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।

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.

बेंगलुरु जाने वाली फ़लाइट में बीड़ी पीने के आरोप में व्यक्ति गिरफ्तार: कहा 'ट्रेनों में…' हाल ही में बेंगलुरू हवाईअड्डे पर पहली बार उड़ान भरने वाले एक यात्री को बीच हवा में बीड़ी पीते हुए पकड़े जाने के बाद गिरफ्तार किया गया था। प्रवीण कुमार के रूप में पहचाने जाने वाले यात्री पर अन्य यात्रियों के जीवन को खतरे में डालने का आरोप लगाया गया था। हालाँकि, उसने पुलिस को बताया कि वह विमानन नियमों से अनभिज्ञ था और उसने सोचा कि यह ट्रेन के वॉशरूम में धूम्रपान करने के समान होगा, जिसे उसने नियमित रूप से करना स्वीकार किया। “मैं अक्सर ट्रेन से यात्रा करता हूं और शौचालय के अंदर धूम्रपान करता हूं।” टाइम्स ऑफ इंडिया के मुताबिक, उसने पुलिस को बताया, “मैंने यह सोचकर बीड़ी पीने का फैसला किया कि मैं यहां भी ऐसा ही कर सकता हूं।” केबिन क्रू द्वारा शौचालय में धूम्रपान करते पकड़े जाने से पहले कुमार मंगलवार को अहमदाबाद में विमान में सवार हुए। अधिकारियों के अनुसार, फ्लाइट अटेंडेंट ने तुरंत प्रतिक्रिया दी और उसे हिरासत में ले लिया। केम्पेगौड़ा अंतरराष्ट्रीय हवाईअड्डे पर पहुंचने पर उन्हें गिरफ्तार कर लिया गया। 1937 के द एयरक्राफ्ट रूल्स के अनुसार, ई-सिगरेट के उपयोग सहित धूम्रपान, भारतीय उड़ानों पर प्रतिबंधित है। हाल के दिनों में, हालांकि, देश भर में कई उल्लंघनों की सूचना मिली है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 'रूह अफजा' बनाम 'दिल अफजा' मामले में हाईकोर्ट के फैसले को बरकरार रखा सुप्रीम कोर्ट सभी कानूनी मामलों के समाधान के लिए अंतिम मंच है। पेचीदा मामलों की एक सतत धारा यहां आती है। ऐसा ही एक मामला चर्चित शरबत ‘रूह अफजा’ से जुड़ा है। इस मामले में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि ‘दिल अफज़ा’ नाम के शर्बत के उत्पादन पर रोक लगाने का हाईकोर्ट का फैसला सही था। इस दौरान चीफ जस्टिस की अगुवाई में तीन जजों की बेंच ने टेबल पर रखी दोनों शर्बत की बोतलों की बारीकी से जांच की. 1907 से, हमदर्द फार्मेसी रूह अफज़ा शरबत का उत्पादन और बिक्री कर रही है। 2020 में सदर लेबोरेटरीज नाम की एक कंपनी ने शरबत दिल अफजा जैसा ही एक उत्पाद बेचना शुरू किया। सदर लैबोरेटरीज ने बताया कि वह 1976 से दिल अफजा दवा का उत्पादन कर रही है। ऐसे में उसे इसी नाम का शरबत बनाने से नहीं रोका जा सकता। दिसंबर 2020 में, दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय की एकल पीठ ने सदर प्रयोगशालाओं के दावे को मंजूर कर लिया, जिससे उसे दिल अफज़ा बनाने और बेचने की अनुमति मिल गई। हमदर्द नेशनल फाउंडेशन ने हाईकोर्ट की डिवीजन बेंच में अपील दायर की। पिछले साल जारी एक फैसले में दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट की दो जजों की बेंच ने कहा था कि हमदर्द रूह अफजा एक जाना-माना ब्रांड है। एक समान उत्पाद को एक बहुत ही समान नाम के तहत बेचना एक ट्रेडमार्क उल्लंघन है। हाईकोर्ट की डिवीजन बेंच ने सदर लैबोरेटरीज को दिल अफजा शरबत का उत्पादन और बिक्री तुरंत रोकने का आदेश दिया। सदर लैबोरेटरीज ने हाई कोर्ट की डिवीजन बेंच के फैसले के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील की। मामले की सुनवाई आज मुख्य न्यायाधीश डी वाई चंद्रचूड़, न्यायमूर्ति पीएस नरसिम्हा और जेबी पारदीवाला की खंडपीठ ने की। लंबी बहस के दौरान दोनों शर्बत निर्माताओं के वकीलों ने अपने-अपने दावों को सही ठहराया। दिल अफजा के वकील ने जजों को दोनों शरबत की बोतलें थमा दीं। इसके जवाब में मुख्य न्यायाधीश ने मजाक में कहा, “हम उन्हें ले रहे हैं, लेकिन हम उन्हें वापस नहीं करेंगे।” इसके बाद तीनों जजों ने बारी-बारी से दोनों बोतलों की जांच की। जजों ने हाई कोर्ट की डिवीजन बेंच का फैसला भी पढ़ा। अंत में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि उच्च न्यायालय की खंडपीठ द्वारा जारी आदेश त्रुटिहीन था। हम स्थिति में हस्तक्षेप नहीं करेंगे।

