Case Title: S. S. Sasikumar Vs. Vice Chancellor Bench: Justice GR Swaminathan Citation: WP (MD) No. 17892 of 2022 Dr. Ambedkar is the biggest inspiration for every law student- Madras High Court orders Dr. Ambedkar's portrait to be installed in all government law colleges. Recently, the Madras High Court held that Dr. Ambedkar is the biggest inspiration for every law student, hence requested the Director of Legal Studies, Chennai to issue a circular that the portrait of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar should be accepted in all government law colleges in Tamil Nadu. Must be installed. A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan said that Dr. Ambedkar is the architect of the Indian Constitution. He is a symbol of social emancipation. The petitioner in this case is a fourth year law student at Government Law College, Theni. He was suspended by impugned order, which also proposes to initiate disciplinary action against him. The petitioner wanted to put a picture of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the office room of the principal. He also wanted the curriculum to be taught in Tamil. But the petitioner had misbehaved with the college administration. It is alleged that he used abusive language on the principal. While classes were going on, he had entered the classrooms. Their mobilization efforts were seen as acts of indiscipline and misconduct. The issue before the bench was: Whether the petition filed by the petitioner for installation of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's portrait in all government law colleges can be accepted or not? He had raised only a valid public cause. She is now in her fourth year. The High Court said that Dr. Ambedkar is the architect of the Indian Constitution. He is a symbol of social emancipation. His scholarship is unparalleled. He can be the biggest inspiration for every law student. In view of the above, the bench directed the Director of Legal Studies, Chennai to issue a circular to install the portrait of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in all Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu.

Case Title: Ajola Devi & Ors. v. Jharkhand State Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagaratna Citation: Originating from SLP (Crl.) No. 4221 of 2022 A strong message should be sent to the society that the person committing the crime of dowry death will be dealt with strictly - Supreme Court refuses to reduce the punishment Recently, the Supreme Court said that a strong message should be sent to the society that a person who commits dowry death and/or an offense under the Dowry Prohibition Act will be dealt with strictly. A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathnaal was considering a petition challenging the judgment passed by the High Court where the appellants were held guilty under Section 304B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Is. In this case the appellant/accused – father-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased were convicted of dowry death. The demand for dowry has been substantiated and proved by the prosecution. The deceased died within a year of marriage. The appellants were convicted for the offenses under section 304B read with section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was prayed on behalf of the appellants that in view of the age of the accused, less punishment should be given. The learned Trial Court sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment which was upheld by the High Court. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Can the guilty be given less punishment under section 201 read with section 304 of IPC? The bench observed that the legislative intention of insertion of section 304B was to forcefully curb the menace of dowry death. In dealing with matters under section 304B, such legislative intent should be taken into account. Offense under section 304B - The offense of dowry death is an offense against the society. Such crimes have a deep impact on the society. The Supreme Court said that "a strong message should go to the society that a person who commits dowry death and/or an offense under the Dowry Prohibition Act will be dealt with strictly. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of RI of 10 years only cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offense committed." The bench observed that both the learned trial court as well as the high court have upheld the accused for the above offenses. In view of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The husband said that he has become a monk, yet the Supreme Court refused to accept the petition for divorce? know why Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the divorce of husband and wife who have been living separately for 18 years. On the request of the husband, the High Court granted the divorce. However, the wife refused to get a divorce. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the divorce decision. The husband had argued for divorce, claiming that he had become a hermit and was no longer involved in household life. According to the Supreme Court, sometimes it becomes more important for a woman to get married. She can live her life with the help of her vermilion even if she is separated from her husband. A bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhatt also observed that it may be impossible for a couple now living separately for 18 years to reconcile. However, because of the way society treats women and because it is important for the woman herself that she remains married, the couple's divorce is annulled. The woman's husband is a resident of Bhind in Madhya Pradesh. The husband had earlier filed for divorce in the family court. It was claimed that his wife had left him and was living separately from him. The wife was opposing the divorce. In 2008, the family court rejected the divorce application. After that the husband went to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He filed a petition in the Gwalior Bench for divorce. The High Court had approved the divorce in 2014. Also ordered the husband to give Rs 5 lakh to the wife. The wife appealed against this decision in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court asked the High Court to reconsider its decision in 2017, but the High Court granted divorce for the second time. Thereafter, the Supreme Court heard the matter. The husband's argument for divorce was given on his behalf in the court, which said that he has now become a monk. He has surrendered everything. According to the Supreme Court, if the husband has become a monk, it does not matter whether the marriage is annulled or restored. Further, the bench said that the amount given by the husband to the woman after the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court will not be taken from her.

A video went viral on social media on Sunday in which a woman can be seen abusing two security guards and calling a security guard "Bihari" and using other obscene language. Later it was found that the video is from Noida, UP and the woman is a lawyer working in DSK Legal Law Firm. A woman lawyer (Bhavya Roy) has been arrested and kept in judicial custody for 14 days for misbehaving with the security guards at her Noida residential society. Reportedly, Roy, who was intoxicated at the time of the incident, was also seen assaulting the security guards and it was claimed that three girls had filed a complaint against the security guard. According to reports, the woman lawyer has been accused of sections 153, 323 and 504, 506 of the IPC.

Case Title: Jameel Ahmed. v. Chhattisgarh State Bench: Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that merely possessing obscene cassettes does not constitute an offence. A bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under which the appellant was convicted of offenses under sections 292 and 293 IPC. was ordained. In this case the appellant's shop was running and 99 cassettes were recovered from the said shop. The appellant was involved in the activity of taking objectionable photographs of local women/girls. The confiscated cassettes contained pornographic films. A case of offense has also been registered under IPC section 376. It was found that the confiscated cassettes contained obscene films, offenses under sections 292 and 293 of the IPC were added. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 292 and 293. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Whether the petitioner is liable for offense under sections 292 and 293 of IPC? The High Court relied on the case of Sarat Babu Digumarty vs Sarkar (NCT Delhi) and observed that electronically generated activities which may be obscene are specifically punishable under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and not That under section 292 of IPC. The bench observed that except the recovery of the cassette, there is no material available on record to show that the accused committed the acts mentioned under sections 2(a) to 2(e) of section 292 of the IPC. Mere possession of obscene cassettes cannot amount to an offense and the prosecution has utterly failed to provide any evidence to the effect that possession was found for the purpose of lending it." In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal.

If you have not verified yourself after filing ITR, then your ITR will be considered incomplete. Earlier, 120 days were available for e-verification, which has now been reduced to 30 days. If you are going to file your ITR ie Income Tax Return this month, then there is an important news for you. Let us tell you that 31 July 2022 was the last date to file ITR. After that you will have to pay a fine of Rs 5000 for filing ITR. ITR can be filed with penalty till 31st December. Apart from this, along with filling ITR, it is also necessary to verify it.

Today is a historic day in the Supreme Court - for the first time there will be a live telecast of the court proceedings Friday 26 August 2022 is a historic day in the history of the Supreme Court, as the court proceedings will be telecast live for the first time. A notice issued on Friday morning said: Please note that on the retirement of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the proceedings of Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court i.e. Ceremony Bench on 26th August, 2022, 10:30 AM will be livestreamed through webcast portal of NIC. Earlier the CJI had talked about starting live streaming of court proceedings especially the Supreme Court. Justice DY Chandrachud, who will become CJI at the end of November this year, has also been an active supporter of live streaming court proceedings.

Case Title: Mrs. Sarita Vs Gauravi Bench: Justices Vivek Russo and Amar Nath (Kesharwani) Citation: 2016 First Appeal No. 417 Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that minor differences cannot be termed as cruelty between husband and wife. A bench of Justice Vivek Russo and Justice Amar Nath was hearing the appeal filed by the wife. Section 19 of the Family Court Act challenges the judgment passed by the Family Court in which the marriage between husband and wife was dissolved on the ground of cruelty. In this case, the appellant (wife), respondent (husband) and their family met and solemnized their marriage. After marriage, the husband came to know that some wrong information like date of birth and qualification has been given in the wife's resume. The wife created the scene and misbehaved with the respondent's mother over trivial matters. The wife left her in-laws' house with all her jewelery and threatened to implicate all the family members in a criminal case. The Respondent approached the Family Court, Indore, 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the mother to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court Judge has found that the conduct of the wife accused by the husband has been proved which constitutes mental cruelty to her. Since he has suffered mental cruelty, he is entitled to a decree of divorce and, accordingly, the solemnized marriage is dissolved. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Was the decision passed by the family judge in accordance with the law or not? The bench said that since the husband has agreed to the marriage, the husband cannot be allowed to spoil the life of the wife without any fault without any reason. Minor differences cannot be termed as cruelty between husband and wife. One should not expect overnight change in husband and wife. Both should give time to each other to transfer into married life as wife and husband. The High Court held that after the marriage, the appellant/wife lived with the respondent/husband for hardly six months and thereafter she left him and the law does not permit it. Neither mental cruelty nor physical cruelty has been established in the present case. In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.

Justice UU Lalit, the CJI-nominated, has made three major announcements regarding reforms during his 74-day tenure as the next Chief Justice of India. Speaking at the farewell function organized by SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association) for outgoing CJI NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit made the following announcements:- More transparency in the listing system. A system will be put in place to independently mention the instant list of cases. Efforts will be made that the Constitution Bench should function throughout the year. Justice UU Lalit began his address by saying that he cannot match the popularity of Justice Ramana. He also mentioned the two major achievements of CJI Ramana, clearing judicial vacancies and the importance given to judicial infrastructure. Justice UU Lalit pointed out that the efforts made by CJI Ramana and the National Legal Services Authority to set up legal aid defense lawyers in all districts are now visible. Significantly, Justice Lalit will be the 49th Chief Justice of India and he will take oath on August 27.

