proposed releasing two rounds of sample question sets for students. Previously, sample question sets were only available for CLAT 2020.

Case Title: Bhagyashree Vs Jagdish Bench: Justice Bharti Dangre Citation: Writ Petition No. 2527 of 2021 Recently, the Bombay High Court ruled that the scope of section 25 of the 1955 Act cannot be limited by not applying to a decree of divorce passed between husband and wife. A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre said that "Section 25 should be seen as a provision for destitute wife/husband so that the provisions are comprehensively understood so as to save the remedial provisions." In this case the wife (petitioner) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty and abandonment. The petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved. The husband (respondent) filed a petition claiming permanent maintenance from the wife at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned judge directed that a warrant be issued against the wife for recovery of the arrears and ordered that the amount due be deducted from her salary and deposited before the court. The wife is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded. Mr. Tombrey, the wife's counsel submitted that directing the wife to pay maintenance to the husband after the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce, would amount to a breach of justice and that the relationship between the husband and the wife once had been severed by the decree. In case of divorce, no claim can be made by either of them against each other. Mr. Mevana, counsel for the respondent submitted that the provision contained in section 25 of the 1955 Act does not depend on the outcome of the post-divorce relationship as the section uses the word "at any time thereafter". The issue of consideration before the bench was: Whether maintenance can be provided to the husband or not? The High Court, after perusing section 24 and section 25 of the 1955 Act, found that both the sections are enabling provisions and confer on the poor spouse the right to claim either a pendant light or permanent alimony and maintenance in the nature of maintenance. does. The bench observed that “the provision of maintenance/permanent alimony being a beneficial provision to the indigent spouse, the said section may be invoked by either of the spouses, where by sections 9 to 13 A decree of any kind has been passed and such decree of the marriage court breaks the tie, is disrupted or is adversely affected. The scope of section 25 of the 1955 Act cannot be limited by not applying to a decree of divorce passed between husband and wife. In view of the above, the High Court dismissed the petition.

President appoints Justice UU Lalit as 49th Chief Justice of India On Wednesday, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the appointment of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit as the 49th Chief Justice of India. The notification states: In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India, the President, Shri Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, is pleased to appoint a Judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India with effect from 27 August 2022. About Justice UU Lalita Justice Lalit was born on 9 November 1957. In June 1983, he was enrolled as a lawyer. Till December 1985, he practiced at the High Court of Bombay. In January 1986, he shifted his practice to Delhi. The Supreme Court appointed him as Senior Advocate in April 2004. Under the directions of the Supreme Court, a Special Public Prosecutor was appointed for the CBI to conduct trials in all 2G cases. For two terms, he served on the Supreme Court of India's Legal Services Committee. On 13 August 2014, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of India.He will retire on 8 November 2022.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court transferred all FIRs against the suspended BJP spokesperson for provocative speeches to the Delhi Police. The order was passed by a special bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Pardiwala. It also said that protection from arrest to Nupur Sharma will continue in all pending and future FIRs relating to her statement on Prophet Mohammad during a TV debate in May. The Supreme Court has allowed Nupur Sharma to move the Delhi High Court for quashing or lodging of an FIR lodged for alleged blasphemy at any place in India. The SC said that all FIRs to be registered in future will also be transferred to the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which will investigate them. The Supreme Court also refused to accept West Bengal's plea for a court-monitored joint SIT probe.