बैंकों से फास्टैग से एकत्रित धन पर ब्याज का भुगतान कि माँग वाली याचिका पर हाईकोर्ट ने केंद्र से जवाब मांगा दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने फास्टैग जारी करने और कार्ड पर न्यूनतम शेष राशि की आवश्यकता के साथ बैंक द्वारा एकत्र किए गए धन पर अधिकारियों को ब्याज का भुगतान करने के लिए बैंकों को निर्देश देने की मांग वाली याचिका पर एनएचएआई और केंद्र से जवाब मांगा है। मुख्य न्यायाधीश सतीश चंद्र शर्मा और न्यायमूर्ति सुब्रमण्यम प्रसाद की पीठ ने भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण (NHAI) और सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय (MoRT&H) को एक आवेदन पर नोटिस जारी किया, जिसमें कहा गया है कि FASTag जारी करने से हजारों करोड़ रुपये का नुकसान होता है। कम्यूटर समुदाय या एनएचएआई या एमओआरटीएंडएच को बिना किसी समान लाभ के बैंकिंग प्रणाली में रुपये का प्रवेश हुआ है। अदालत ने अधिकारियों को आवेदन पर अपना जवाब दाखिल करने के लिए चार सप्ताह का समय दिया और मामले को 10 अगस्त को आगे की सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किया। आवेदन एक लंबित याचिका में दायर किया गया था जो उस नियम को चुनौती देता है जो बिना फास्टैग वाले वाहनों को टोल टैक्स का दोगुना भुगतान करने के लिए मजबूर करता है। याचिका में कहा गया है कि यह नियम भेदभावपूर्ण, मनमाना और जनहित के खिलाफ है क्योंकि यह एनएचएआई को नकद भुगतान करने पर दोगुनी दर से टोल वसूलने का अधिकार देता है। याचिकाकर्ता रविंदर त्यागी का प्रतिनिधित्व अधिवक्ता प्रवीण अग्रवाल ने किया, उन्होंने आवेदन में कहा कि फास्टैग सुविधा की शुरुआत के साथ 30,000 करोड़ रुपये से अधिक की राशि बैंकिंग प्रणाली में आ गई है। याचिका में कहा गया है कि अगर इस आंकड़े पर 8.25 प्रतिशत सालाना की सावधि जमा दर लागू की जाती है, तो हर साल NHAI या MoRT&H को 2,000 करोड़ रुपये से अधिक का लाभ होगा। “वर्तमान में इस पैसे का उपयोग बैंकों/वित्तीय संस्थानों द्वारा नि: शुल्क और उत्तरदाताओं (NHAI और MoRT&H) की कीमत पर किया जा रहा है। इस पैसे का ब्याज या तो NHAI/MoRTH या यात्रियों का है और इसे इसमें खर्च किया जाना चाहिए। सड़क/राजमार्ग/यात्रियों के लाभ के आगे के विकास,” यह कहा। आवेदन में फास्टैग के ब्याज से प्राप्त आय से ‘यात्री कल्याण कोष’ के नाम से एक अलग कोष बनाने के लिए अधिकारियों को निर्देश देने की भी मांग की गई है।

SC hints at staying WB govt's ban on 'The Kerala Story' The Supreme Court on Thursday said statutory provisions cannot be used to “put a premium on public intolerance” and hinted that it may stay the West Bengal government’s order banning the movie, “The Kerala Story”. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said it is the duty of the state government to maintain law and order as the film has been granted certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). “Bad films bomb at the box office,” the bench said. “The legal provision cannot be used to put a premium on public intolerance. Otherwise, all films will find themselves in this spot,” the bench, also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, said during the hearing which is still on. The states cannot sit in appeal over the grant of certification to the movie, said senior advocate Harish Salve appearing for the producer of the movie. The bench indicated that it may stay the West Bengal government order banning the film. Salve said nobody has filed any statutory appeal against the grant of certification to the film and referred judgements to buttress his submissions that

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बिहार में जाति सर्वेक्षण रोकने के पटना हाई कोर्ट के आदेश पर रोक लगाने से किया इनकार.. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने गुरुवार को पटना हाई कोर्ट के उस आदेश पर रोक लगाने से इनकार कर दिया, जिसमें बिहार सरकार द्वारा किए जा रहे जाति सर्वेक्षण पर रोक लगा दी गई थी. जस्टिस अभय एस ओका और राजेश बिंदल की पीठ ने कहा कि यह जांच करनी होगी कि क्या किया जा रहा अभ्यास सर्वेक्षण की आड़ में जनगणना है।पीठ ने कहा, “हम यह स्पष्ट कर रहे हैं, यह ऐसा मामला नहीं है जहां हम आपको अंतरिम राहत दे सकते हैं।” शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा कि उच्च न्यायालय ने मुख्य याचिका की सुनवाई तीन जुलाई के लिए स्थगित कर दी है।“हम निर्देश देते हैं कि इस याचिका को 14 जुलाई को सूचीबद्ध किया जाए। यदि किसी कारण से, रिट याचिका की सुनवाई अगली तारीख से पहले शुरू नहीं होती है, तो हम याचिकाकर्ता (बिहार) के वरिष्ठ वकील द्वारा आगे की दलीलें सुनेंगे।” बेंच ने कहा। उच्च न्यायालय के चार मई के आदेश के खिलाफ शीर्ष अदालत में दायर एक अपील में बिहार सरकार ने कहा था कि रोक लगाने से पूरी कवायद पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ेगा।राज्य सरकार ने कहा कि जाति आधारित डेटा का संग्रह संविधान के अनुच्छेद 15 और 16 के तहत एक संवैधानिक आदेश है। बिहार में जाति सर्वेक्षण का पहला दौर 7 से 21 जनवरी के बीच आयोजित किया गया था। दूसरा दौर 15 अप्रैल को शुरू हुआ था और 15 मई तक जारी रहने वाला था।

Child Custody Orders Are Always Interlocutory Orders, Can be Altered Keeping in Mind Interest of Child: Patna HC In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court set aside a custody order issued by the Family Court, Patna, and emphasized the paramount importance of the welfare of the child involved. The judgment was delivered by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra on May 15, 2023. The case revolved around Ranjan Kumar Gupta, the petitioner, and Puja Devi, the respondent, who were married on December 15, 2010. The couple had a daughter together on February 7, 2012. However, due to ongoing disputes and a breakdown in their relationship, both parties agreed to seek a divorce through a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under their agreement, the petitioner was to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as a settlement to the respondent, and the minor girl would reside with the father. Following the payment of the agreed amount on March 5, 2016, the petitioner took custody of the child. Disputes arose between the parties after the payment, leading the respondent to file a petition seeking custody of their minor daughter. The petitioner opposed the petition, alleging that the respondent had harassed him and his family members after receiving the payment. Matters escalated further when the respondent requested the withdrawal of her consent for mutual divorce, expressing a desire to reunite with her husband. In response, the petitioner sought the return of his entire payment. On January 31, 2017, the Family Court, Patna, passed an order directing the respondent to refund the Rs. 5 lakhs to the petitioner and mandated the petitioner to transfer custody of the minor child to the respondent. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court, arguing that the lower court had failed to consider the child’s welfare and that, as the child’s natural guardian, he had provided the necessary care, love, and affection. The court acknowledged the significant time that had elapsed since the initial custody order was issued, noting the changed circumstances.  The court emphasized that “the welfare and best interests of the child must always take precedence over the rights of the parents involved.” Also Read

Centre Clears Elevation of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sr Adv KV Vishwanathan to Supreme Court- Oath Tomorrow The Central government has approved the appointment of Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra as judges of the Supreme Court. They will be sworn in as judges on May 19. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended their appointment on May 16, citing the need for more members from the bar to be appointed to the Supreme Court bench. Mr Viswanathan will be the tenth lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar. He has spent over 30 years in the legal profession and has worked on many high-profile cases. He will also be the fourth person to become Chief Justice of India from the bar. Mr Viswanathan will serve until May 25, 2031, and will be eligible to assume Chief Justice of India’s office in August 2030. Justice Mishra, currently the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, has also been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. He has previously served as Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court and acting Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court. The Supreme Court currently has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges and is functioning with 32 judges. However, four more vacancies are expected to arise by the second week of July.

