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

बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया ने 5 फरवरी को राजकोट में AIBE-XVII के लिए उपस्थित होने वाले कुछ उम्मीदवारों को गुमराह करने और धोखा देने में शामिल होने का आरोप लगाते हुए मीडिया रिपोर्टों की जांच करने के लिए एक फैक्ट फाइंडिंग कमेटी का गठन किया है।बीसीआई की प्रेस रिलीज़ में कहा गया है-“बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया की जनरल काउंसिल ने दिनांक 06.02.2023 के एक संकल्प के आधार पर संचलन के माध्यम से गुजरात क्षेत्रीय समाचार पत्रों में दिनांक 06.02.2023 में 5 फरवरी, 2023 को राजकोट (गुजरात) में एआईबीई-XVII में उपस्थित होने वाले कुछ उम्मीदवारों (अधिवक्ताओं) को गुमराह करने और धोखा देने में एडवोकेट श्री जिग्नेश जोशी सहित कुछ लोगों के खिलाफ भागीदारी के संबंध में समाचार पत्रों की रिपोर्ट से संबंधित सच्चाई का पता लगाने के लिए एक तथ्य खोज समिति का गठन किया है।मीडिया में रिपोर्ट किए गए उत्तरों की केवल तुलना और जांच से (अधिवक्ता श्री जिग्नेश जोशी द्वारा कथित रूप से परीक्षार्थियों को आपूर्ति की गई), उत्तर पुस्तिका के लीक होने या अनुचित साधनों के उपयोग का तथ्य असत्य प्रतीत होता है।हालाँकि, प्रथम दृष्टया यह स्थापित किया गया है कि अधिवक्ता श्री जिग्नेश जोशी ने अपने साथियों के साथ कुछ उपस्थित युवा अधिवक्ताओं को मोबाइल के माध्यम से उनके व्हाट्सएप ग्रुप पर जवाब देने के झूठे बहाने से गुमराह करने की कोशिश की थी।यह एडवोकेट श्री जिग्नेश जोशी द्वारा बार एसोसिएशन के चुनावों में उनके वोट हासिल करने के प्रयास में अपने स्वार्थ की पूर्ति के लिए किया गया था। इससे पता चलता है कि उम्मीदवारों को दिए गए 28 उत्तरों में से 21 उत्तर गलत हैं। इस प्रकार अधिवक्ता श्री जिग्नेश जोशी ने अभ्यर्थियों को गुमराह करने तथा नकल करने के लिए लुभाने का प्रयास किया है।हालाँकि, परीक्षा हॉल में कुछ अधिवक्ताओं द्वारा इस उद्देश्य के लिए मोबाइल का उपयोग करना एक बहुत ही गंभीर मामला है। एआईबीई के दौरान मोबाइल के उपयोग की अनुमति नहीं है।सीसीटीवी की जांच के लिए फैक्ट फाइंडिंग कमेटी का गठन किया गया है। फुटेज से पता चल सके कि इस दुष्कर्म में कौन लोग संलिप्त हैं।यदि किसी प्रकार के अनुचित साधनों के प्रयोग का तथ्य सिद्ध होता है तो बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया द्वारा दोषी व्यक्तियों के विरूद्ध उचित अनुशासनात्मक एवं अन्य कानूनी कार्रवाई की जायेगी।तीन सदस्यीय समिति की अध्यक्षता माननीय श्री न्यायमूर्ति जे. उपाध्याय, गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय के पूर्व न्यायाधीश, माननीय श्री जयंत डी. जयभावे, सदस्य, बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया और प्रो. (डॉ.) एस शांताकुमार करेंगे। , निदेशक, गुजरात राष्ट्रीय विधि विश्वविद्यालय, गुजरात सदस्य होंगे।समिति से अनुरोध है कि सूचना प्राप्त होने की तारीख से 7 दिनों के भीतर माननीय अध्यक्ष, बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया को अपनी रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करें।