Case Title: Budhiarin Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ct. Ravi Kumar Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1218 of 2022 The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced the sentence of the accused, considering the age of the poor illiterate woman accused in the NDPS case. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar said that “there should be no leniency in such cases, especially, when the offense has been proved beyond doubt and the conviction has been upheld by the High Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Are. , In this case, the appellant is a poor illiterate woman and a senior citizen at the time of the alleged incident, on whom commercial quantity of illegal 'Ganja' (Bhang) of 05 quintals and 21.5 kgs was found along with her two children for which Section of NDPS Act 20(b)(ii)(c) was charged. The other co-accused were charged under Section 27A of the NDPS Act of delivering illegal cannabis to a house which was in the possession of the accused-appellant and thereby facilitated the smuggling of cannabis by the appellant and his two children . The Trial Court convicted the appellant of the offense under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and acquitted the other four persons of all charges and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fine. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant. The appeal has been filed against the judgment and order upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offense under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Whether the appellant is guilty of an offense under section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act? The Supreme Court held that neither the trial court nor the High Court has denied that the woman was illiterate and a senior citizen, but completely ignorant of the law, with two grown children, at any time in her lifetime as a criminal. The previous background of the case was not involved. The bench observed that “it is a danger to the society; No leniency should be shown towards the accused persons found guilty under the NDPS Act. But upholding the same, this Court cannot be ignorant of other facts and circumstances as inferred in the present case that an old illiterate woman of rural background, who was a senior citizen at the time of the alleged incident, was residing in that house. . Her husband and two elder children who may be in trafficking, but the prosecution failed to investigate and take into account the procedural compliance required under sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act, convicted the appellant for the reason that he was living in that house but at the same time completely ignored the fact that other co-accused were also living in the same house and what was their business, and who were they who were involved in trafficking and supplied supplies. psychotropic substances, the prosecution never cared to investigate. , In view of the above, the Supreme Court, after considering the old age of the appellant, who is a poor illiterate woman who is completely unaware of the consequences, reduced the sentence to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 Lac.

A sessions court upheld a magisterial court's order that the son and daughter-in-law of a senior citizen, against whom he had filed a domestic violence complaint, leave the Tardeo flat where they were staying. The court said the 89-year-old woman has spent her entire life in the flat with her family and she is deeply attached to it. According to the court, it is certainly not desirable to stay away from it in such circumstances. The 80-year-old, who owns 50 per cent of the assets, had asked the Girgaum magistrate court to order her son and daughter-in-law to leave the flat. She had complained that after her husband's death in 2000, her life was made hell after the couple demanded her share in the property. She claims that her son is an alcoholic who fights daily, which makes it impossible for him to be there. She had been living nearby since 2006 with her daughter and son-in-law. The couple had denied the allegations of domestic violence, claiming that they were made at the request of the woman's daughter. He also claimed that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, a woman cannot be evicted from a shared household, hence the daughter-in-law could not be ordered to leave. The court said that the petition was filed on the request of the daughter, but it is necessary to discuss how, despite having a 50% share, she has been living at the mercy of her daughter and son-in-law since 2006. It was said that her son and daughter-in-law did not make any arrangement for her stay and simply said that she had sufficient means to maintain herself. The court said this reflects their reluctance to maintain and take care of him. The court also noted that the elderly woman testified under oath that her son was an alcoholic who once held him by the neck. It also rejected the couple's argument that since the daughter-in-law is a woman, she cannot be evicted from the shared household.

Case Title: Khema @ Khem Chandra Adi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Pamighanatam Sri Narasimha: Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 2022 of 1200 1202 The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that failure to examine independent witnesses leads to adverse findings against the prosecution. Justice B.R. Gavai and Pamighantham Sri Narasimha said that “though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has failed to examine them. This is a matter in which the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt." In this case two daughters of the deceased Prakash were to be married. On the wedding day, all the accused started assaulting the deceased Prakash and threw him on the brick road. To save the life of the deceased Prakash's brother Inder (PW2), his sister and his wife came forward. An FIR was registered against the accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 506 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants. The appellants filed an appeal before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The counsel for the appellants Shri Rajul Bhargava submitted that the prosecution has tried to suppress the actual origin of the incident. It was argued that though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has failed to examine them and as such, an unfavorable inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution. State counsel Ms. Garima Prasad submitted that merely because (PW1) and (PW2) are relatives of the deceased, it cannot be a ground to reject their testimony. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Can the appellants be convicted under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 506 of the IPC? The Supreme Court observed that the lower court has also come to the conclusion that Omveer (PW1) Could not witness the incident. There is no doubt that Inder (PW2) is an injured witness and hence, his testimony cannot be taken lightly. The bench said that the testimony of Inder (PW2) would fall under the third category, i.e. his evidence can be said to be "neither wholly credible nor wholly unreliable". In such a situation it will be necessary that there is some confirmation in the testimony of his eyes. The Supreme Court said that the trial court and the high court have failed to consider the significant discrepancies and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The bench said though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has failed to examine them. This is a case in which the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. In view of the above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court.