BIG: RBI Will Withdraw ₹2000 Currency Notes from Circulation- It Will Remain Legal Tender Till Sep 30 The Reserve Bank of India today made a big announannounced that it will withdraw ₹2000 notes from circulation. However, the currency will continue as Legal Tender. According to a press release published today by the Chief General Manager of the RBI, the purpose of releasing the 2000 banknotes was to satisfy the economy’s need for cash at the time. It stated that after banknotes in other denominations were made accessible in sufficient numbers, this objective was achieved, and as a result, the printing of 2000 banknotes was discontinued in 2018–19. “In view of the above, and in pursuance of the “Clean Note Policy” of the Reserve Bank of India, it has been decided to withdraw the ₹2000 denomination banknotes from circulation.“ In November 2016, the ₹2000 denomination banknote was launched in accordance with Section 24(1) of the RBI Act, 1934, principally to swiftly address the economy’s need for cash following the withdrawal of the legal tender status of the 500 and 1000 banknotes in use at the time. “Once banknotes in other denominations became available in sufficient quantities, the objective of introducing 2000 banknotes was met,” RBI stated in a statement. As a result, the printing of ₹2000 banknotes was discontinued in 2018–19.A little over 89% of the banknotes in the denomination of 2000 were printed before March 2017 and are nearing the end of their 4-5 year expected lifespan. The total value of these banknotes in circulation has decreased from its peak of 6.73 lakh crore as of March 31, 2018 (37.3% of Notes in Circulation) to its lowest point of 3.62 lakh crore as of March 31, 2023, which represents only 10.8% of Notes in Circulation. Additionally, it has been noted that transactions involving this denomination are uncommon. Additionally, the supply of banknotes in other denominations is still sufficient to meet the public’s demand for currency. In light of the foregoing and in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India’s “Clean Note Policy,” it has been decided to stop issuing banknotes with the denomination of ₹2000. The ₹2000-denomination bills will still be accepted as legal money. It should be noted that the RBI removed comparable notes from circulation in 2013–2014. Therefore, customers can deposit ₹2000 notes into their accounts or exchange them for bills of other denominations at any bank branch. Deposits into bank accounts may be done normally, that is, without limits and according to current directives and other relevant legal constraints, according to a statement from the RBI. Starting on May 23, 2023, any bank will allow the exchange of 2000 rupee notes into notes of other denominations up to a limit of 20,000 rupees at a time in order to maintain operational convenience and prevent disrupting the routine operations of bank branches.

Court Orders Airport and Indigo Airlines to Compensate Family After a Passenger Dies Due to Heart Attack The Kempegodwa International Airport (KIA) in Bengaluru and Indigo Airlines have been ordered to compensate a bereaved family after a passenger died of a heart attack at the International Airport.  The family members of the deceased person sued KIA and the airlines alleging that they failed to provide a wheelchair and medical assistance in a timely manner during the critical golden hour. A consumer court in the city ordered the KIA and IndiGo authorities to pay a total of Rs 12.1 lakh in compensation within 45 days of the order. The compensation includes Rs 12,00,000 to the complainants and Rs 10,000 towards their court expenses. The incident occurred in November 2021 when Chandra Shetty and his family arrived at the Bengaluru International Airport to travel to their hometown in Mangaluru. However, after the check-in process, Shetty collapsed on the floor, and despite his wife and daughter seeking help from the ground staff of Indigo and the airport team, they allegedly failed to provide a wheelchair to the ailing passenger. After 45 minutes, Shetty was taken to the hospital but passed away on the way. The aggrieved family later approached a KIA police station and filed a case against IndiGo and BIAL. When the case did not make any progress, the family approached the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Shantinagar in March 2022. While the airport authorities denied the allegations in front of the consumer court, IndiGo did not file any response despite repeated notices. The BIAL submitted that the airport staff took the passenger to a clinic inside the terminal and then transported him in a buggy to Aster Hospital. However, the consumer court upheld the family’s allegations, observing that the airport staff’s approach was inhuman and stating that the airlines and the airport have a responsibility to provide a safe atmosphere and timely assistance to passengers in need.

SC sets aside conviction, death penalty awarded to man in rape-cum-murder case The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction and death penalty awarded to a man for the alleged rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in 2010, saying “multitudinous lapses” in the investigation have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. Referring to the manner in which probe into the case was undertaken by the Maharashtra Police, the apex court said numerous lapses blot the entire map and there were “yawning gaps” in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established. A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai delivered its verdict on the appeals filed by the accused against the October 2015 judgement of the Bombay High Court which had affirmed the conviction and death sentence awarded to him by a trial court. While allowing the appeals, the top court quashed the verdict convicting the accused and directed that he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bench, also comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, said it was true that the unfortunate incident did take place and at a tender age of six, a life for which much was in store in the future was terrifyingly destroyed and extinguished. It said the parents of the victim have suffered an unfathomable loss, a wound for which there is no remedy. “Despite such painful realities being part of this case, we cannot hold within law, the prosecution to have undergone all necessary lengths and efforts to take the steps necessary for driving home the guilt of the appellant and that of none else in the crime,” the bench said in its judgement delivered on Friday. “There are, in fact, yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established-pointing to the guilt of the appellant,” it said. The apex court noted that an FIR was lodged in June 2010 at Thane in Maharashtra and the trial court, in November 2014, had convicted the accused and imposed capital punishment for the offence of murder. It said the courts below had concurrently found the prosecution to have established the case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, after sexually assaulting the minor girl, had put her to death and thrown the body in a drain to destroy the evidence. The apex court noted that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, as none has witnessed the crime for which the appellant stands charged. “The prosecution case is primarily based, not on ocular evidence but on the confessional statement of the appellant leading to the recovery of incriminating articles and through scientific analysis establishing his guilt. The sheet-anchor of the case being the DNA analysis report ,” it said. The bench said even though the DNA evidence by way of a report was present, “its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence as can be seen from our discussion above, is absent almost in its entirety.” The bench said the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again were “surprising and unexplained”. It noted there was unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis, the alleged disclosure statement of the appellant was never read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and what was the basis of him being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery.

दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने सोमवार को ब्रिटिश ब्रॉडकास्टिंग कॉरपोरेशन (बीबीसी) को एक एनजीओ द्वारा दायर मानहानि के मुकदमे पर समन जारी किया, जिसमें दावा किया गया था कि इसकी डॉक्यूमेंट्री ने भारत, इसकी न्यायपालिका और प्रधान मंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी की प्रतिष्ठा पर धब्बा लगाया है। बीबीसी (यूके) के अलावा, जस्टिस सचिन दत्ता ने बीबीसी (इंडिया) को भी नोटिस जारी कर गुजरात स्थित एनजीओ जस्टिस फॉर ट्रायल द्वारा दायर याचिका पर प्रतिक्रिया मांगी है। याचिका में कहा गया है कि बीबीसी (भारत) स्थानीय संचालन कार्यालय है और बीबीसी (यूके) ने वृत्तचित्र – “इंडिया: द मोदी क्वेश्चन” जारी किया है – जिसमें दो एपिसोड हैं। एनजीओ की ओर से पेश हुए वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता हरीश साल्वे ने कहा कि बीबीसी के खिलाफ मानहानि का मुकदमा उस वृत्तचित्र के संबंध में है जिसने भारत और न्यायपालिका सहित पूरी प्रणाली को “बदनाम” किया है। उन्होंने दलील दी कि डॉक्यूमेंट्री में प्रधानमंत्री के खिलाफ भी आक्षेप लगाया गया है।वादी की ओर से यह तर्क दिया गया था कि वृत्तचित्र मानहानिकारक आरोप लगाता है और देश की प्रतिष्ठा पर कलंक लगाता है। उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा, “प्रतिवादियों को सभी स्वीकार्य तरीकों से नोटिस जारी करें” और इसे 15 सितंबर को आगे की सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किया।

ये नोटबंदी नहीं- आरबीआई ने दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में 2000 रुपये के नोट बिना पहचान पत्र के बदलने ने निर्णय को कहा सही भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक (RBI) ने मंगलवार को दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट को बताया कि 2000 रुपये के नोटों को वापस लेना विमुद्रीकरण नहीं बल्कि एक वैधानिक अभ्यास है, और उनके विनिमय को सक्षम करने का निर्णय परिचालन सुविधा के लिए लिया गया था। अदालत वकील अश्विनी कुमार उपाध्याय की याचिका पर सुनवाई कर रही थी कि आरबीआई और एसबीआई द्वारा 2000 रुपये के बैंक नोटों को बिना प्रमाण के बदलने की अधिसूचना मनमाना और भ्रष्टाचार पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए बनाए गए कानूनों के खिलाफ है। मुख्य न्यायाधीश सतीश चंद्र शर्मा और न्यायमूर्ति सुब्रमण्यम प्रसाद की पीठ ने कहा कि वह वकील द्वारा जनहित याचिका पर उचित आदेश पारित करेगी। अदालत ने कहा, “हम इस पर गौर करेंगे। हम उचित आदेश पारित करेंगे।” उपाध्याय ने स्पष्ट किया कि वह 2000 रुपये के बैंक नोट वापस लेने के फैसले को चुनौती नहीं दे रहे थे, लेकिन बिना किसी पर्ची या पहचान प्रमाण के नोट बदलने की बात कर रहे थे। उन्होंने जोर देकर कहा कि बैंक खाते में जमा के माध्यम से 2000 रुपये के बैंक नोट के विनिमय की अनुमति दी जानी चाहिए। उपाध्याय ने दावा किया, “आईडी प्रूफ को बाहर क्यों रखा गया है? हर गरीब के पास जन धन खाता है। बीपीएल व्यक्ति भी बैंक खातों से जुड़े हुए हैं।” आरबीआई के लिए वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता पराग पी त्रिपाठी ने जोर देकर कहा कि अदालत ऐसे मामलों में हस्तक्षेप नहीं कर सकती है और परिचालन सुविधा के लिए 2000 रुपये के नोट के विनिमय की अनुमति देने का निर्णय लिया गया था। उन्होंने कहा, “यह नोटबंदी नहीं है। 2000 रुपये के नोट का आमतौर पर इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाता था। अन्य मूल्यवर्ग मुद्रा आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करना जारी रखते हैं।” त्रिपाठी ने कहा, “यह एक वैधानिक अभ्यास है। याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा दावा किए गए बिंदुओं में से कोई भी संवैधानिक मुद्दों से संबंधित नहीं है।” अदालत ने पक्षों को सुनने के बाद कहा, “तर्क सुने गए। फैसला सुरक्षित रखा गया।” याचिकाकर्ता ने अपनी दलील में तर्क दिया है कि आरबीआई और एसबीआई द्वारा 2000 रुपये के बैंक नोटों को आवश्यक पर्ची और पहचान प्रमाण के बिना बदलने की अधिसूचना मनमाना, तर्कहीन और भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 का अपमान करने वाली थी। याचिका में कहा गया है कि बड़ी मात्रा में मुद्रा या तो किसी व्यक्ति के लॉकर में पहुंच गई है या “अलगाववादियों, आतंकवादियों, माओवादियों, ड्रग तस्करों, खनन माफियाओं और भ्रष्ट लोगों द्वारा जमा की गई है”। याचिका में इस बात पर प्रकाश डाला गया है कि उच्च मूल्य की मुद्रा में नकद लेनदेन भ्रष्टाचार का मुख्य स्रोत है और इसका उपयोग आतंकवाद, नक्सलवाद, अलगाववाद, कट्टरपंथ, जुआ, तस्करी, मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग, अपहरण, जबरन वसूली, रिश्वत और दहेज आदि जैसी अवैध गतिविधियों के लिए किया जाता है। आरबीआई और एसबीआई को यह सुनिश्चित करना चाहिए कि 2000 रुपये के नोट संबंधित बैंक खातों में ही जमा किए जाएं। “हाल ही में, केंद्र द्वारा यह घोषणा की गई थी कि प्रत्येक परिवार के पास आधार कार्ड और बैंक खाता होना चाहिए। इसलिए, आरबीआई पहचान प्रमाण प्राप्त किए बिना 2000 रुपये के नोट बदलने की अनुमति क्यों दे रहा है। यह बताना भी आवश्यक है कि 80 करोड़ बीपीएल परिवारों को मुफ्त अनाज मिलता है।” इसका मतलब है कि 80 करोड़ भारतीय शायद ही कभी 2,000 रुपये के नोटों का उपयोग करते हैं। इसलिए, याचिकाकर्ता ने आरबीआई और एसबीआई को यह निर्देश देने की भी मांग की है कि वे यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए कदम उठाएं कि 2000 रुपये के नोट केवल बैंक खाते में ही जमा किए जाएं। याचिका में कहा गया है कि बैंक खातों में 2000 रुपये के नोट जमा करने से यह सुनिश्चित होगा कि काले धन और आय से अधिक संपत्ति वाले लोगों की आसानी से पहचान की जा सके। 19 मई को, भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक (RBI) ने प्रचलन से 2,000 रुपये के नोटों को वापस लेने की घोषणा की थी, और कहा कि प्रचलन में मौजूदा नोट या तो बैंक खातों में जमा किए जा सकते हैं या 30 सितंबर तक बदले जा सकते हैं। आरबीआई ने एक बयान में कहा कि 2,000 रुपए के नोट वैध रहेंगे।