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

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

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

इस कानून के आने के बाद वकीलों की प्रैक्टिस में क्या कुछ बदलने वाला है नए नियम के मुताबिक विदेशी वकील और कानून फर्मों को भारत में अभ्यास करने के लिए बीसीआई के साथ पंजीकरण कराने की अनुमति दी गई है . इसके तहत वो सिर्फ अपने देश के कानून का अभ्यास करने के हकदार होंगे इस कानून के आने के बाद वकीलों की प्रैक्टिस में क्या कुछ बदलने वाला है काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया ने विदेशी वकिलों की प्रैक्टिस के लिए बनाए नियम कानूनी पेशे को लेकर एक बड़ा फैसला लिया गया है. शीर्ष संस्था बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया यानी BCI ने विदेशी वकीलों और कानूनी फर्म को भारत में प्रैक्टिस करने की इजाजत दे दी है. इस फैसले के मुताबिक विदेशी वकील कोर्ट में पेश नहीं हो सकते हैं, वे केवल कॉर्पोरेट लेनदेन से जुड़े हुए कामकाज या विदेशी कानून पर अपने क्लाइंट को सलाह देने का काम कर सकते हैं. क्या है बीसीआई का फैसला? 13 मार्च को, बीसीआई ने आधिकारिक सूचना दी. सूचना में BCI ने कहा कि इससे भारतीय और विदेशी दोनों वकीलों को फायदा होगा. विदेशी वकील और लॉ फर्म भारत में काम कर सकेंगे. इसके लिए विदेशी विधि पंजीकरण और नियमन-2022 के लिए नियम बनाया गया है. बीसीआई ने साफ कहा है कि कुछ पाबंदियों के साथ इस फैसले से सुनिश्चित किया जाएगा कि यह भारत और विदेशी वकीलों के हित में हो. बीसीआई अधिवक्ता अधिनियम, 1961 के तहत स्थापित एक वैधानिक निकाय है, और यह भारत में कानूनी प्रैक्टिस और कानूनी शिक्षा की देखरेख करती है. इस फैसले के बाद बीसीआई ने तर्क दिया है कि उसके कदम से देश में प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश को लेकर होने वाली चिंताए खत्म हो जाएगी. इससे भारत अंतर्राष्ट्रीय वाणिज्यिक के बीच मध्यस्थता का केंद्र बन जाएगा. ये नियम उन विदेशी लॉ फर्मों को कानूनी स्पष्टता प्रदान करेगा जो वर्तमान में भारत में बहुत सीमित तरीके से काम करती हैं. बीसीआई ने अपने बयान में कहा कि यह नियम भारत में विदेशी कानून और अलग-अलग अंतरराष्ट्रीय कानून के साथ अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मध्यस्थता मामलों की प्रैक्टिस करने को और कारगर बनाने की दिशा में काम करेगा. वकीलों के पेशे में क्या बदलने वाला है? बार काउंसिल देश में विदेशी वकीलों की एंट्री के किसी भी प्रस्ताव का विरोध करता आया है. 2018 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी उसकी बात पर सहमति जताई थी कि मौजूदा कानून के तहत भारत में विदेशी वकीलों को प्रैक्टिस करने की इजाजत नहीं दी जा सकती है.अब नए फैसले से देश में विदेशी वकीलों की एंट्री में ज्यादा पेशेवराना रवैया देखने को मिलेगा. विदेशी वकीलों के लिए सीमित दायरे में भी बड़ा मार्केट उपलब्ध होगा , क्योंकि देश में बड़ी संख्या में विदेशी कंपनियां काम कर रही है और आगे कई कंपनियां निवेश करने वाली हैं. नए नियम के मुताबिक विदेशी वकील और कानून फर्मों को भारत में अभ्यास करने के लिए बीसीआई के साथ पंजीकरण कराने की अनुमति दी गई है . इसके तहत वो अपने देश के कानून का अभ्यास करने के हकदार होंगे, वे भारतीय कानून का अभ्यास नहीं कर सकते है. इसके अलावा विदेशी वकीलों या विदेशी लॉ फर्मों को किसी भी अदालत, न्यायाधिकरण या किसी भी वैधानिक या नियामक प्राधिकरणों के समक्ष पेश होने की अनुमति नहीं दी जाएगी. शर्तें जान लीजिए विदेशी कानून कंपनियां अब तक कैसे काम कर रही थी? विदेशी कानून फर्मों के भारतीय बाजार में प्रवेश करने का मुद्दा 2009 में बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट के समक्ष पेश किया गया था. 'लॉयर्स कलेक्टिव बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया' मामले में बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने अनिवार्य रूप से कहा कि केवल भारतीय कानून की डिग्री रखने वाले भारतीय ही भारत में कानून का अभ्यास कर सकते हैं. उच्च न्यायालय में अधिवक्ता अधिनियम की धारा 29 के मुताबिक केवल बीसीआई के साथ नामांकित वकील ही कानून का अभ्यास कर सकते हैं. उच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि 'अभ्यास' में वादी और गैर-वादी दोनों तरह की प्रैक्टिस होंगी. इसलिए विदेशी कंपनियां न तो भारत में अपने ग्राहकों को सलाह दे सकती थी और न ही अदालत में पेश हो सकती थी. साल 2012 में 'एके बालाजी बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया' मामले में यह मुद्दा मद्रास हाईकोर्ट के सामने आया था. 2015 में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एक फैसले में विदेशी कानून फर्मों की प्रैक्टिस को थोड़ी मान्यता दी थी. 