Recently Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana barred 140 lawyers from practicing/appearing in any court after they were found guilty of "possession of fake and fabricated enrollment certificates". All these people were practicing in the same district of Punjab (Ludhiana) and were appearing in the court. The Bar has termed the case of practicing on the basis of fake Enrollment Certificate (Advocate's License) as a scam and a classic case. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which included CM Munjal, Chairman Harish Rai Dhanda, member and co-opted member Vikas Bishnoi, has sent a list of such advocates to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana for immediate action, leading to the conviction of the culprits. to be prosecuted. The Bar's disciplinary committee was disposing of a complaint filed by a Ludhiana-based lawyer David Gill against Parminder Singh, who was enrolled as an advocate, alleging that he did not hold a valid licence. During the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee constituted a three-member internal committee to examine the licenses of all the members of the District Bar Association. The committee comprising Rajesh Kumar, Rahul Grover and Pradeep Sharma presented its report by displaying a chart made by comparing voter lists provided by Bar Association Ludhiana and Bar Council records. After scrutiny of records from 2000 to 2021, it was revealed that a total of 140 advocates of Ludhiana were practicing on non-existent enrollment numbers.

According to a report released by computer security software company McAfee, 85 percent of children in India have reported cyberbullying as well as someone cyberbullying. The India-focused findings are part of the company's global report 'Cyberbullying in Plain Sight, a survey of 10 countries. It was held from June 15 to July 5, involving 11,687 parents and their children. McAfee also claimed that the survey uncovered a shocking fact - that many children participate in cyberbullying, which is their behavior without realizing what it is, while parents struggle to keep up with it. McAfee said, “Cyberbullying in India reaches alarming heights as more than 1 in 3 children by the age of 10 face threats of cyber racism, sexual harassment, and physical harm – making India one of the world’s leading cyberbullying countries. It becomes the number 1 country." The report said, 45 percent of these children said they hid their experiences of cyberbullying from their parents, perhaps due to the relative absence of interaction. All parents must also understand modern-day cyberbullying, and how dangerous it is for their children.

Case Title: J.J. Vedhasingh vs. R.M. Govindan and others. Bench: Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.K. Maheshwari Citation: Originated from SLP (Crl.) No. 2864 of 2019 The Supreme Court on Thursday referred the matter to a larger bench to decide whether an accused can be tried under the NI Act as well as the IPC, irrespective of prior conviction or acquittal. Is. Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.K. Maheshwari Madras were dealing with an appeal filed against the order passed by the High Court, whereby the High Court allowed the criminal petition filed by respondents no. 1 to 4 and quashed the proceedings under sections 120B, 406, 420 and 34 IPC. Gave. In this case, the appellant was working as a civil engineer in Saudi Arabia. On his return to India in the year 2011, he purchased a site from Respondent No. 2, who is the father of Respondent No. 1 in Coimbatore. The appellant made an investment but neither profit was shared nor any piece of land was given to the appellant. Respondent No. 1 handed over a check in lieu of payment of principal and interest. The said check got dishonored on the presentation of the bank due to insufficient funds. A demand notice was issued by the appellant and a complaint was lodged under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defendants filed a petition before the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings. Accepting the said petition, the High Court quashed the proceedings. Counsel for the appellants relied on the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v State of Gujarat and others, where it was held that in the offense under section 138 of the NI Act, cause need not be proved, though the offense under section 420, fraudulent and is relevant to prove dishonest intent i.e. mains re. The counsel for the defendants relied upon the case of Kolla Veera Raghava Rao Vs. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr, where it was held that if the offenses are different and the facts are the same, the prosecution under Section 420 of the IPC should be given under Section 300(1) of CrPC. ) has been completely stopped. To avoid any further confusion and to maintain continuity, the Supreme Court referred some issues for decision by the larger Bench: (1) Whether the correct law has been laid down in the case of Kolla Veera Raghava Rao? either The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel which is the latter and conflicting, determines the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether the accused on the same set of charges of fact can be prosecuted for an offense under the NI Act which is a special Act and also for offenses under IPC unaffected by prior conviction or acquittal and section 300(1) ) Will the CrPC be attracted to such a test? The bench observed that the decisions based on learned counsel for both the sides are in conflict with each other on the legal issue. Keeping the above in view, the Supreme Court framed certain questions to be answered by the larger Bench.