Case Title: Daya Vati Vs. State of Delhi NCT & Anr Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh Citation: CRI.M.C. 3636/2022 The benefit of section 167 CrPC will be available only if the accused has been in jail for 90 consecutive days: HC Delhi HC ruled that the provisions of section 167 Cr.P.C. This will be applicable only if the accused has been in jail for 90 consecutive days. A bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh was considering a petition seeking cancellation of bail of the accused challenging the impugned order in the FIR under Section 302/365/34 of IPC. The petitioner in this case is the mother of the deceased Vishal alias Moni. The petitioner's son had left on his motorcycle. Vishal informs his friend Chandru aka Sonu about his kidnapping and threat to his life. The deceased Vishal alias Moni called his mother and told her mother that she was not safe. After this, the father of the deceased Vishal got a call and the deceased asked his father to save him. Respondent No. 2, Nagesh was arrested and charged under sections 365 and 302 IPC. The Sessions Judge granted bail to respondent no. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Can Respondent No. 2 be granted bail or not? The bench said that the sessions court has failed to give any cogent reason for granting bail, except the fact that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court said that the nature of the complaint is very serious. Bail in such heinous crime of murder requires utmost attention and serious involvement of the court. It cannot be treated carelessly. The bench observed that “the fact remains that respondent No. 2 would be entitled to default bail of 90 days under section 167 of CrPC. Not helping respondent no 2 as well as respondent no 2 was granted bail after spending 45 days in jail. Provisions of section 167 Cr.P.C. This will be applicable only if the accused has been in jail for 90 consecutive days. In view of the above, the High Court allowed the petition.

The mere mention of the name in the suicide note is not sufficient to award a sentence unless other evidence shows that it is not riddled with lies: HC Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the mere mention of the name in the suicide note is not sufficient to convict unless other evidence shows that it is true and does not suffer from any aura of falsehood. A bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, where the accused were convicted of offenses punishable under sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. In this case, the complainant's father Satbir (since deceased) had taken a CC limit of Rs 75.0 lakh from Punjab National Bank. Sharvan Kumar (second accused) was acting as a middleman and his father obtained the facility of CC limit from the bank with the help of the acquitted accused. Pradeep Sharma, owner of M/s Shyam Trading Company, has obtained a loan by fraudulently from Punjab National Bank, Mall Road branch, Delhi in which the case was registered. The investigating officer told him that the signatures of his father Satbir were attached to these debentures. His father Satbir told that although the signature on the loan papers of M/s Shyam Trading Company is his own he does not know Pradeep Sharma. It is further told that these have been signed by the acquitted accused Shravan Kumar at their behest of them and Ravi Bharti (Jodi) told them that Pradeep Sharma is their relative. On this, the complainant and his father met both, but they did not give any details about Pradeep Sharma but said that since those papers are signed by Satbir, therefore, now they will have to face the consequences and the pair will not reveal anything further. Her father consumed the poisonous substance after being tortured by the acquitted accused Shravan Kumar, Ravi Bharti, and Pradeep Sharma. During the investigation, the police also found a suicide note in which Satbir mentioned the names of Ravi Bharti and acquitted the accused as the person responsible for his death. It was clearly written in the suicide note that both of them have trapped Satbir in the net and hence he has consumed a poisonous substance. Satbir also put his signature at the bottom of the suicide note. The issue of consideration before the bench was:

Title: Lata Pramod Dangre vs State of Maharashtra Case No.: CRL WP No.: 866 of 2021 Daughter cannot be prosecuted for abetment to suicide for continuously demanding money from father: HC The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that the daughter's repeated pecuniary demands from her father will not attract the offense of abetment to suicide. A bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Govind Sanpalik made the remarks while hearing a plea by a woman who was booked for allegedly abetting her father's suicide. The woman was accused of repeatedly demanding money from her father and mother. The woman is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased. The deceased father committed suicide in September 2021 and in the suicide note he said that his daughter and second wife were harassing him mentally and demanding money. The note also mentions an incident where the deceased invested Rs 2 lakh as a fixed deposit for his second wife but the petitioner forced him to increase the amount to Rs 5 lakh. Even though he managed to increase the amount to Rs 5 lakh, it was then increased to Rs 15 lakh. Initially, the court observed that the suicide note shows the anguish of the deceased on being harassed by the petitioner and his second wife, but also shows that at best, the second wife of the deceased was demanding money at the instance of the petitioner and was asking for their share in agricultural land. The court also noted that the informant in the case is the son-in-law of the deceased who had married the daughter of the first wife of the deceased. It was also noted that the suicide note was written five days before the deceased took the extreme step. According to the court, in such cases, the court is also required to consider the surrounding circumstances, which may affect the deceased to take extreme steps. In this context, the court observed that there is no close link between the suicide note and the deceased committing suicide. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner.

Attorney General (AG) of India KK Venugopal argued before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that holding the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) before enrollment would be the most appropriate course of action [Anuj Agarwal v Union of India]. The submission was supported by senior advocate KV Viswanathan before a five-judge bench comprising Justices SK Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari. "The Act allows, as it stands now, to frame rules for the pre-enrollment examination. ", the senior counsel informed the court. On the Court's question about the impact of this approach on the judgment in V Sudeer v Bar Council of India, Viswanathan explained that the judgment in the matter was wrong. The pre-enrolment training for those entering the legal profession initiated by the Bar Council of India (BCI) was subject to challenge in this case. The Court had struck down the requirement of such training while observing, "These rules show that an enrolled advocate may practice as a full-fledged advocate, subject to the conditions laid down in these rules. His authority once granted cannot be restricted to his acting in court when he The State remains enrolled as an advocate on the roll. Therefore, it must be held that section 49(1)(ah) cannot uphold the impugned rules." During the hearing, Justice Kaul also recommended that the difficulty level of AIBE should be determined based on the number of advocates enrolled in the country. The judge underlined that the minimum standard required was set before being allowed to enroll and practice in the examination. Therefore, it must be of sufficient quality to determine the ability to practice. "How many lawyers do you need in the system? Ideally, if the job is done fairly, how many lawyers would be needed? Is there a need for such a liberal test?" He asked. He suggested that BCI conduct an analysis in this regard. When the issue of necessary training of young lawyers came to the fore, Viswanathan urged the court to consider training young lawyers. He suggested that this may be prescribed as one of the determining factors for lawyers for designation as seniors or for promotion to the Bench. The hearing will continue tomorrow. The Constitution Bench is hearing petitions challenging the validity of Rule 9 to 11 of the BCI Rules for violation of Sections 16, 24 and 30 of the Advocates Act and Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Rule 9 makes clearing AIBE a mandatory pre-condition for every practicing advocate. Rule 10 enables the BCI to conduct examinations and Rule 11 deals with the process of issuing certificates to practice. The questions referred for consideration of the Bench are: (1) Whether pre-enrollment training can be lawfully prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of the Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 made under section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and if so If so, what is the decision of this Court in V. Sudhir v. Bar Council of India et al. [(1999) 3 SCC 176)] Need to be reconsidered? (2) Can a pre-enrolment examination be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961? (3) If questions numbers 1 and 2 are answered in the negative, whether the post-enrolment examination has been validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in accordance with section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961?

Case Title:-Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors. [SLP(C) No. 22337/2008] and other connected matters A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the All-India Bar Examination. The five-judge Bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari. The lead petition is an appeal by special leave preferred by the Bar Council of India against a 2008 decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case dealing with the grant of affiliation and recognition to a law college. When the matter travelled to the apex court in appeal, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur referred it to a Constitution Bench composed of five Judges for final determination of the "questions of considerable importance affecting the legal profession in general" that were raised before the apex court. It was during the pendency of this petition that the Bar Council of India, under the chairmanship of Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, had decided to conduct an all-India bar exam for the first time in 2010. After more than six years since the referral, and more than 14 years since the High Court ruling, the Constitution Bench is set to finally lay the controversy to rest. Yesterday, the Court heard the submissions of the Attorney-General of India and Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal and the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate K.V. Vishwanathan. They called into question the correctness of the law laid down in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 176] and pushed for a pre-enrolment examination. This argument seemed to find favour with the BCI Chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, and Vice-Chairman, S. Prabakaran, who appeared on behalf of the statutory body. Picking up from where he had left off, Vishwanathan continued assailing the Supreme Court decision in V. Sudeer [(1999) 3 SCC 176]. He also questioned the soundness of the ruling in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India [(1995) 1 SCC 732], on which the Sudeer Bench had placed reliance. Vishwanathan claimed that by virtue of these decisions, the Bar Council of India had been placed in a subservient position vis-à-vis the state bar councils. He urged that the paramountcy of the Bar Council needed to be preserved in light of the objectives and purposes of the Act, and the organisational framework created under it. An issue that persistently troubled the Bench, and was pointed out by both Justices Kaul and Khanna, was the implications of the deletion of Clause (d) in Section 24(1) as a result of which, the requirement imposed on a law graduate to undergo a course of "training in law and pass an examination after such training" was removed. Vishwanathan repelled the contention that this would abridge the powers of the Bar Council of India, strenuously arguing that such power could be located in Section 49(1)(ag), which had been kept intact. Therefore, the BCI, Vishwanathan reiterated, was competent to frame rules with respect to the prerequisites for persons who were entitled to practice law. Justice Kaul mused – "We are a constitutional court. We could interpret the constitutional question and be done with it. But we have to try and make the system workable…There is no perfect world, in an imperfect world, we have to decide how to reduce the imperfections." The Bench highlighted a number of issues that followed from the proposal to conduct a pre-enrolment examination, including, inter alia, the impact of "hundreds of people enrolling on the same day" after the results of the pre-enrolment examination on seniority, the prerequisites for applying for the examination, the competence of a law graduate to work and receive emoluments in the "interregnum period", the difference in the academic calendars of different colleges, and the lack of uniformity of fee structures. Justice Kaul observed – "Say, pre-enrolment exams take place. We don't want another litigation on how it will work out. Can there be some thought process, some uniformity in it?" Several suggestions were floated by Vishwanathan, such as making students eligible to take the examination in their final year to prevent loss of time and conducting the examination biannually to accommodate differences in academic calendars. Mishra reminded the Court that their purpose was to determine the competence of the Bar Council to conduct qualifying examinations. Justice Kaul pithily remarked – "Your argument is basically that you are free to hold pre or post-enrolment exams as you deem fit. And that you should be allowed to do that." In the course of his submissions, Vishwanathan also relied on Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh [(2001) 2 SCC 365] and Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 9 SCC 573], which he asserted, recognised the overarching powers of the Bar Council. After the amicus curiae concluded, the Court heard the submissions made on behalf of the Bar Council of India. Mishra, after delineating the spheres in which the state bar councils and the Bar Council of India operated, urged that the power to make rules to prescribe prerequisites were conferred by Section 49. The conditions laid down in Section 24 indicated the eligibility simpliciter, which could further be qualified by the Bar Council in the exercise of its powers of, inter alia, superintendence and control. The Court also heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners who endorsed the abolition of the post-enrolment bar examination. It was contended that the All India Bar Examination was unconstitutional and arbitrary. Advocate Kartik Seth, assailed the Bar Council on a number of counts, including the levy of an exorbitant fee for enrolment. Seth also reiterated Vishwanathan's recommendation of making final-year law students eligible to take the bar. Justice Kaul countered – "You have prepared well; you have done your homework. But we cannot take into consideration everything…This is a constitutional court. We cannot say charge Rs 3000 instead of Rs 3500. What you are giving, are suggestions. Let the Bar Council of India decide whether they would want to implement them."