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday recognised the copyright held by Indian cinema legend Satyajit Ray to the screenplay written by him for his film “Nayak”. Justice C Hari Shankar rejected an assertion by the family of film’s producer RD Bansal that the copyright to the film as well as the screenplay belonged to them, and said they have no right to injunct the “novelization of the screenplay” by third parties on the basis of a licence granted by Satyajit Ray’s son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA). The plaintiff family, in its lawsuit, said Satyajit Ray was commissioned by RD Bansal to write the screenplay of and to direct the film ‘Nayak’ and the “novelization of the screenplay” by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay and its publication by the defendant HarperCollins Publishers India was contrary to the Copyrights Act. The court said being the author, Ray was the first owner of the copyright to the screenplay and the right to novelise it is also vested in him and the later conferment of this right by his son and SPSRA on the third party was “wholly in order”. “Inexorably, the conclusion is that under Section 17 of the Copyright Act, Satyajit Ray, as the author of the screenplay of the film Nayak, was the first owner of the copyright.. The contention that plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the screenplay in the film Nayak, therefore, cannot be accepted and is accordingly, rejected,” said the court. “Copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’ vested, therefore, consequent on the demise of Satyajit Ray, on his son Sandip Ray and the SPSRA. The conferment of the right to novelize the screenplay, by Sandip Ray and the SPSRA on the defendant, therefore, is wholly in order,” ruled the court. The court observed there is no dispute that the screenplay of the film was “entirely the work of Satyajit Ray” and the producer “has contributed no part”.

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने हाल ही में फैसला सुनाया कि आपराधिक पक्ष के मुवक्किलों का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले वकील, चाहे वे अभियुक्त हों या अभियोजन पक्ष, शस्त्र लाइसेंस रखने के विशेषाधिकार का दावा नहीं कर सकते।अदालत ने कहा कि यह संभावित रूप से ऐसे लाइसेंसों के अंधाधुंध जारी करने का कारण बन सकता है। न्यायमूर्ति प्रतिभा एम सिंह ने यह कहते हुए फैसला सुनाया कि एक आरोपी व्यक्ति के उनके प्रतिनिधित्व के आधार पर केवल एक वकील द्वारा किया गया आवेदन हथियार लाइसेंस देने के लिए पर्याप्त नहीं होगा। अदालत के अनुसार, शस्त्र लाइसेंस, शस्त्र अधिनियम, 1959 द्वारा शासित होता है और प्रत्येक मामले में विशिष्ट परिस्थितियों के आधार पर लाइसेंसिंग प्राधिकरण के पास इसे जारी करने का विवेकाधिकार होता है। लाइसेंसिंग अथॉरिटी को लाइसेंस देने से पहले शस्त्र लाइसेंस के लिए आवेदन करने के कारणों और कथित खतरे के स्तर का आकलन करना चाहिए। अदालत ने यह फैसला वकील शिव कुमार द्वारा दायर एक याचिका पर सुनवाई के बाद दिया, जिन्होंने शस्त्र अधिनियम, 1959 के तहत शस्त्र लाइसेंस के लिए आवेदन दायर किया था। याचिका ने 30 नवंबर, 2022 को उपराज्यपाल द्वारा आवेदन की अस्वीकृति का विरोध किया। अदालत ने निष्कर्ष निकाला कि लाइसेंस से इनकार करना उचित था और याचिकाकर्ता के अनुरोध को अपर्याप्त माना। इसके अलावा, अदालत ने कहा की याचिकाकर्ता को राज्य की कथित कमजोरी के कारण आग्नेयास्त्र रखने की अनुमति देने से ऐसा करने के अधिकार की मान्यता प्राप्त होगी, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप बेलगाम हथियार लाइसेंस जारी किए जा सकते हैं और और अन्य नागरिकों की सुरक्षा के लिए खतरा पैदा हो सकता है। नतीजतन, लाइसेंसिंग प्राधिकरण को शस्त्र लाइसेंस आवेदन को अनुमति या अस्वीकार करते समय इन कारकों पर विचार करना होगा।

Good News For Judicial Officers- Supreme Court Orders Pay Hike From 1 Jan 2016; Arrears to be Paid by 30 June 2023 The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the implementation of the enhanced pay scales recommended by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission from January 1, 2016. A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli directed the Center and states to pay the dues of officers in three instalments: 25% in three months, 25% in three months and the balance amount on June 30. till 2023. The Supreme Court also said that it was important to revise the pay structure immediately as judicial officers were not covered by the pay commissions set up by the state and the Centre. The Supreme Court issued the directions while considering the petition of All India Judges Association for constitution of an All India Judicial Commission to review the service conditions of District Judiciary Judges. On January 6, 2022, the Court held that the two issues pending for consideration were the pay scales for the subordinate judiciary and pension/retirement benefits. The Supreme Court established the second National Judicial Pay Commission in 2017 to review the pay scales and other conditions of judicial officers of subordinate judiciary across the country. Good news for judicial officers- Supreme Court has ordered an increase in salary from January 1, 2016 on the recommendation of the Judicial Commission; Dues will be paid by 30 June 2023

Case Title: Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. MR. Deepak Aggarwal & Ors. Bench: Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.T. Ravikumar Citation: Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.16631-16632/2018 Sec 24 Land Acquisitions Act 2013 | When Land Acquisition Gets Initiated? Explains Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Thursday stated that the acquisitions initiated for public purposes should go on in a fair and transparent manner with a view to achieve the intent and purport of the 2013 Act. The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.T. Ravikumar stated that “all such procedures and formalities shall be continued till the determination of compensation by applying all the provisions for determination of compensation, under the 2013 Act. A contra-construction, in view of the restrictive application of the provisions to such proceedings during its continuance, would make the provisions under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act unworkable.” In this case, the issue was regarding the meaning and interpretation of the word “initiated” employed in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The question before the bench was: When Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act makes it clear with necessary implication that all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation alone would be applicable to such proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act but, not culminated in an award, how the procedures are to be regulated during the intervening period till the proceedings reach the stage of determination of compensation? The bench observed that a perusal of Section 24 would reveal that the passing of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the key factor in deciding the manner and nature of continuance of the land acquisition proceedings. Supreme Court after referring to various judgments observed that “There cannot be any uncertainty on that aspect. The procedures to be undertaken and the manner in which they are to be regulated cannot remain uncertain. They are conducted either in the manner provided under the L.A. Act or in the manner provided under the 2013 Act. But then, in view of Section 24(1)(a), the provisions relating to the determination of compensation alone can be applied to such proceedings or in other words, there is only a restricted application of the provisions of the 2013 Act in relation to such proceedings.” Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join The bench stated that for the purposes of subsection (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Supreme Court further stated that when Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act. However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied. In view of the above, Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