Case Title: Raghavendra Singh & 3 Others Vs U.P. State. and other Division Bench: Justice Samir Jain Citation: Application u/s 482 No. – 2300 of 2016 The Allahabad High Court on Thursday quashed the criminal case registered on account of an alleged forged registered will. A bench of Justice Sameer Jain was considering the application filed under section 482 of CrPC. The complaint filed under sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B of IPC pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was to quash the case. In this case the complainant Raj Bahadur Singh, with the intention of usurping the property of the father-in-law of the opposition party No. 2, made a forged registered will of Vijay Bahadur Singh (father-in-law of the opposition party No. 2) in favor of his grandson, applicant no. 2 (daughter-in-law of Raj Bahadur Singh). ), carried out under the guardianship of. In the Registered Will, Applicant No. 3 and 4 were witnesses and Opponent Party No. 2 came to know about the Fake Will only when the process of transmutation began and when he requested Raj Bahadur Singh and the Applicants to quash the Fake Will. refused to cancel it. Counsel for the applicants submitted that, Opposite Party No. 2 filed a criminal complaint with malicious intent only to harass the applicants and the complaint does not disclose any criminal offense and for Opponent Party No. 2 before the Civil Court Effective remedy was available. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the Respondents submitted that, merely on the ground of the fact that the dispute is civil in nature, the pending proceedings against the applicants cannot be quashed as the complaint dated 05.07.2011 also discloses prima facie cognizable offenses against the applicants. Therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. The High Court observed that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be held that the said registered Will dated 30.11.2000 was forged. The bench observed that “Opposite Party No. 2 has given the color of a purely civil dispute to a criminal offense. According to the allegation, on the basis of the forged will, the proceedings of mutation were terminated in favor of the applicants, but there is no evidence that the will, the registered will, was forged, so only the competent civil court has jurisdiction over the matter could do. decide the issue of whether the will in dispute was forged or not, but the opposing party number 2 did not choose to file a suit to annul the will, therefore, it appears that he may have lost his score through criminal proceedings. as criminal proceedings can be initiated very easily and can also harass the applicants. , The High Court observed that whether a will is forged or not can only be ascertained through evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, but the opposite party No. 2 did not challenge the will before any civil court. Granted, therefore, the disputed complaint can be dismissed in court. Exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

A plea has been filed in the High Court of Delhi by a woman who wants to stop her friend who is diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue System from going to Europe for Euthanasia. She sought the court’s direction to the Centre to not give emigration clearance to her friend. The petitioner stated that his friend has made false statements to Indian and Foreign authorities to get travel clearance. The Petitioner also seeks direction to the Centre to form a Medical Board to examine his friend’s condition. As per the petitioner, Chronic Fatigue Syndrom is a complex and long-term neuroinflammatory disease which is a poorly understood condition and the research for the disease is in early stages. The petitioner submitted that his friend travelled to Zurich, Switzerland for Euthanasia through an organisation called Dignitas that provides physician-assisted suicide. The petitioner said that the friend in question has already travelled to Zurich for his psychological evaluation and is now awaiting the final decision from the organisation. The petitioner requested the court’s assistance as his friend has become adamant and wants to go for Euthanasia while his old parents still hope that their child will get betterment treatment and his condition would improve. Title: Sindhu MK versus Union of India & Ors