SOVA was earlier focusing on countries like US, Russia, and Spain, but in July 2022 it added several other countries including India to its list of targets. The new mobile banking 'Trojan' virus - SOVA - that can secretly encrypt an Android phone for ransom and is difficult to uninstall, is targeting Indian customers. India's federal cyber security agency issued an advisory saying that the virus has upgraded to its fifth version after it was first detected in Indian cyberspace in July."It has been reported to CERT-In that Indian banking customers are being targeted by a new type of mobile banking malware campaign using SOVA Android Trojan. The first version of this malware appeared for sale in underground markets in September 2021 with the ability to harvest user names and passwords via keylogging, stealing cookies, and adding false overlays to a range of apps," the advisory said. Here's all you need to know about the SOVA virus SOVA can add false overlays to a range of apps and "mimic" over 200 banking and payment applications in order to con the Android user The latest version of this malware hides within fake Android applications that show up with the logo of a few famous legitimate apps like Chrome, Amazon, NFT (non-fungible token linked to cryptocurrency) platform to deceive users into installing them. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team or CERT-In is the federal technology arm to combat cyber attacks and guards the Internet space against phishing and hacking assaults and similar online attacks. The agency said the malware is distributed via smishing (phishing via SMS) attacks, like most Android banking Trojans. The lethality of the virus can be gauged from the fact that it can collect keystrokes, steal cookies, intercept multi-factor authentication (MFA) tokens, take screenshots and record video from a webcam and can perform gestures like screen click, swipe etc. using android accessibility service. Another key feature of the virus, according to the advisory, is the refactoring of its "protections" module, which aims to protect itself from different victim actions. For example, it said, if the user tries to uninstall the malware from the settings or pressing the icon, SOVA is able to intercept these actions and prevent them by returning to the home screen and showing a toast (small popup) displaying "This app is secured". It can jeopardize the privacy and security of sensitive customer data and result in "large-scale" attacks and financial frauds. How does it work As per the advisory, once the fake android application is installed on the phone, it sends the list of all applications installed on the device to the C2 (command and control server) controlled by the threat actor in order to obtain the list of targeted applications. "At this point, the C2 sends back to the malware the list of addresses for each targeted application and stores this information inside an XML file. These targeted applications are then managed through the communications between the malware and the C2," it said. How to protect your Android devce: The CERT-In suggested some counter-measures and best practices that can be put into action by the users to keep safe from the virus. Users should reduce the risk of downloading potentially harmful apps by limiting their download sources to official app stores, such as your device's manufacturer or operating system app store, they should always review the app details, number of downloads, user reviews, comments and "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION" section, it said. One should also verify app permissions and grant only those which have relevant context for the app's purpose. They should install regular Android updates and patches and not browse un-trusted websites or follow un-trusted links and exercise caution while clicking on the link provided in any unsolicited emails and SMSs.

POCSO: Can POCSO case be canceled due to agreement between accused and victim, Supreme Court agrees on investigation The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a legal question whether cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act can be quashed on the basis of an agreement between the accused and the victim. A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka stayed the order of the Kerala High Court dated August 26, 2019, quashing the FIR lodged against the accused under the POCSO Act, 2012 on the basis of an agreement reached between the accused and the aggrieved parties. did. The apex court issued a notice on the appeal filed by the Kerala government against the order of the High Court. In this case, the accused, a teacher by profession, was booked under sections of the POCSO Act and the case pertained to sexual assault on a child in that institution by an educational institution or religious institution. The counsel for the petitioners informed that the FIR for offenses punishable under sections 9 (f) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 at Malappuram police station has been quashed, the apex court said. It is not acceptable in view of the Court's decision to do so on the basis of the agreement being reached between the parties.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested an Advocate practising in the Kerala High Court during raids on the homes of second-rung leaders of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) in Kerala yesterday. The NIA apprehended Advocate Muhammed Mubarak during raids conducted in 56 different locations across Kerala early Thursday morning. His arrest was recorded today, and he appeared before the Special NIA Court in Ernakulam today. The Court has remanded him in custody until January 13. He is the fourteenth person arrested in Kerala by the NIA in connection with the PFI. He was apprehended in Vyppin, Ernakulam District, Kerala. According to the NIA, Muhammed Mubarak was a member of the PFI’s murder squad and was training other PFI members in martial arts. In recent years, the PFI has committed numerous murders in Kerala, including the heinous murder of Advocate Ranjith Sreenivasan. The NIA recovered lethal weapons from his home, including an axe, swords, and sickles. According to the NIA, the weapons were hidden in a badminton racket bag.

Recently, the NCDRC held an AIIMS doctor guilty of medical negligence as the patient loses voice after the surgery. The bench of Justices S.M. Kantikar and Binoy Kumar stated that “the operative procedure adopted by the doctor and hospital was an accepted reasonable standard of practice, but not having proper informed consent, amounts to negligence per se.” In this case, the Complainant was examined in AIIMS by Dr. Arvind Kumar (OP No.2) and surgery was advised for the ‘Anterior Mediastinum Tumor’. The doctor and his team performed surgery Median ‘Sternotomy’ and ‘Thymectomy’. After the operation, the Complainant was told by the doctor (OP No. 2) that he had to cut his left Phrenic Nerve as the same was passing through the Tthymaic mass and there was no other option left to remove the thymas mass. The consequence of cutting off the left Phrenic Nerve was that his left diaphragm was raised and exists like this till date. As soon as the Complainant regained consciousness he realized that he was not able to speak and informed the doctor. He took it very lightly. The Complainant went to the ENT Department (AIIMS) to get himself examined for the problem of voice suffered by him. After examination, the ENT Department of AIIMS declared left cord palsy (post-operative) and suggested the Complainant for speech Therapy. Dr. Arvind OP No. 2 based on the HPE report advised radiotherapy as a proper treatment, but Complainant did not show any improvement in his voice or movement of the left vocal cord. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed complaint before the State Commission and claimed an amount of Rs. 65,25,000/- as compensation from the OPs. The State Commission allowed the complaint. The issue for consideration before the bench was: Whether the hospital and doctor are liable for negligence or not? The Commission noted that due to achieving complete tumour excision the ipsilateral phrenic nerve was chosen by the OP-2. It is an accepted mode of treatment. It was not proper by leaving part of the tumour, as it would have endangered the patient’s life in future. Thus, it was due diligence that the doctor (OP-2) exercised the care during the entire procedure.

The laws of remission in India, including Article 72 of the Constitution, which allows the President to grant pardons, and Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals with remission or suspension of sentence for convicts, all have their “basis in the Valmiki Ramayana,” according to Madras High Court judge Justice GR Swaminathan on Wednesday. Justice Swaminathan was speaking at the 16th Akhil Bharatiya Adhivaktha Parishad National Conference at Kurukshetra University in Haryana on the topic ’75 Years of Resurgent Bharat: Time for Bhartiya Jurisprudence.’ In recalling an incident from 1994, when he was a speaker at an Adhivaktha Parishad meeting that year, Justice Swaminathan stated that it was during a period of peak militancy in Kashmir. Some militants had been holed up inside a mosque a few days before the meeting and had threatened security forces that they would blow up the mosque if they tried to enter, he said. He stated that the meeting was held in this context, and when it was his turn to speak, he stated that he had read Salmond on jurisprudence and Dias on jurisprudence, but he had never heard of “Biryani jurisprudence.” He also discussed the Supreme Court’s recent release of six life-term convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. He went on to say that around this time, he was reminded of a shloka from the Valmiki Ramayana in which Sita tells Hanuman that no human is perfect and that, as a result, one must abandon the idea of retaliation and instead forgive even one’s own tormentors. Justice Swaminathan referred to an article titled ‘Objection your honour’ that criticised Justice Nazeer’s statement. He urged everyone in the audience to read the text of Justice Nazeer’s statement again, translate it into their native tongues, and distribute such pamphlets to the public. Justice Swaminathan went on to say that while the current legal system has benefitted the country greatly, there is no reason why it cannot be improved. However, he added that what is required is not a blind application of ancient principles, but rather what is in tune with current needs and times. He also addressed recent disagreements between the Supreme Court collegium and Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju.He stated that every time a new Chief Justice is appointed to the Madras High Court, the Bar Association’s welcome address recounts the Tamil epic tale of Silappatikaram, in which a king dies of cardiac arrest after realising he had failed to implement due process of law and had wrongfully executed a man accused of thievery. He concluded his speech by saying that, while the country’s current legal system, including the Constitution, is a mash-up of features from several Constitutions and legal principles from western nations, our genius was in “making Bharatiya music flow out of western instruments.