'एके बालाजी बनाम भारत सरकार' मामले में मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि विदेशी कंपनियां मुकदमेबाजी या गैर-मुकदमेबाजी पक्ष पर तब तक अभ्यास नहीं कर सकती हैं जब तक कि वे अधिवक्ता अधिनियम और बीसीसीआई नियमों पूरा नहीं करती हैं. नए फैसले में ये कहा गया कि विदेशी वकील भारतीय क्लाइंट को केवल अस्थायी आधार पर यानी ‘फ्लाई इन एंड फ्लाई आउट’ मोड पर सलाह दे सकते हैं. फैसले में यह भी कहा गया है कि अंतरराष्ट्रीय वाणिज्यिक आर्बिट्रेशन से संबंधित अनुबंध से जुड़े विवादों के संबंध में आर्बिट्रेशन की कार्यवाही करने के लिए विदेशी वकीलों को भारत आने से कोई रोक-टोक नहीं होगी. इसके अलावा, मध्यस्थता और सुलह अधिनियम, 1996 में पेश किए गए अंतरराष्ट्रीय वाणिज्यिक मध्यस्थता के मकसद ध्यान में रखते हुए, विदेशी वकीलों को भारत आने और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय वाणिज्यिक मध्यस्थता से संबंधित अनुबंध से जुड़े विवादों में मध्यस्थता कार्यवाही करने से नहीं रोका जाएगा. कानूनी पेशे में पहले ही बिजनेस प्रोसेस आउटसोर्सिंग (बीपीओ) जैसे फर्मों, लीगल प्रोसेस आउटसोर्सिंग (एलपीओ) ने वकीलों के लिए नियम बनाए गए हैं. ये कहा गया कि पहले वे अनिश्चित कानूनी ढांचे में काम कर रहे थे और सुप्रीम कोर्ट को इस मुद्दे पर हस्तक्षेप करना पड़ा. क्या था SC का फैसला? एके बालाजी बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया' मामले को मद्रास और बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने बीसीआई और लॉयर्स कलेक्टिव द्वारा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय मे 2018 में चुनौती दी थी. 2018 में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने विदेशी कानून फर्मों और वकीलों को अनुमति देने से इनकार करने वाले उच्च न्यायालय के दोनों फैसलों को बरकरार रखा, कुछ संशोधनों के साथ कुछ मामलों में विदेशी वकील "फ्लाई इन एंड फ्लाई आउट" यानी अपने क्लाइंट को सलाह देने के लिए भारत आ सकते थे. नए फैसले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट की जस्टिस आदर्श कुमार गोयल और रोहिंग्टन नरीमन की बेंच ने 2012 के मद्रास हाईकोर्ट के फैसले को आंशिक तौर पर सही ठहराया है. ये मामला 'एके बालाजी बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया' का था. अब विदेशी लॉ फर्म कुछ वक्त के लिए भारत आकर सलाह दे सकते हैं. इसके अलावा अंतरराष्ट्रीय आर्बिट्रेशन मामलों के लिए विदेशी वकीलों के भारत आने पर कोई ऐतराज नहीं है. बस शर्त यही है कि भारतीय कानूनी कोड के नियम उन पर भी लागू होंगे. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एडवोकेट एक्ट 1961 के प्रावधानों में भी बदलाव किया है. इस प्रावधान के तहत अंतरराष्ट्रीय कारोबारी मामलों में विदेशी वकीलों पर पूरी तरह पाबंदी थी.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Amrit Mahotsav of Independence is being celebrated on the completion of 75 years of India, this year on the call of Prime Minister Modi the program "Har Ghar Tiranga" is also being celebrated in the country from August 13 to August 15, for which necessary changes in the flag code As such, now the national flag can be flown in day and night also. Every year you must have seen that on the occasion of Independence Day and Republic Day, in the spirit of patriotism, people put the national flag on their car, but do you know that not everyone can put the flag of India on their car and do so Flag Code is infringement. Who can put up the flag? According to the information available on the official website of the Ministry of Home Affairs, in Section IX Para 3.44 of the Flag Code, certain people have been given special rights to hoist the flag in the car (motor-cars), which is- President and Vice President, Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers Union Minister of State Chief Minister and Cabinet Minister speaker Deputy Speaker of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Heads of Indian Missions Posts abroad, Speakers of the Legislative Assemblies, Chief Justice of India, Judge of Supreme Court, Chief Justice and Judge of High Court How to put the flag? When a foreign guest travels in a car provided by the government, the national flag has to be displayed on the right side of the car and the flag of the person of the other country concerned is to be displayed on the left side of the car. Action will be taken for breaking the rules According to the Flag Code, any person other than the person mentioned above can be punished for putting a flag on the car, which has a provision of imprisonment up to 3 years or fine under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