The Delhi Government has informed the High Court that it is making all possible efforts to ensure creation of separate toilets for the use of Transgender persons and that the same will be done on a fast track basis

Case Title: Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. Bench: Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2022 The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases. The bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna was dealing with the appeal filed challenging the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat where the High Court while admitting the special criminal applications has granted the interim relief and has stayed the further proceedings of respective criminal inquiry cases against the respondents. Shri Harshit Tolia, Counsel for the appellant submitted that It appears that at every stage, the investigation has been stalled. It can also be seen that the investigation has been stalled earlier and even thereafter pursuant to the impugned order, which cannot be said to be in the interest of the prosecution and/or investigating agency. The issue for consideration before the bench was: Whether the judgment passed by the High Court granting the interim relief to the respondents in accordance with law or not? Supreme Court observed that Nothing is on record to show that thereafter any further proceedings were initiated by the respondents seeking anticipatory bail. The bench relied upon the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors where it was held that “grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be only in the rarest of rare cases.” In this case, the Court had also emphasized the right of the Investigating Officer to investigate the criminal proceedings. Supreme Court observed that the “High Court has not properly appreciated or considered the earlier judgment passed in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Even the learned Single Judge has also not properly understood the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.” In view of the above, The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

No consensus could be reached during the 75-minute Supreme Court collegium meetingNo consensus could be reached during the 75-minute Supreme Court collegium meeting No consensus could be reached during the 75-minute Supreme Court collegium meeting In an unusual occurrence, a 75-minute Collegium meeting on Tuesday involving CJI N V Ramana and Justices U U Lalit, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay K Kaul, and S Abdul Nazeer failed to reach agreement on filling three vacancies in the Supreme Court or appointing or transferring HC Chief Justices, reports TOI. Because there had been no prior notification that courts 1–5 would not be sitting at 10.30 a.m. due to a Collegium meeting, waiting lawyers speculated as to why the meeting was taking so long. The Collegium meetings, which are usually held after a prior discussion among judges, are usually over in 10 to 15 minutes. The meeting was tense because the law ministry had delayed writing to CJI Ramana to seek recommendation of Justice Lalit’s name as the next CJI. Traditionally, the ministry writes the letter a month before the incumbent CJI’s retirement, and the CJI sends the recommendation to the ministry 30 days before his retirement. The collegium also discussed the names of certain HC chief justices for elevation to the SC to fill the three vacancies created by the retirements of Justices Vineet Saran, L N Rao, and A M Khanwilkar. CJI Ramana, who retires on August 26, also brought the vacancies for Chief Justices of High Courts before the Collegium. There was a stalemate over the selection of HC judges for those posts, as well as the issue of transferring incumbent CJs from one HC to another, due to the diverse views expressed by members. The Collegium is expected to meet again on Wednesday to try to break the deadlock over selection issues, which was clouded on Tuesday by an unrelated development – the law ministry’s delay in seeking the CJI’s recommendation for his successor. Justice Lalit will be sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India on August 27 and will serve for only 74 days. As Chief Justice, Justice Lalit would preside over a Collegium that included Justices Chandrachud, Kaul, Nazeer, and Indira Banerjee. With the retirement of Justice Banerjee on September 23, Justice K M Joseph will join the Collegium. On November 8, Justice Lalit will step down as Chief Justice of India. According to the convention, he must write to the government on October 8 recommending Justice Chandrachud as the 50th CJI. Whatever vacancies and transfers are to be filled during Justice Lalit’s tenure as CJI, they must be completed within 42 days, between August 27 and October 7.

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana has written to the Union Government recommending Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, the Supreme Court’s second senior judge, as the next Chief Justice of India. CJI Ramana will step down on August 26th. Kiren Rijiju, Union Minister of Law and Justice, recently wrote to the CJI, requesting that he name the successor. If confirmed, Justice Lalit will be the second CJI to be directly elevated from the Bar to the Supreme Court Bench, following Justice S M Sikri, who became the 13th CJI in January 1971. Justice Lalit, who is from Maharashtra, will serve as the 49th Chief Justice of India for a little less than three months, retiring on November 8, 2022. Justice Lalit was a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court before being appointed as a judge on August 13, 2014. His father, Justice UR Lalit, was a senior advocate and a Delhi High Court judge Justice Lalit was among the majority of the Constitution Bench judges who ruled that Triple Talaq was unconstitutional. He also presided over the bench that ordered the Travancore Royal Family to hand over administration of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple to a Court-appointed administrative committee. Last year, a bench led by him overturned the Bombay High Court’s contentious “skin-to-skin” decision, ruling that any physical contact with a minor with sexual intent is an offence under POCSO even if there is no direct contact with skin. Justice Lalit, who was born on November 9, 1957, became an advocate in June 1983 and practised in the Bombay High Court until December 1985. In January 1986, he relocated his practise to Delhi. From 1986 to 1992, he worked for former Attorney-General Soli J. Sorabjee. The Supreme Court designated him as a senior advocate in April 2004.

Telangana High Court Takes Cognizance of Bar Association’s Letter Petition, Registers as PIL On Tuesday, the Telangana High Court Advocates’ Association wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court for taking Suo Motu Congnizance of Brutal Murder of Advocate Sri M Malla Reddy.

Title: State of HP versus HP Aluminium & Conductors Case No.: Civil Appeal No.: 5032/2022 The Supreme Court has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgement after opining that the High Court verdict is utterly incomprehensible. The respondents in the case had challenged the validity of orders of reassessment passed by the State government. However, the High Court set aside the assessment and an appeal was filed in the Apex Court. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside the High Court judgement and directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh. When the Supreme Court took up the case, it remarked that the High Court judgement is utterly incomprehensible and the court cannot discern the reason to set aside the judgement. The order was passed by the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia while dealing with an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the High Court order wherein it had allowed the petitions filed by respondents under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. It is pertinent to note that in the past as well, the Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over some incoherent and incomprehensible judgements passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Gwalior Police in Madhya Pradesh has filed a FIR against six YouTube channelsFor Showing Live Video of High Court Proceedings with edits and comments on their channels without permission from the court. Advocate Awadhesh Singh Tomar, who practises in the MP High Court’s Gwalior Bench, filed a complaint with the University police station .They are incorrectly showing the live proceedings sends the wrong message and is also a violation of the Jabalpur High Court’s Live Proceeding Rules.Today, the police filed a FIR against six YouTube channels after investigating the application. These YouTube channels include “Indian Law”, “Be a Judge”, “Law Chakra”, “Legal Awareness”, “Court Room”, “Vipin Agyas Advocate”, and others. On the basis of Advocate Awadhesh Singh Tomar’s complaint, the police have filed Sections 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 465, 469, and Section 65 of the Indian Penal Code against all of these YouTube channels.

Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities And Exchange Board Of India & Ors. Bench: CJI. N.V. Ramana and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167 of 2022 The Supreme Court on Friday stated that, SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking. The bench of CJI. N.V. Ramana and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli stated that “Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same.” In this case, A complaint was filed by one Shri S. Gurumurthy, with the SEBI against Reliance Industries Ltd., its associate companies and its directors, alleging that they fraudulently allotted 12 crore equity shares of RIL to entities purportedly connected with the promoters of RIL, which were funded by RIL and other group companies in 1994. It was alleged that the company and its directors were in violation of Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Harish Salve, Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the challenge to the maintainability of the present appeal is misconceived. He stated that the interim application filed for seeking documents was argued at length before the High Court, which was ultimately not considered. Mr. Arvind Datar, Counsel for the respondents submitted that, present appeal is not maintainable as there is no criminal complaint pending as on this date. The appellant cannot seek documents in a criminal revision against dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation. The issue for consideration before the bench were: 1. Whether this appeal is maintainable? 2.Whether SEBI is required to disclose documents in the present set of proceedings? While dealing with the first issue Supreme Court stated that “Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor.” While dealing with the second issue Supreme Court opined that “It is a matter of record that subsequently, the settlement proceedings were terminated by SEBI and thereafter SEBI has decided to initiate a criminal complaint against the appellant herein. In this context, the objection of SEBI that the issue of disclosure of documents is res judicata as the same was disallowed by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.” Supreme Court found that SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking. In view of the above, The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

The syllabus for AIBE17 will be published within 15 days and the exam will be conducted within three months. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice M.M. Sundaresh was hearing the Bar Council of India's challenge to the Gujarat High Court ruling, which allowed people with other jobs, whether full-time or part-time, to enroll as advocates without resigning. In the above proceedings, the Court has issued orders on a regular basis to improve the quality of legal education in India, to remove the shortcomings of bar examination and to examine the idea of ​​chamber placement for young lawyers. The Bar Council has been directed to file an affidavit in this regard so as to apprise the Court of the steps taken to realize its vision. According to the most recent affidavit, the Bar Council passed a resolution to give 6 months time to law graduates after the result of the All India Bar Examination to enroll as an advocate

Case Title: Vikramjit Kakati Vs State of Assam Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ct. Ravi Kumar Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1140 OF 2022 The Supreme Court on Thursday said that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant was present at the time of the murder and hence he is discharged. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar submitted that there is no evidence which in any way links the present appellant to the commission of the offence. In this case, an FIR was lodged on behalf of the mother of the deceased that her son was burnt to death under suspicious circumstances in her rented house. The police filed a charge sheet against the deceased's wife, mother and the appellant three persons under Section 302/120B/201/118 of the IPC. The only allegation against the appellant was that he, in conspiracy with other accused, removed the evidence of the offense from the place where the alleged offense was committed. The appellant has filed an appeal against the order of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the discharge application filed by the appellant under section 227 CrPC. Appellant's counsel submitted that the trial judge was required to at least examine the existence of prima facie material with respect to the appellant's involvement in the commission of the offense or existence of serious doubt against him and when there is no prima facie material of suspicion So what to say about serious suspicion, the charge cannot be framed. Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to suspect the commission of an offense and only after examining the charge sheet and other material available on record, the charges have been framed by the learned Trial Judge. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Whether the order of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the application for discharge filed by the appellant was valid or not? The Supreme Court said that the investigating officer has not even brought prima facie material in the charge sheet as to what was the motive of the appellant to commit the alleged offence. The bench observed that “there is no evidence which in any way links the present appellant to the commission of the offense and neither the trial court nor the High Court has attempted to peruse the record to see whether any offense is committed or not. . Any oral/documentary evidence which in any way links the appellant to the alleged occurrence of the offense and, even in the absence of a prima facie material, oral/documentary, is being put on the charge sheet by the prosecution, the trial The Court as well as the High Court has committed a grave error in framing the charge against the appellant. Even the complainant has not mentioned the name of the appellant as the offender in the complaint, but has stated that he suspects malpractices. In view of the above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Title: Ravjot Singh Vs Bar Council of India On Friday, the Supreme Court granted liberty to withdraw a petition seeking a direction to the Bar Council of India to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a senior advocate for professional misconduct under the Advocates Act 1961. A bench of Justices UU Lalit, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ravindra Bhat granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the matter. The court had questioned the petitioner as to why did he approach the High Court when the appellate authority in this matter is the Bar Council of India. Before the court, the petitioner submitted that the BCI and the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana have refused to go against Section 5 of the Advocates Act 1961, under Senior Counsel. There is an allegation of felony conduct against the senior counsel for filing a fraud report of a handwriting expert before the apex court in an SLP. Owing to the fraud report, the apex court had in 2005 quashed the SLP filed by the father of the present petitioner. Since the court was dissatisfied with the reply of the counsel, it sought the permission of the court to withdraw the case.

A special court in Jharkhand's Dhanbad on Saturday awarded life imprisonment to both the convicts in the murder of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand. Last week, a district and additional sessions judge convicted Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma of offenses under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (missing evidence) of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 34 (common intention). On Saturday, the court heard the arguments for the sentencing before the sentencing. On July 28 last year, Judge Uttam Anand was out for a morning walk when an auto rickshaw hit him. He was seriously injured and died as a result of his injuries. Although it was initially thought to be an accident, CCTV footage of the incident showed that the vehicle was deliberately rammed into the judge as he was driving on the side of the road.

Delhi, the discussions of the 8th Pay Commission coming for a long time are going on. One gets to hear something or the other every day they bring them. But there is doubt about when it will be implemented or whether it will be done or not. But now a new update has come from the Central Government regarding this. The Modi government has made it clear that the Eighth Pay Commission will not come. In Parliament, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Choudhary has termed any such claim on behalf of the government as baseless. In which it is being said to implement the 8th Central Pay Commission for revision in salary, allowances and pension of central employees and pensioners. The Union Minister of State for Finance, in a written reply to a question in Parliament, said that no such proposal is under consideration with the government. When Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Choudhary was asked whether it is true that the government is contemplating to implement the 8th Pay Commission to revise the salary, allowances and pension of Central Government employees and pensioners. So he said that there is no such scheme of the government, it is not going to come. The Union Minister of State for Finance said that for this it has been suggested that there should be changes in the pay metrics from time to time and for this there is no need for the next Pay Commission. In such a situation, it can be reviewed and amended on the basis of the Acroyd formula. It was expected that in early August, the central government may increase the employee and pensioner DA and DR by up to 4 percent due to rising inflation. But even this has not been decided yet. If the government increases the DA of central employees, then there will be a huge increase in their salary.