पिछले साल नवंबर में न्यूयॉर्क से दिल्ली आ रही एयर इंडिया की एक फ्लाइट में एक साथी महिला यात्री पर कथित तौर पर पेशाब करने के आरोप में गिरफ्तार शंकर मिश्रा को दिल्ली की एक अदालत ने शनिवार को 14 दिन कि न्यायिक हिरासत में भेज दिया।दिल्ली की पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट की मेट्रोपॉलिटन मजिस्ट्रेट अनामिका ने कहा कि जनता के दबाव को जांच को प्रभावित नहीं करना चाहिए और मिश्रा की पुलिस हिरासत की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी।मिश्रा को दिल्ली पुलिस ने शुक्रवार रात बेंगलुरू में नवंबर में एयर इंडिया के विमान में शराब के नशे में 70 वर्षीय एक महिला पर पेशाब करने के आरोप में गिरफ्तार किया था।टाटा ग्रुप के चेयरमैन को महिला का पत्र मीडिया में प्रकाशित होने के बाद यह घटना सार्वजनिक हुई।वेल्स फ़ार्गो में काम करने वाले मिश्रा को भी कंपनी ने यह कहने के बाद नौकरी से जाने दिया कि उनके खिलाफ लगाए गए आरोप “बेहद परेशान करने वाले” थे।मिश्रा के वकीलों ने हाल ही में एक बयान जारी कर कहा कि उन्होंने 28 नवंबर को महिला को मुआवजे की राशि का भुगतान किया था, लेकिन महिला की बेटी द्वारा लगभग एक महीने बाद 19 दिसंबर को उन्हें पैसे वापस कर दिए गए थे।कल बेंगलुरु में गिरफ्तारी के बाद मिश्रा को दिल्ली लाया गया था। लोक अभियोजक (पीपी) के अनुसार, मिश्रा ने जांच में सहयोग नहीं किया।हालांकि, न्यायाधीश ने कहा कि चालक दल के सदस्यों और अन्य गवाहों से पूछताछ के लिए मिश्रा को हिरासत में लेने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी।मिश्रा के वकील, अधिवक्ता मनु शर्मा ने कहा कि उनके खिलाफ लगाए गए आरोपों में से केवल एक ही गैर-जमानती है।पीड़िता के वकील के मुताबिक, जिस फ्लाइट में यह घटना हुई, उसके क्रू मेंबर्स भी इसके लिए जिम्मेदार हैं।पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, अदालत ने पुलिस हिरासत के दिल्ली पुलिस के अनुरोध को अस्वीकार कर दिया और इसके बजाय मिश्रा को 14 दिनों के लिए पुलिस हिरासत में भेज दिया।मिश्रा ने भी अलग से जमानत याचिका दायर की और कोर्ट ने दिल्ली पुलिस को नोटिस जारी किया। 11 जनवरी को जमानत याचिका पर सुनवाई होगी।

अपने माता-पिता को पेन और अन्य छोटे सामान बेचने में मदद करने की गतिविधियों को बाल श्रम नहीं माना जाएगा: केरल हाईकोर्ट ने शुक्रवार को फैसला सुनाया कि कलम और अन्य छोटे सामान बेचने में अपने माता-पिता की मदद करने की गतिविधियों को बाल श्रम नहीं माना जाएगा। न्यायमूर्ति वी.जी. अरुण ने कहा कि बच्चे की देखभाल, पालन-पोषण और सुरक्षा की प्राथमिक जिम्मेदारी जैविक परिवार की होती है। इस मामले में, याचिकाकर्ता राजस्थान के मूल निवासी हैं और आजीविका की तलाश में दिल्ली चले गए थे। याचिकाकर्ता हर साल कुछ महीनों के लिए केरल आते हैं और पेन, चेन, चूड़ियां, अंगूठियां आदि बेचकर अपना गुजारा करते हैं। दूसरी याचिकाकर्ता पहले याचिकाकर्ता के भाई की पत्नी है। पहले याचिकाकर्ता का विकास बावरिया नाम का एक बेटा है और दूसरा याचिकाकर्ता विष्णु बावरिया नाम का एक बेटा है। सड़कों पर अपना माल बेचने के लिए बच्चे बड़ों के साथ जाते हैं। चौथे प्रतिवादी द्वारा बच्चों को यह आरोप लगाते हुए पकड़ा गया था कि उन्हें सड़कों पर सामान बेचकर बाल श्रम करने के लिए मजबूर किया जा रहा है। इसके बाद बच्चों को बाल कल्याण समिति/तीसरे प्रतिवादी के सामने पेश किया गया और उन्हें पल्लुरूथी में 5वें प्रतिवादी के आश्रय में भेज दिया गया। याचिकाकर्ताओं की हिरासत में विकास बावरिया और विष्णु बावरिया को रिहा करने के लिए प्रतिवादियों को निर्देश देने की मांग करते हुए रिट याचिका दायर की गई है। पीठ के समक्ष विचार के लिए मुद्दा था: याचिकाकर्ताओं को बच्चों की कस्टडी दी जा सकती है या नहीं? हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि “मुझे यह समझ में नहीं आ रहा है कि पेन और अन्य छोटे सामान बेचने में बच्चों की अपने माता-पिता की मदद करने की गतिविधि बाल श्रम की राशि कैसे होगी। इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि बच्चों को अपने माता-पिता के साथ सड़कों पर घूमने की अनुमति देने के बजाय शिक्षित किया जाना चाहिए। याचिकाकर्ताओं के साथ बातचीत करने पर, उन्होंने बच्चों को लेख बेचने के लिए सड़कों पर नहीं आने देने और उन्हें शिक्षित करने के उपाय करने का वचन दिया। खंडपीठ ने कहा कि “मुझे आश्चर्य है कि बच्चों को उचित शिक्षा कैसे प्रदान की जा सकती है जबकि उनके माता-पिता खानाबदोश जीवन जी रहे हैं। फिर भी पुलिस या सीडब्ल्यूसी बच्चों को हिरासत में लेकर उनके माता-पिता से दूर नहीं रख सकती. गरीब होना कोई अपराध नहीं है और हमारे राष्ट्रपिता को उद्धृत करने के लिए, गरीबी हिंसा का सबसे खराब रूप है। हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि किशोर न्याय अधिनियम के प्रशासन में पालन किए जाने वाले सामान्य सिद्धांतों के अनुसार भी, सर्वोत्तम हित सिद्धांत के लिए बच्चों के संबंध में सभी निर्णय प्राथमिक विचार पर आधारित होने चाहिए कि वे बच्चे के सर्वोत्तम हित में हैं और मदद करने के लिए हैं। बच्चे की पूरी क्षमता विकसित करने के लिए। पारिवारिक जिम्मेदारी के सिद्धांत के अनुसार, बच्चे की देखभाल, पालन-पोषण और सुरक्षा की प्राथमिक जिम्मेदारी जैविक परिवार की होती है। इसलिए विकास और विष्णु को उनके जैविक परिवार से अलग करके उनका सर्वांगीण विकास नहीं हो सकता। इसके विपरीत, राज्य का प्रयास बच्चों को स्वस्थ तरीके से और स्वतंत्रता और गरिमा की स्थिति में उचित शिक्षा, अवसर और सुविधाएं प्रदान करना होना चाहिए। उपरोक्त के मद्देनजर, पीठ ने प्रतिवादियों 3 से 5 को बच्चों को याचिकाकर्ताओं की हिरासत में छोड़ने का निर्देश दिया और मामले को 10.01.2023 को सूचीबद्ध किया। केस का शीर्षक- पप्पू बावरिया बनाम जिला कलेक्टर सिविल थाना खंडपीठ: न्यायमूर्ति वी.जी. अरुण केस नंबर: WP(C) NO. 2022 का 41572 (वी)

बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने लोन धोखाधड़ी मामले में ICICI बैंक की पूर्व सीईओ चंदा कोचर और उनके पति को बेल पर रिहा करने का आदेश दिया अवैध हिरासत का आरोप लगाने वाली एक याचिका के जवाब में, बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने सोमवार को ICICI बैंक की पूर्व सीईओ और एमडी चंदा कोचर और उनके पति दीपक कोचर को बेल रिहा करने का आदेश दिया। कोर्ट ने कहा गिरफ़्तारी धारा 41A CrPC के प्रविधानों के उल्लंघन में है। शुक्रवार को न्यायमूर्ति रेवती मोहिते डेरे और न्यायमूर्ति पृथ्वी राज चव्हाण की खंडपीठ ने याचिका को आदेश के लिए सुरक्षित रख लिया था। दोनों ने दो अलग-अलग याचिकाओं में अदालत में याचिका दायर की, जिसमें 2009 और 2012 के बीच आईसीआईसीआई बैंक द्वारा वेणुगोपाल धूत के वीडियोकॉन ग्रुप को दिए गए ऋण में अनियमितता से जुड़े मामले में सीबीआई की प्राथमिकी और रिमांड आदेश को रद्द करने की मांग की गई थी। उन्होंने अस्थायी रिहाई का अनुरोध किया था। अदालत ने पिछले हफ्ते स्पष्ट किया कि वह कोचर परिवार की याचिकाओं की सुनवाई उनके बेटे की शादी की वजह से नहीं कर रही है, बल्कि सीआरपीसी की धारा 41Aका अनुपालन करने में विफल रहने के कारण कर रही है, जिसके लिए उन्हें नोटिस दिया गया था। चंदा कोचर का प्रतिनिधित्व वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता अमित देसाई ने किया, जबकि उनके पति का प्रतिनिधित्व वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता विक्रम चौधरी ने किया। उन्होंने तर्क दिया कि चूंकि कोचर सीआरपीसी की धारा 41ए(3) के तहत जांच एजेंसी के सामने पेश हुए थे, इसलिए उन्हें गिरफ्तार करना अनावश्यक था। इसके अलावा, उन्होंने शुरू से ही जांचकर्ताओं के साथ सैकड़ों पृष्ठों के दस्तावेज़ उपलब्ध कराने में सहयोग किया था। देसाई ने यह भी दावा किया कि अरेस्ट मेमो पर किसी महिला अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षर नहीं थे। दूसरी ओर, दीपक कोचर को पहले पीएमएलए मामले में प्रवर्तन निदेशालय द्वारा गिरफ्तार किया गया था और बाद में चौधरी के अनुसार अपीलीय प्राधिकरण द्वारा उनकी संपत्ति की कुर्की की पुष्टि करने से इनकार करने के बाद जमानत पर रिहा कर दिया गया था। उनकी याचिका में जनवरी में उनके बेटे की शादी का हवाला देते हुए गिरफ्तारी के समय पर सवाल उठाया गया था। कोचर के इकलौते बेटे की शादी 15 जनवरी को है और उत्सव जल्द ही शुरू होने वाला है। यह इस विश्वास की ओर ले जाता है कि स्थापित कानून के बावजूद प्राथमिकी के 4 साल बाद उसके बेटे की शादी की पूर्व संध्या पर गिरफ्तार किया जाना, दलील के अनुसार दुर्भावना से प्रेरित था। क्या था मामला? सीबीआई ने जनवरी 2018 में दंपति के खिलाफ जांच शुरू की, रिपोर्ट के बाद कि वीडियोकॉन के धूत ने कथित रूप से दीपक और दो रिश्तेदारों के साथ 2012 में आईसीआईसीआई बैंक से 3,250 करोड़ रुपये का ऋण प्राप्त करने के छह महीने बाद एक फर्म का भुगतान किया अनियमितताएं जून 2009 और अक्टूबर 2011 के बीच वीडियोकॉन समूह की पांच कंपनियों को लगभग 1,575 करोड़ रुपये के छह उच्च मूल्य के ऋण देने में शामिल है। एजेंसी के अनुसार, ऋण स्वीकृति समिति के नियमों और नीतियों के उल्लंघन में दिए गए थे। सीबीआई के अनुसार, इन ऋणों को बाद में गैर-निष्पादित संपत्तियों के रूप में वर्गीकृत किया गया, जिसके परिणामस्वरूप आईसीआईसीआई बैंक को गलत नुकसान हुआ और उधारकर्ताओं और आरोपी व्यक्तियों को गलत लाभ हुआ। 26 अप्रैल,

दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने हाल ही में एक वकील को तीन बार अदालती कार्यवाही में बाधा डालने के बाद वर्चुअल कॉन्फ्रेंसिंग/हाइब्रिड मोड के माध्यम से अदालत में पेश होने से एक महीने के लिए रोक लगा दी। न्यायमूर्ति प्रतिभा एम सिंह की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि वकील जो अपने आवास से अदालत में पेश हो रहा था, वह वीडियो चालू कर रहा था और अदालत की मर्यादा को भंग कर रहा था।अदालत ने रजिस्ट्री और आईटी टीम को निर्देश दिया और विचाराधीन वकील को वीसी/हाइब्रिड मोड के माध्यम से किसी भी अदालती कार्यवाही में शामिल होने की अनुमति नहीं दी जानी चाहिए।मामलों की सुनवाई करते हुए, न्यायमूर्ति सिंह ने कहा कि वकील ने वीडियो चालू कर दिया था और उनका पूरा घर दिखाई दे रहा था। इसलिए, अदालत ने अदालत के कर्मचारियों को वकील को म्यूट करने और उसका वीडियो बंद करने का निर्देश दिया और कहा कि वकीलों को अदालत की मर्यादा बनाए रखनी चाहिए।अदालत ने अदालत के कर्मचारियों को वकील का नाम नोट करने का भी निर्देश दिया और कहा कि ऐसे वकीलों को वीसी पर पेश होने की अनुमति नहीं दी जानी चाहिए और उन्हें ब्लॉक कर दिया जाना चाहिए।

क्या आपराधिक मामले में चार्जशीट ऑनलाइन अपलोड की जानी चाहिए? सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फ़ैसला किया सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस सवाल पर अपना आदेश सुरक्षित रख लिया है कि क्या पुलिस और ईडी और सीबीआई जैसी जांच एजेंसियों को सार्वजनिक मंच पर मामलों में दायर चार्जशीट अपलोड करनी चाहिए ताकि जनता उस तक पहुंच सके? एडमिशन स्टेज पर, जस्टिस एमआर शाह और जस्टिस सीटी रविकुमार की खंडपीठ ने इस विचार के बारे में संदेह व्यक्त किया और कहा कि जनता के लिए उपलब्ध चार्जशीट का दुरुपयोग किया जा सकता है। अदालत ने यह भी संदेह जताया कि क्या ईडी को सार्वजनिक मंच पर चार्जशीट अपलोड करने के निर्देश जारी किए जा सकते हैं। याचिकाकर्ताओं की ओर से पेश अधिवक्ता प्रशांत भूषण ने यूथ बार एसोसिएशन इंडिया बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया में शीर्ष अदालत के 2016 के फैसले पर भरोसा किया, जिसमें यह निर्देश दिया गया था कि जब तक मामला संवेदनशील न हो, एफआईआर की प्रतियां 24 घंटे के भीतर प्रकाशित की जानी चाहिए। श्री भूषण ने आगे तर्क दिया कि चार्जशीट एक सार्वजनिक दस्तावेज है जिसे चार्जशीट दायर करना सार्वजनिक कर्तव्य के निर्वहन में एक सार्वजनिक अधिकारी द्वारा किया गया कार्य है और इसलिए यह साक्ष्य अधिनियम के धारा 74 के तहत सार्वजनिक दस्तावेज की परिभाषा के तहत आएगा। यह भी बताया गया कि RTI अधिनियम की धारा 6(2) के अनुसार, सूचना मांगने के लिए किसी औचित्य या कारण की आवश्यकता नहीं है। दलीलें सुनने के बाद बेंच ने कहा कि वह एक विस्तृत आदेश जारी करेगी। शीर्षक: सौरव दास बनाम भारत संघ केस नंबर डब्ल्यूपी सी 1126

अदालत में आपका प्रतिनिधित्व करने के लिए एक वकील की सेवाएँ लेना ज्यादातर लोगों के लिए हमेशा एक महंगा निवेश रहा है। लेकिन क्या होगा अगर AI (artificial intelligence)द्वारा संचालित एक रोबोट वकील होता जो किसी का भी प्रतिनिधित्व कर सकता है?यह अजीब लग सकता है, लेकिन यह अगले महीने संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में वास्तविक जीवन में घटित होगा। फरवरी में एक अदालती मामले की अवधि के दौरान, एक प्रतिवादी को DoNotPay द्वारा बनाई गई एक कृत्रिम बुद्धिमत्ता (AI) से सलाह प्राप्त होगी, जो कि पहली बार होने की संभावना है जब AI ने कभी भी अदालत में किसी पक्ष का प्रतिनिधित्व किया हो।न्यू साइंटिस्ट के अनुसार, एआई एक स्मार्टफोन पर चलेगा, अदालती कार्यवाही को सुनेगा और प्रतिवादी को एक इयरपीस के माध्यम से निर्देश देगा कि क्या कहना है।हालाँकि, AI बनाने वाली कंपनी DoNotPay ने अदालत के स्थान या प्रतिवादी के नाम का खुलासा नहीं किया है। 2015 में, स्टैनफोर्ड यूनिवर्सिटी के एक कंप्यूटर वैज्ञानिक जोशुआ ब्राउनर ने कैलिफोर्निया में DoNotPay की स्थापना की। वह चाहता है कि बचाव पक्ष के पैसे बचाने के लिए उसका ऐप वकीलों को पूरी तरह से बदल दे।कंपनी के अनुसार, “DoNotPay दुनिया के पहले रोबोट वकील का घर है। एक बटन के स्पर्श से, आप निगमों से लड़ सकते हैं, नौकरशाही को हरा सकते हैं और किसी पर भी मुकदमा कर सकते हैं।”कंपनी के संस्थापक और मुख्य कार्यकारी अधिकारी, जोशुआ ब्राउनर का दावा है कि DoNotPay के AI असिस्टेंट को केस लॉ में कई तरह के मुद्दों पर प्रशिक्षण देने और यह सुनिश्चित करने में काफी समय लगा कि ऐप सच है।“हम अपने कानूनी दायित्व को सीमित करने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं, और यह अच्छा नहीं है अगर यह तथ्यों को तोड़-मरोड़ करता है,” उन्होंने समझाया।

The Union Government has stated before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice that 79% of High Court judges appointed between 2018 and 2022 are from upper castes (general category). The Times of India and Indian Express has reported that between 2018 and December 19, 2022, 537 judges were appointed to various High Courts, with 79% from the General Category, 11% from Other Backward Classes, 2.6% from the minority, 2.8% from Scheduled Castes, and 1.3% from Scheduled Tribes. In 2021, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju told Parliament that the Central Government has been requesting Chief Justices across all High Courts to give due consideration to suitable candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women when submitting proposals for judicial appointments.

भोपाल गैस पीड़ितों को मुआवजा देने से केंद्र को नहीं रोका : दिल्ली भोपाल गैस त्रासदी पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने केंद्र सरकार को फटकारते हुए कहा कि उसने 1984 के गैस लीक मामले के पीड़ितों को राहत देने से रोका नहीं है । कोर्ट ने कहा कि सरकार जनकल्याण के ऐसे सिद्धांत का पालन नहीं कर सकती कि वह मुआवजा राशि ( यूनियन कार्बाइड कारपोरेशन ) फर्म से लेकर ही पीड़ितों को दे । कोर्ट ने कहा कि सरकार की क्यूरेटिव याचिका के आधार पर यूनियन कार्बाइड कारपोरेशन ( यूसीसी ) से 7,844 करोड़ रुपये की अतिरिक्त मुआवजा राशि लेकर भोपाल गैस पीड़ितों को नहीं दिया जा सकता है । संविधान पीठ ने सरकार से कहा कि किसी और की जेब में हाथ डालकर पैसे निकाल लेना बहुत आसान है । पहले अपनी जेब में हाथ डालकर रकम निकालिए और पीडितों को दीजिए और फिर देखिए कि आप यूसीसी की जेब से पैसे निकाल पाते हैं या नहीं । जस्टिस संजय किशन कौल की अध्यक्षता वाली पांच सदस्यीय संविधान पीठ में शामिल जस्टिस संजीव खन्ना अभय एस . ओका , विक्रम नाथ और जेके सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भोपाल गैस त्रासदी मामले में सरकार को जमकर फटकारा केंद्र ने क्यूरेटिव याचिका परयूसीसी से 7,844 करोड़ की मुआवजा राशि मांगी महेश्वरी ने बुधवार को केंद्र की और से पेश अटर्नी जनरल आर . वेंकटरमानी को फटकारते हुए कहा कि समीक्षा याचिका दायर किए बगैर वह क्यूरेटिव याचिका कैसे दायर कर सकते हैं । खंडपीठ ने कहा कि सरकार को पीड़ितों की आर्थिक सहायता करने से नहीं रोका जा रहा है । उनका कहना है बस इतना है कि अगर सरकार को लगता है कि पीड़ितों को और पैसा दिया जाना चाहिए तो कृपया करके उन्हें भुगतान कीजिए लेकिन यूनियन कार्बाइड की उत्तराधिकारी कंपनियों से वसूलकर उन्हें देने की बात मत कीजिए । ' आप यह नहीं कह सकते कि आप भुगतान नहीं करना चाहते हैं , ' सर्वोच्च अदालत ने कहा कि वह पहले ही क्यूरेटिव याचिका की मर्यादा पर बात कर चुकी है । कुछ छूट देने के बावजूद अदालत कानून से बंधी हुई है ।