As an encouraging news, more than 1 crore cases have been settled in the National Lok Adalat held on 13th August. As per NALSA's press release, 25 lakh pending cases and over 75 lakh pre-litigation cases were disposed of in Lok Adalat. Lok Adalats were held in all Union Territories and States except Delhi under the leadership of Justice UU Lalit, who is also the Chairman of NALSA. Significantly, the Lok Adalat in Delhi was adjourned till August 20 as preparations for the Independence Day were underway. National Lok Adalats are organized by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to provide affordable and easy access to justice to the litigants. Through Lok Adalats, the government and the judiciary aim to reduce the burden on the courts by targeting pending cases. During his interaction with the stakeholders, Justice UU Lalit observed that Lok Adalats have created history by providing an alternative mechanism to the litigants to get satisfactory and timely dispute resolution.

The Madras High Court has ruled that if the removal of a husband from his house ensures domestic peace, the courts must issue such orders, whether he has an alternative residence or not. According to Justice RN Manjula, the courts should not be indifferent to women who fear the presence of their husbands in the house. “If removal of the husband alone from the house is the only way to ensure domestic peace, then the courts should issue such orders, irrespective of whether the defendant has any other residence of his own or not. It's fine if he has an alternative accommodation, but if he doesn't, it's his responsibility to find it." According to the judge, the orders issued for the protection of women in cases of domestic violence should be practical. It was also said that safety orders are usually issued to ensure that the woman feels safe in her home area. The court was hearing a plea by a wife challenging a district judge's order refusing to issue an order for her "abusive and unruly" husband to leave their shared home. A lawyer by profession, the woman said that her husband's attitude towards her and her work was negative, and that he often abused her and created a tense atmosphere in the home. The husband, on the other hand, believed that an ideal mother would only take care of the children and do household chores. This argument was rejected by the Court, which held that if a husband does not allow his wife to be more than a housewife, her life becomes miserable. The husband developed a hostile attitude towards his wife as a result of his lack of understanding and respect towards his professional commitments. Their intolerance appears to cause discord and problems in the lives of the parties "specified order". It was also noted that the husband had leveled an allegation of prejudice against another judge of the High Court, who had passed the order in the case, which resulted in suo motu contempt proceedings being initiated against him.

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.