The Indian National Flag represents the hopes and aspirations of the people of India. It is a symbol of our national pride and universal affection and respect and allegiance to the national flag. It holds a unique and special place in the sentiments and psyche of the people of India. Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs changed the country's flag law for the 'Har Ghar Tiranga' campaign under the 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav', which will be celebrated to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the country's independence, from August 13 to 15. What is the flag code of India? The Flag Code of India 2002 is a set of rules and practices that govern how the Indian national flag is used, displayed and flown in the country. It was implemented on 26 January 2002, replacing the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act, 1971, which included the National Flag before that date. Actions to be taken were included. What does the Flag Code actually say? According to the Flag Code of India, 2002, a member of a public, private organization or educational institution is permitted to fly the National Flag on all days and events, ceremonial or otherwise, in a manner consistent with the dignity and respect of the flag. The code is divided into three sections. The first section provides an overview of the national flag. The second section discusses flag display by members of public, private organizations and other institutions. The third section discusses the display of the national flag by the federal and state governments as well as their organisations/agencies. Prior to the introduction of the 2002 Code, the display of the national flag was governed by the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honor Act 1971. What changes have been made recently? The Center amended the Flag Code of India on July 20, 2022, allowing the national flag to be flown both day and night if it is displayed in the open or on the property of a member of the public. Earlier, the Tiranga could be hoisted only between sunrise and sunset. The government had earlier allowed the use of machine-made and polyester flags in an amendment dated December 30, 2021. Earlier, such flags were not allowed. Here are the important changes: • The hoisting/use/display of the Indian National Flag is governed by the Act, 1971 and the Flag Code of India, 2002. Some of the salient features of the Flag Code of India, 2002 are listed below. • The Flag Code of India, 2002 was amended vide order dated 305 December, 2021 and allowed a national flag made of polyester or machine made flag. Now, the national flag will be made from hand spun and hand woven or machine made, cotton/polyester/wool/silk khadi bunting. • Any member of a public, private organization or educational institution may hoist/display the National Flag on all days and occasions, ceremonial or otherwise, in keeping with the dignity and respect of the National Flag. • The Flag Code of India, 2002 was amended by order dated 19th July, 2022 and clause (xi) of paragraph 2.2 of Part-I of the Flag Code of India, was substituted by the following clause:- (x1) “Where the flag is displayed in the open or is displayed at the residence of the public, it may be flown day and night;” • The national flag will be rectangular in shape. • The ratio of the length and height (width) of the flag will be 3: 2. • Whenever the national flag is displayed, it should be in a position of honor and should be kept clearly. • The damaged or disturbed flag will not be displayed. What exactly is the 'Har Ghar Tiranga' campaign? Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the "Har Ghar Tiranga" campaign on July 20, 2022, to encourage people to take the Tiranga home and hoist it to honor the 75th anniversary of India's independence. The objective of this initiative is to inculcate the feeling of patriotism among the people and to celebrate the Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav in honor of public participation. Several programs involving people from all walks of life will also be organized at various freedom struggle sites to showcase the unity and patriotism of the country. The Government of India has taken several steps to ensure that the flags are available across the country. All post offices in the country should start selling flags from August 1, 2022. State governments have also collaborated with a variety of partners to provide and sell the flags. The Indian National Flag has also been registered on the GeM platform. According to PIB, the Indian government has worked with several e-commerce platforms and self-help organizations to expedite the process of distributing the flag.

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

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.

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.

Title: Kondareddigiri Adinarayanareddy Vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And Others Case No.: Revision Petition 71/2013 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum recently ruled that any dispute regarding withholding of terminal benefits such as gratuity or provident fund does not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer courts. Presiding members Dinesh Singh and Karuna Nand Bajpai (Member) issued the order observing that the issues relating to terminal benefits should be decided by the competent civil court or service tribunal as a whole. The NCDRC made these observations while considering the amendment made by a complainant against the orders passed by the District and State Commission. The complainant was dismissed from the job in the bank as it was revealed that he had obtained appointment in the reserved category by using fake caste certificate. The complainant moved the district forum after the bank withheld the final benefits of his gratuity and provident fund. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent bank, stating that the petition is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. After her plea was rejected by the State and District Forum, the complainant moved the NCDRC where the Commission held that the lower forums should have considered the issue of jurisdiction before considering the petition on merits. According to the court, any complaint regarding withholding of contribution of the bank to gratuity or provident fund is an issue to be decided by a civil court or a competent tribunal. Therefore, the NCDRC set aside the orders passed by the District and State Tribunals and gave liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate court or tribunal.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Bench: Justices Dhananjay Y Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2022 Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the police should not create hurdles by refusing to register FIRs despite receiving complaints of sexual harassment. A bench of Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said, “It is important for all courts to be aware of the fact that the legal process for victims of sexual harassment and assault becomes even more difficult for the complainants, who Struggling with trauma and social shame due to potentially unfair stigma." In this case the appellant was working as a yoga instructor in Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior. The second respondent, at the time, was the Vice Chancellor of the Institute. The appellant alleges that the second respondent touched her inappropriately in the institution, upon which she dissociated herself and shouted at her. An FIR was registered against the respondent. The appellant moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court with a complaint that no investigation was being conducted into his allegations, which were to be investigated under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act, 2013. An appeal has been filed against the decision of a single judge in the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The issue of consideration before the bench was: The bench said that it is the duty of the police to register an FIR whenever there is any cognizable offense in the complaint. The Supreme Court observed that “the inaction of the police in this matter is most unfortunate. It is the duty of every police officer to do his work with public sentiment. The police should be aware of the fact that they are usually the first point of contact for the victim or complainant of a crime. They should abide by the law and enable smooth registration of FIRs. Needless to say, he should treat all members of the public in a fair and impartial manner. This is even more necessary in cases of sexual harassment or violence, where the victims (who are usually women) face great social stigma while trying to file a complaint.” The bench said the courts should endeavor to ensure that the process of trying to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice is not difficult for the victims. Victims should not wander from door to door just to register complaint and initiate investigation, especially when their complaint constitutes a prima facie cognizable offence. In view of the above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.