संविधान की मूल संरचना के सिद्धांत पर सवाल केशवानंद भारती मामले का हवाला दे धनखड़ ने कहा- न्यायपालिका संसद की संप्रभुता से समझौता नहीं कर सकती

गर्भपात कराना या नहीं कराना महिला का अधिकार : अ बंबई उच्च न्यायालय ने कहा 32 सप्ताह की गर्भवती को भ्रूण में विसंगतियों का पता लगने के बाद गर्भपात की अनुमति केवल देर हो जाने के आधार पर गर्भपात की अनुमति देने से इनकार करना न केवल होने वाले शिशु के लिए कष्टकारी होगा , बल्कि भावी मां के लिए भी कष्टदायक होगा । इसकी वजह से मातृत्व का हर सकारात्मक पहलू छिन जाएगा । कानून को बिना सोचे समझे लागू करने के लिए महिला के अधिकारों से समझौता नहीं किया जाना चाहिए । मुंबई , 23 जनवरी । बंबई उच्च न्यायालय ने 32 सप्ताह की गर्भवती एक महिला को भ्रूण में गंभीर विसंगतियों का पता लगने के बाद गर्भपात की अनुमति देते हुए कहा है कि महिला को यह तय करने का अधिकार है कि वह गर्भावस्था को जारी रखना चाहती है या नहीं । न्यायमूर्ति गौतम पटेल और न्यायमूर्ति एस जी दिगे की खंडपीठ ने 20 जनवरी के अपने -आदेश में चिकित्सकीय बोर्ड की इस राय को मानने से इनकार कर दिया कि भले ही भ्रूण में गंभीर विसंगतियां हैं , लेकिन गर्भपात नहीं कराया जाना चाहिए , क्योंकि इस मामले में गर्भावस्था का अंतिम चरण है । आदेश की प्रति सोमवार को उपलब्ध कराई गई । सोनोग्राफी के बाद पता चला था कि भ्रूण में गंभीर विसंगतियां हैं और शिशु शारीरिक एवं मानसिक अक्षमताओं के साथ पैदा होगा , जिसके बाद महिला ने अपना गर्भपात कराने के लिए उच्च न्यायालय से अनुमति मांगी थी । अदालत ने अपने आदेश में कहा , ' भ्रूण में गंभीर विसंगतियों के मद्देनजर गर्भधारण की अवधि मायने नहीं रखती । याचिकाकर्ता ने सोच - समझकर फैसला किया है । यह आसान निर्णय नहीं है , लेकिन यह फैसला उसका ( याचिकाकर्ता का ) , केवल उसका है । यह चयन करने का अधिकार केवल याचिकाकर्ता को है । यह चिकित्सकीय बोर्ड का अधिकार नहीं है । ' अदालत ने कहा कि केवल देर हो जाने के आधार पर गर्भपात की अनुमति देने से इनकार करना न केवल होने वाले शिशु के लिए कष्टकारी होगा , बल्कि उस भावी मां के लिए भी कष्टदायक होगा और इसकी वजह से मातृत्व का हर सकारात्मक पहलू छिन जाएगा अदालत ने कहा , ' कानून को बिना सोचे समझे लागू करने के लिए महिला के अधिकारों से कभी समझौता नहीं किया जाना चाहिए । पीठ ने कहा कि चिकित्सकीय बोर्ड ने दंपति की सामाजिक एवं आर्थिक स्थिति पर गौर नहीं किया उसने कहा , ' बोर्ड वास्तव में केवल एक चीज करता है क्योंकि देर हो गई , इसलिए अनुमति नहीं दी जा सकती । यह पूरी तरह गलत है , जैसा कि हमने पाया है । पीठ ने यह भी कहा कि भ्रूण में विसंगतियों और उनके स्तर का पता भी बाद में चला ।

सशस्त्र बल व्यभिचार के लिए अपने अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई कर सकते हैं- सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने जोसेफ शाइन जजमेंट को स्पष्ट किया सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को फैसला सुनाया कि सशस्त्र बल व्यभिचार के लिए अपने अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई कर सकते हैं, क्योंकि आज कोर्ट ने 2018 के उस ऐतिहासिक फैसले को स्पष्ट किया, जिसमें व्यभिचार के अपराध (धारा 497 IPC) को रद्द किया गया था।न्यायमूर्ति के एम जोसेफ की अध्यक्षता वाली पांच-न्यायाधीशों की संविधान पीठ ने कहा कि 2018 का फैसला सशस्त्र बल अधिनियमों के प्रावधानों (अनुच्छेद 33) से संबंधित नहीं था।शीर्ष अदालत ने एनआरआई जोसेफ शाइन की याचिका पर 2018 में व्यभिचार के अपराध के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 497 को असंवैधानिक करार देते हुए रद्द कर दिया था। बेंच द्वारा मंगलवार का आदेश, जिसमें जस्टिस अजय रस्तोगी, अनिरुद्ध बोस, हृषिकेश रॉय और सी टी रविकुमार भी शामिल हैं, अतिरिक्त सॉलिसिटर जनरल माधवी दीवान के बाद केंद्र की ओर से पेश हुए, उन्होंने 2018 के फैसले के स्पष्टीकरण की मांग की।रक्षा मंत्रालय (MoD) ने 27 सितंबर, 2018 के फैसले से सशस्त्र बलों को छूट देने के लिए शीर्ष अदालत का रुख किया था, जिसमें कहा गया था कि यह उन अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई में बाधा बन सकता है जो इस तरह के कार्यों में लिप्त हैं और सेवाओं के भीतर ‘अस्थिरता’ पैदा कर सकते हैं। .आवेदन में कहा गया है, ”उपरोक्त (2018) के फैसले के मद्देनजर, चुनौतीपूर्ण परिस्थितियों में अपने परिवारों से दूर काम कर रहे सैन्य कर्मियों के मन में हमेशा अप्रिय गतिविधियों में शामिल परिवार के बारे में चिंता रहेगी।”

वकीलों के एक संगठन ने हाल ही में एक जनहित याचिका के साथ बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय का दरवाजा खटखटाया, जिसमें उपराष्ट्रपति जगदीप धनखड़ और केंद्रीय कानून मंत्री किरेन रिजिजू के खिलाफ कार्रवाई की मांग की गई थी, जो उनकी सार्वजनिक टिप्पणियों से संबंधित थी। बॉम्बे लॉयर्स एसोसिएशन द्वारा अपने अध्यक्ष अहमद आबिदी के माध्यम से दायर जनहित याचिका में दावा किया गया है कि दो कार्यकारी अधिकारियों के आचरण ने “सार्वजनिक रूप से सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की प्रतिष्ठा को कम किया है”। यहां तक कि उपराष्ट्रपति जगदीप धनखड़ ने विधायिका की तुलना में न्यायपालिका की शक्तियों पर “मूल संरचना” सिद्धांत को उठाया और एनजेएसी अधिनियम के निरसन को संसदीय संप्रभुता का “गंभीर समझौता” कहा, रिजिजू ने बार-बार कॉलेजियम प्रणाली पर सवाल उठाया है। याचिका में कहा गया है, “संविधान के तहत उपलब्ध किसी भी उपाय का उपयोग किए बिना न्यायपालिका पर सबसे अपमानजनक और अपमानजनक भाषा में हमला किया गया है।” याचिका में कहा गया है, ‘उपराष्ट्रपति और कानून मंत्री सार्वजनिक मंच पर कॉलेजियम प्रणाली के साथ-साथ बुनियादी ढांचे के सिद्धांत पर खुलकर हमला करते हैं।’ संवैधानिक पदों पर आसीन उत्तरदाताओं द्वारा इस प्रकार का अशोभनीय व्यवहार आम जनता की नज़र में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की महिमा को कम करता है।” अधिवक्ता एकनाथ ढोकले द्वारा दायर याचिका के अनुसार, धनखड़ और रिजिजू ने “संविधान पर पूरी तरह से दंड से मुक्ति के साथ हमला किया”। इसने दावा किया कि संविधान में विश्वास की कमी व्यक्त करते हुए, दोनों अधिकारियों ने किसी भी संवैधानिक पद को धारण करने से खुद को अयोग्य घोषित कर दिया था। जनहित याचिका में धनखड़ और रिजिजू को क्रमशः उपराष्ट्रपति और केंद्रीय मंत्री के रूप में अपने कर्तव्यों को निभाने से रोकने के लिए निषेधाज्ञा मांगी गई थी। धनखड़ और रिजिजू को “भारत के संविधान और कानून द्वारा स्थापित न्यायपालिका में उनके विश्वास की कमी को प्रदर्शित करने वाले अपमानजनक, अपमानजनक और आपत्तिजनक बयान देने से रोकने के लिए” दिशा की मांग की गई है, जो याचिका की सुनवाई और अंतिम निपटान को लंबित करती है। धनखड़ ने पिछले महीने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक 1973 केशवानंद भारती मामले का हवाला दिया, जिसमें उसने फैसला सुनाया कि संसद के पास संविधान में संशोधन करने का अधिकार है, लेकिन इसकी मूल संरचना का नहीं। धनखड़ ने पहले कहा था कि इस सवाल का जवाब “क्या हम एक लोकतांत्रिक राष्ट्र हैं?” मुश्किल होगा। दिसंबर 2022 में, संसद के शीतकालीन सत्र के दौरान राज्यसभा की अध्यक्षता करते हुए, धनखड़ ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा एनजेएसी अधिनियम को संसदीय संप्रभुता का “गंभीर समझौता” और “लोगों के जनादेश” की अवहेलना बताया था। उन्होंने यह भी कहा था कि संसद, “लोगों के अध्यादेश” के संरक्षक के रूप में, “मुद्दे को संबोधित करने” के लिए बाध्य थी और विश्वास व्यक्त किया कि वह ऐसा करेगी। रिजिजू ने पिछले साल नवंबर में कहा था कि न्यायाधीशों की नियुक्ति की कॉलेजियम प्रणाली “अपारदर्शी” और “जवाबदेह नहीं” है, लेकिन जब तक सरकार एक वैकल्पिक तंत्र विकसित नहीं करती, तब तक उन्हें मौजूदा प्रणाली के साथ काम करना चाहिए। इस जनहित याचिका पर हाईकोर्ट जल्द सुनवाई करेगा।