Case Title: Sunita et al. v. Vijay Pali Bench: Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma Citation: CRL. Rev. P. 161/2018 The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that, once a petition under section 125 CrPC has been pronounced, a subsequent petition cannot be entertained, arising out of the same dispute as the earlier one under section 125 CrPC. arising out of the issues already settled in the petition filed. A bench of Justice Swaran Kanta Sharma was considering the revision petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court, which had dismissed the maintenance application filed by the petitioner on the ground of Corres Judicata. In this case, the marriage was solemnized between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1. Since the time of the separation, the parties have been involved in several lawsuits. Out of which one such case was registered under section 125 of CrPC. The second petition was filed by the petitioner under section 125 of CrPC. To direct the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month in favor of the petitioner no. 1 and also to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favor of the petitioner no. The issue of consideration before the bench was: However, the said case was dismissed by judicial decision on the ground that before filing the said petition, the petitioner along with his two children filed a petition under section 125 of CrPC before the court of ACJM, Gurgaon, Haryana. Had it. Where once a favorable order has been passed on the merits u/s 125 Cr.P.C, can a subsequent petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C be filed? The bench observed that “a petition under section 125 of CrPC, by virtue of its universal applicability, shall be covered by the principle of justice. Once a petition has been adjudicated under section 125 of the CrPC, favorably by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits, a subsequent petition cannot be preferred which is a similar dispute having similar circumstances and grounds. as laid down in the petition filed earlier under section 125 CrPC. The High Court observed that the doctrine of res judicata evolved to prevent plurality of litigation in respect of a single issue and eliminates the issue of having a final adjudication ensuring finality in litigation. This ensures abuse of the process of law and deprives a litigant of access to the courts of repeatedly aggravating issues which have become final between the parties after the court of law has decided on the basis of merit. In view of the above, the High Court dismissed the petition.

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.

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.

October 18, 2023 10:30 AM Bar Council of India has announced the revised schedule for AIBE XVIII examination in 2023. The exam will now be held on November 26, 2023. Additionally, the registration deadline for the exam has been extended. Candidates can now submit their application forms till November 4, 2023. Earlier the last date for registration was fixed as 9 October 2023. Those planning to sit the AIBE 18 exam should take note of the new schedule. The last date to submit AIBE XVIII application form for 2023 is now November 4, 2023. The application form can be found on the official website 👉 https://www.allindiabarexamination.com/(https://www.allindiabarexamination.com/) AIBE XVIII examination will be conducted in pen-and-paper mode across 50 examination centers in 50 cities across the country. Candidates will have the option to choose from three different examination centres. The question paper of AIBE 18 will consist of 100 multiple choice questions. The purpose of the examination is to provide Certificate of Practice (COP) to law graduates to practice law. To be eligible for AIBE XVIII examination in 2024, candidates must fulfill certain criteria. It includes a bachelor's degree in law (3-year LLB or 5-year LLB) from a university recognized by the Bar Council of India. There is no age limit to take the AIBE examination, and law graduates must have a valid enrollment certificate. They are required to pass the AIBE examination within two years of enrollment in any State Bar Council. As part of the registration process for AIBE XVIII, candidates will have to fill various details on their application form. This includes personal details, educational qualifications, State Bar Council nomination details and preferred testing cities and languages.

Case Title: Nand Kishor Gupta v. The State of Jharkhand Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Citation: W.P.(Cr.) No. 425 of 2021 Lawyer Uses Enrolment Number of Another Lawyer in Filing Vakalatnama The Jharkhand HC on Wednesday observed that in filing the vakalatnama interpolation has been made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi referred the matter to the Bar Council of India as well as the Jharkhand State Bar Council who will enquire into the matter. In this case, Mr. Rishi Chandan, who is a practising lawyer of Jharkhand HC pointed out that his senior is Mr. Rajiv Lochan and his Enrolment Number has been used in filing valalatnama. It was submitted that the spelling of the name of his senior is Rajiv Lochan whereas the spelling of this advocate is Rajeev Lochan. Mr. Jagdeesh, submitted that Rajeev Lochan who is arguing this matter sent vakalatnama in which Enrolment No. is 3325/2000 disclosed and he has filed the vakalatnama as it is he received. The entire document has been sent by Rajeev Lochan from Delhi. High Court observed that it appears that in filing this vakalatnama interpolation has been made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner namely, Rajeev Lochan. The bench referred the matter to the Bar Council of India as well as the Jharkhand State Bar Council who will enquire into the matter. High Court found that “This practice is looms large in the entire country. The concern has been shown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts. In one of the matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India to find out fake lawyers and probably the Bar Council of India has taken certain steps pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” In view of the above, High Court directed the Bar Council of India and Jharkhand State Bar Council to look into the matter and submit a report to the Court within four weeks. High Court listed the matter on 19.09.2022.

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

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

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.