Supreme Court On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) that relate to the power to arrest/attachment/and seizure which are conferred on the Enforcement Directorate. The Apex Court upheld the Constitutional validity of provisions of Section 5,8,15,17 and 19 of PMLA that deal with the EDs power of arrest, attachment, search and seizure. The court also upheld the reverse burden of proof u.s 24 of the Act after opining that the provision has a reasonable nexus with the objectives of the Act. The Court also affirmed the twin conditions of bail in Section 45 of the PMLA Act and observed that the Parliament is competent to amend the provisions in 2018 even though the Top Court had struck down the twin conditions in Nikesh Tarachand judgement. The twin conditions for bail were: (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP Group for Legal News Updates-Click to Join The court also upheld that ED officials are not police officials and therefore any statements recorded by them u.s 50 of the Act will not be hit by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution that gives a right against self-incrimination. As per the Court, Section 50 procedure is an inquiry and not an investigation. As per the court, ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) cannot be equated to an FIR and so CrPC provisions related to FIR will not apply to ECIR. the court also opined that supplying ECIR is not mandatory and the disclosure for the grounds of arrest is sufficient. The court clarified that when a person is before the court it can ask for records. Arguments of the petitioner that the offence of money laundering u.s 3 of the Act will only apply if the projected property is untainted, were also rejected by the court and it opined that Section 3 has a wider reach and observed that mere possession of proceeds of crime can be considered money laundering. Significantly, the Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar directed the Central Government to fill up vacancies in the PMLA Appellate Court. The court has also left open the issue of whether amendments made to PMLA in 2018 could have been done through the Finance Act? This issue will be decided by a seven-judge bench.

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

The Bar Council of India (BCI) submitted before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that law graduates working in other professions do not need to resign from their jobs in order to be enrolled as lawyers, adding that such people will be given a six-month window to quit their jobs after passing the enrolment examination. The BCI’s general council made the decision on July 8 and conveyed it to the court in an affidavit filed last week, in a case where the Supreme Court is considering a slew of reforms to the enrolment process. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by BCI against a Gujarat high court decision in November 2020 that allowed a single mother to take the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) while continuing to work. According to the BCI rules, anyone who wishes to take the AIBE must first resign from their job and fill out the enrolment form. The Supreme Court, too, criticised the BCI’s regulations, suggesting on April 21 that a person taking the exam be allowed to resign within a certain time period after passing the AIBE. The BCI stated in its most recent affidavit, filed through advocate Durga Dutt, that “the Council has accepted the suggestions made by this Court and has resolved that every State Bar Council shall have three registers – A, B, and C.” It went on to say that ‘Register B’ will contain the names of candidates who are already employed somewhere and will be allowed to take the AIBE if they promise to leave their job within six months of passing the exam. The Certificate of Practice, which is required for any legal practitioner, will be issued only after such individuals have left their employment, according to the BCI. The other two categories in Register A and C did not concern the court because the first contained names of people who were not employed elsewhere; the third category will include people who were enrolled but later had their licence suspended in order to pursue other jobs or professions. Concerning the third category, the BCI stated that such individuals who have been in some other employment for five years or more since the announcement of the AIBE results will be required to retake the enrolment test if they decide to rejoin the legal profession. This rule, however, does not apply to people who stop practising but work in jobs related to the legal profession, such as public prosecutors, assistant public prosecutors, judicial service, or as law officers in corporate or government offices. The suggestion to provide separate categorisation of persons in employment who take the AIBE was made to the Supreme Court by amicus curiae and senior advocate KV Vishwanathan, who realised that the bar on taking up any other profession should apply only when practising law and not when taking the test. Vishwanathan told the Supreme Court that the BCI affidavit is largely acceptable, with minor changes suggested. The bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, and MM Sundresh took the affidavit on record and scheduled the matter for further consideration on September 27 to look into other aspects of the AIBE examination pattern and the conduct of surprise inspections of law colleges to ensure education standards are maintained. In this regard, the BCI stated in its affidavit that an agency to conduct the examination will be chosen by a committee led by a former Supreme Court judge. This committee will also look into the best way to assess the skill and knowledge of law graduates taking AIBE, focusing on their analytical thinking process rather than rote ability. This year’s AIBE cycle will take place in September and October.

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.

The Bar Council of India has informed the Supreme Court that law graduates who have been out of practise for more than five years and wish to return to advocacy must pass the All India Bar Examination. The bar body stated in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that if a person takes up a job that has nothing to do with legal or judicial matters, that person will have to reappear for the AIBE exam. “If a person remains in service with no connection/relationship with legal or judicial matters,” the affidavit stated, “then such candidate shall be required to clear the AIBE again if he/she decides to get his/her licence to practise revived after remaining in the job for more than five years from the date of publication of his/her AIBE result.” The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the BCI challenging a decision of the Gujarat High Court allowing people with other jobs to enroll as advocates without resigning.

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.

MUMBAI: Observing that a qualified woman doctor was not entitled to maintenance from her husband, a magistrate court has refused to grant interim maintenance to a city-based dentist. The woman had told the court that she had been a housewife since 2018 and her estranged husband, son of a two-time MLA who died last year, was in the construction business. The court, though, said, "The applicant (woman) is a doctor. She resides in a metropolitan city. She is expected to do medical profession as a dentist and very easily she can get opportunity to do such a job in Mumbai. The court noted that the absence of efforts on her part to cohabit with her husband "goes against her", so did her intention to live in the city when her matrimonial home was in another state. The woman had sought over Rs 1 lakh as monthly maintenance and Rs 40,000 towards rent. She said the man lived in a seven-bedroom home with five bathrooms and a garden. The family owned four cars and a motorcycle. She said that her brother had also "gifted" her in-laws a car they demanded. The woman had filed a domestic violence complaint last year against her husband and mother-in-law. The husband denied the allegations of violence and cruelty. He said the woman left their matrimonial home on her own, without any reason and without giving information to his family. The husband claimed that she did not return home despite efforts made by them and wanted to settle down in Mumbai. The husband said this was not possible for him.

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.

What is the meaning of a Monopoly under competition law ? Monopoly refers to a market structure or market situation where a single seller dominates the sales of a unique product or commodity in the market . In a monopoly market , because the seller is the sole dominant of the goods of which there are no close substitutes to such product , the seller faces no competition . The single producer of the goods may either be an individual owner , a single partnership or a joint stock company . Because the monopolist has full control over the supply of a commodity being the sole seller of it , he possesses the power to set the price and becomes the market controller . What are Pure Monopolies ? A pure monopoly is said to exist when there is only one producer of a good / product and there are no other competitors to it . A company is said to have a pure monopoly in the market when such a company is the sole seller in the market of a product with no other close substitute . What are Natural Monopolies and the power of Patent ? When a company becomes a monopoly due to high fixed or start - up costs in an industry , is said to develop a natural monopoly . Natural monopolies also develop when an industry is a specialised industry where only one company can meet the needs of the demand or industries that require some unique raw materials or technologies . When companies manage to acquire patents on their products , such products become patented products that prevent competitors from developing the same product in a specific field , there can have a natural monopoly . After patenting a product , the patent enables the company to earn profits of the product for several years without the fear of any competition to such a product .

पत्नी पति से ज्यादा कमाती है- सेशन कोर्ट ने पत्नी को गुजारा भत्ता देने से इनकार करने के आदेश को बरकरार रखा हाल ही में, मुंबई की एक निचली अदालत ने एक महिला को अंतरिम गुजारा भत्ता देने से इनकार कर दिया, क्योंकि उसे पता चला था कि वह अपने पति से प्रति वर्ष 4 लाख रुपये अधिक कमाती है। इस आदेश को अब मुंबई की एक सिटी सेशंस कोर्ट ने बरकरार रखा है, जिसने पत्नी को राहत देने से इनकार कर दिया है। मजिस्ट्रेट कोर्ट के नवंबर 2022 के आदेश के बाद अलग हुए दोनों पति-पत्नी ने सेशन कोर्ट में अपील दायर की। उसने अपने लिए भरण-पोषण के साथ-साथ बाल सहायता में वृद्धि की माँग की। पति द्वारा बच्चे के पितृत्व से इनकार किया गया था। अदालतों ने फैसला सुनाया कि क्योंकि महिला अपने पति से अधिक कमाती थी, इसलिए वह उससे किसी भी पैसे की हकदार नहीं थी। अतिरिक्त सत्र न्यायाधीश सीवी पाटिल ने कहा कि कमाने वाली पत्नी भी भरण-पोषण की हकदार है, लेकिन अन्य परिस्थितियों पर विचार किया जाना चाहिए… इस मामले में भी, क्या पति पत्नी से अधिक कमाता है या पत्नी भरण-पोषण की हकदार है या नहीं, यह होगा योग्यता पर निर्धारित। हालाँकि, पार्टियों की स्पष्ट आय को देखते हुए, इस बिंदु पर मजिस्ट्रेट का आदेश कानूनी और उचित है। 2021 में, महिला ने अपने पति और ससुराल वालों के खिलाफ घरेलू हिंसा का मामला दर्ज कराया, जिसमें आरोप लगाया गया कि उनके बच्चे के जन्म के बाद उन्हें घर छोड़ने के लिए मजबूर किया गया। हालांकि, न्यायाधीश ने उस व्यक्ति को अपने छोटे बच्चे के पालन-पोषण के लिए प्रति माह 10,000 रुपये का भुगतान करने का आदेश दिया। महिला ने कोर्ट को बताया था कि जब वह गर्भवती हुई तो वह अपने पति के साथ रह रही थी। उसने यह भी कहा कि उसके पति का यौन रोग का इलाज चल रहा था लेकिन उसने उसे सूचित नहीं किया था। जब उसके पति और परिवार को उसके गर्भवती होने का पता चला, तो उन्हें उसके चरित्र पर संदेह होने लगा। नोट: पक्षकारों द्वारा अपनी गोपनीयता बनाए रखने के अनुरोध के कारण निर्णय की प्रति यहां संलग्न नहीं की गई है

Allahabad HC Refuses to Quash Attempt to Murder Case Based on Compromise Between Victim and Accused The Allahabad High Court recently made a crucial decision, refusing to dismiss an attempted murder case based on a compromise between the victim and the accused. In doing so, the bench of Justice JJ Munir recognized the vital role the state plays in prosecuting offenses against society and refused to permit a compromise that could abdicate this responsibility. The evidence in the case is stark. A medico-legal report reveals that the victim sustained a gunshot wound to their neck, a vital part of the body. The report also revealed blackening in a 12cm x 12 cm area and evidence of metallic material lodged in the temporomandibular joint from the gunshots. Thus, the court observed, there is no doubt that the accused intended to kill. The accused had sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the matter had been compromised between the parties and there was no possibility of conviction. The court, however, noted that the injuries sustained were severe and that the weapons used were lethal. The court referred to Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that stated that a court should not accept settlements where there was a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. In light of this, the application was rejected. The decision underscores the significance of the state’s role in protecting society and prosecuting offenses, even in circumstances where there is a desire for settlement between parties.

नागपुर के चार मंदिरों में फटी जींस, शॉर्ट कपड़े पहनने पर नहीं मिलेगी एंट्री, ड्रेस कोड किया गया लागू नागपुर के चार मंदिरों में फटी जींस, शॉर्ट कपड़े पहनने पर नहीं मिलेगी एंट्री, ड्रेस कोड किया गया लागू महाराष्ट्र मंदिर महासंघ का कहना है कि राज्य के 300 मंदिरों में ड्रेस कोड को जल्द लागू किया जाएगा. महाराष्ट्र के कुछ मंदिरों में ड्रेस कोड लागू करने का सिलसिला शुरू हो चुका है. महाराष्ट्र मंदिर महासंघ की ओर से नागपुर के चार मंदिरों में ड्रेस कोड लागू कर दिया गया है. महासंघ का दावा है कि मंदिर की पवित्रता बनाए रखने के लिए यह ड्रेस कोड लागू किया गया है. महाराष्ट्र मंदिर महासंघ का मानना है कि ड्रेस कोड देश के कई मंदिरों, गुरुद्वारों, चर्चों, मस्जिदों और अन्य पूजा स्थलों पर लागू है. इसलिए अगर कटी फटी जींस, अर्धनग्न कपड़े, स्कर्ट, उत्तेजक वस्त्र, अशोभनीय वस्त्र पहन कर मंदिर ने प्रवेश पर पाबंदी लगा दी गई है, इसके बावजूद फिर भी अगर इस तरह के कपड़े पहनकर कोई मंदिर आ जाता है तो उन्हें ओढनी, दुपट्टा, लुंगी दी जाएगी. जिसके बाद उन्हें प्रवेश दिया जाएगा. महासंघ की ओर से कहा गया है कि इस संबंध में प्रचार-प्रसार किया जाएगा और जल्द ही महाराष्ट्र के 300 मंदिरों में ड्रेस कोड, कटी फटी जींस ,स्कर्ट जैसे वस्त्रों पर पाबंदी लगाई जाएगी. अभी नागपुर के धंतोली श्री गोपाल कृष्ण मंदिर, श्री संकट मोचन पंचमुखी हनुमान मंदिर बेलोरी, बृहस्पति मंदिर कानॉली बारा, दुर्गा मंदिर हिलटॉप महाराष्ट्र मंदिर महासंघ की बातों को मानते हुए यह गाइडलाइन जारी कर दी गई है.

दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय (डीयू) की अकादमिक परिषद ने राजनीतिक विज्ञान के पाठ्यक्रम से पाकिस्तान के राष्ट्र कवि मोहम्मद इकबाल से जुड़ा एक अध्याय हटाने के लिए शुक्रवार को एक प्रस्ताव पारित किया. वैधानिक निकाय के सदस्यों ने इसकी पुष्टि की. अविभाजित भारत के सियालकोट में 1877 में जन्मे इकबाल ने प्रसिद्ध गीत 'सारे जहां से अच्छा' लिखा था. उन्हें अक्सर पाकिस्तान का विचार देने का श्रेय दिया जाता है. अधिकारियों ने कहा कि 'आधुनिक भारतीय राजनीतिक विचार' नाम का अध्याय बीए के छठे सेमेस्टर के पाठ्यक्रम का हिस्सा है. उन्होंने कहा कि मामला अब विश्वविद्यालय की कार्यकारी परिषद के समक्ष पेश किया जाएगा, जो अंतिम निर्णय लेगी. अकादमिक परिषद के एक सदस्य ने कहा, “राजनीति विज्ञान के पाठ्यक्रम में बदलाव के संबंध में एक प्रस्ताव लाया गया था. प्रस्ताव के अनुसार, इकबाल पर एक अध्याय था, जिसे पाठ्यक्रम से हटा दिया गया है.”इस बीच, राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ (आरएसएस) से जुड़े अखिल भारतीय विद्यार्थी परिषद (एबीवीपी) ने इस घटनाक्रम का स्वागत किया है.

Central vista project including new Parliament building faced several court cases The ambitious redevelopment project of the nation’s power corridor, Central Vista, which includes the new Parliament building inaugurated on Sunday, faced several legal challenges in the last few years. The project was announced in September 2019 and Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of the new Parliament building on December 10, 2020. All the controversies or disputes related to the project have been invariably landing in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the latest being a PIL by a lawyer seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Droupadi Murmu. Two days before the inauguration of Parliament by Prime Minister Modi, a vacation bench of the top court junked the PIL filed by Tamil Nadu-based lawyer Jaya Sukin. The NDA government’s Central Vista project also envisages a common central secretariat and revamping of the three-km-long Rajpath, from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate. The first court case against the project was filed in 2020 in the Delhi High Court by Rajeev Suri and Anuj Srivastava and others assailing the grant of Environmental Clearance and the approval by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) and the Heritage Conservation Committee for land use change as per the DDA Act and selection of design consultant, etc. On February 11, 2020, a single judge bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the high court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to approach the court before notifying any change to the Master Plan for going ahead with the project. The Centre challenged the order before a division bench of the high court which on February 28, 2020, stayed its single judge’s direction to the DDA. Later, the top court, in March 2020, transferred to itself the matter from the Delhi High Court in “larger public interest” and it also heard other fresh petitions challenging the project together. The Supreme Court, on January 5, 2021, came out with its verdict and, by a majority of 2:1, gave the green signal to the Rs 13,500 -crore Central Vista revamp project, holding there was “no infirmity” in the grant of environment clearance and permissions for change of land use. The majority verdict had observed that it cannot jump to put a “full stop” on the execution of policy matters and the courts cannot be called upon to “govern”. Justice Sanjiv Khanna gave a dissenting judgement in which he touched upon issues like the “failure” to take prior approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee(HCC). He also said public participation is not to be a mechanical exercise or formality. Then, in April 2021, translator Anya Malhotra and historian and documentary filmmaker Sohail Hashmi filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court seeking suspension of construction work, raising health and other safety concerns during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delhi High Court bench of then chief justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh, on May 31, 2021, allowed the construction work of the project to continue, saying it was a “vital and essential” national project. The high court dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs 1 lakh. The top court also refused to entertain the appeal against the high court’s order and refused to remove the costs imposed on the petitioners. The petitioners selectively challenged the Central Vista project, leaving out other project works, the apex court bench had said. The top court also dealt with the pleas challenging the design of the lion statue atop the new Parliament building. The court held that the lion sculpture did not violate the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. The petitioners, lawyer Aldanish Rein and others, had claimed that the lions in the emblem appeared to be ferocious and aggressive with their mouths open and canine visible. The PIL had said the lion sculptures at Sarnath, the original source of the national emblem, look “calm and composed”. The last one was the PIL by advocate Jaya Sukin seeking a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Droupadi Murmu.

Gangster Chhota Rajan moves HC seeking stay on release of "Scoop" web series over 'infringement of his personality rights' Jailed gangster Rajendra Nikalje alias Chhota Rajan on Thursday moved the Bombay High Court against web series “Scoop”, which is slated for release on Netflix on June 2, saying that the “use or misuse of the attributes of his personality” without his prior consent amounted to infringement of his “personality rights” as well as defamation. Rajan, who is presently lodged at the Tihar jail, sought a stay on the release of the series and an order to take down the trailer. He also sought a permanent injunction restraining the makers of the series, including Hansal Mehta and Netflix Entertainment Services India, from infringement of his personality rights. Rajan has also sought damages of Re 1 to be paid to him or for the makers to deposit the money earned by them through the telecast of the series’ trailer, and for the amount to be used for “public good or upliftment of the society”. In his plea, Rajan said that in May 2023 he was informed by his wife about the trailer of the series. The petition said the makers of the series were never permitted to use/misuse Rajan’s name and image, associate him to any voice and/or any events, without prior permission. “Therefore, the use or misuse of the attributes of the plaintiff’s (Rajan) personality, including his name, caricature, image, and/or any other direct/indirect reference, without receiving the prior consent of the plaintiff amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s personality rights, passing off as well as defamation,” the plea said. A vacation bench of the high court is likely to hear the plea on Friday.