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

Lawyer Caught Using ChatGPT in Court to Argue- Know What Happened Next Artificial intelligence is a topic that is frequently discussed nowadays. It will keep you entertained if you use it in a humorous manner. But is it appropriate to rely entirely on it for everything? This is an open question. People are currently raising numerous concerns about the use of artificial intelligence. Some argue that it is not suitable for humans. Many, on the other hand, believe that if used correctly, it can be extremely beneficial. Recently, news from New York surfaced regarding the use of artificial intelligence. In this case, a lawyer used ChatGPT to help him with his case. But it didn’t work out. The lawyer was unaware that ChatGPT does not provide answers based on facts. The lawyer received incorrect information from the machine. On that basis, he presented an argument in court. The judge chastised the lawyer for wasting the court’s time on irrelevant facts. Steven’s case included six incidents that occurred between 1999 and 2019. On the basis of these, Steven requested that the client’s case not be dismissed. However, neither the airline’s lawyer nor the judge were given any information about the case. When Steven was asked about these cases, he stated that he had used ChatGPT for the case and obtained information about them from him. Steven claimed in his defence after being reprimanded by the judge that he was unaware that ChatGPT was providing false information. Following this case, questions about artificial intelligence began to emerge.

क्या चेक बाउंस नोटिस देने के 15 दिनों के भीतर एनआई एक्ट की धारा 138 के तहत शिकायत दर्ज की जा सकती है? सुप्रीम कोर्ट करेगा तय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को एक विशेष अनुमति याचिका में नोटिस जारी किया, जिसमें इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ खंडपीठ के उस आदेश को चुनौती दी गई थी, जिसमें वैधानिक पंद्रह दिनों के नोटिस की समाप्ति से पहले निगोशिएबल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एक्ट की धारा 138 के तहत एक आपराधिक शिकायत को रद्द करने से इनकार कर दिया गया था। न्यायमूर्ति जे.के. माहेश्वरी और न्यायमूर्ति पी.एस. नरसिम्हा की बेंच ने नोटिस जाती करते हुए गिरफ्तारी के गैर-जमानती वारंट जारी करने पर रोक लगा दी और मामले को गर्मी की छुट्टी के बाद लगाने को कहा। अवकाशकालीन पीठ के समक्ष यह तर्क दिया गया कि लखनऊ खंडपीठ में इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय ने यह नोटिस करने में विफल रहा कि एनआई अधिनियम की धारा 138 के तहत दर्ज की गई शिकायत, उस तारीख से 15 दिन की समाप्ति से पहले दायर की गई है, जिस दिन दराज/आरोपी को नोटिस दिया गया था। कानून की नजर में शिकायत नहीं है और ऐसी शिकायत के आधार पर किसी अपराध का संज्ञान नहीं लिया जा सकता है। अपील में यह तर्क दिया गया है कि, निगोशिएबल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एक्ट की धारा 138 के तहत मामला दर्ज करने के लिए, ऐसे चेक के भुगतानकर्ता को प्रतिवादी (मूल शिकायतकर्ता) से उक्त नोटिस प्राप्त होने के पंद्रह दिनों के भीतर भुगतान करने में विफल होना चाहिए। और वर्तमान मामले में, याचिकाकर्ता को 9 जून, 2018 को एक नोटिस दिया गया था, शिकायत 21 जून, 2018 को दर्ज की गई थी, और याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ सिद्ध ऋण के खिलाफ कार्यवाही शुरू की गई थी। याचिकाकर्ता ने इस बात पर जोर दिया है कि शिकायत 24 जून, 2018 के बाद ही दर्ज की जा सकती थी, लेकिन पंद्रह दिन की अवधि समाप्त होने से पहले 21 जून, 2018 को दायर की गई थी। एसएलपी के अनुसार, “ट्रायल कोर्ट ने शिकायत के कानूनी और तथ्यात्मक पहलुओं पर विचार किए बिना गलत तरीके से वर्तमान याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ समन जारी किया और एनआई अधिनियम की धारा 138 की आवश्यकता को नजरअंदाज कर दिया। याचिकाकर्ता ने योगेंद्र प्रताप सिंह बनाम सावित्री पांडे के मामले का हवाला दिया, जिसकी रिपोर्ट (2014) 10 SCC 71 3 में दी गई थी, जिसमें सुप्रीम कोर्ट की तीन-न्यायाधीशों की बेंच ने फैसला सुनाया कि “एक शिकायत प्राप्ति की तारीख से 15 दिनों की समाप्ति से पहले दर्ज की गई धारा 138 के परंतुक के उपवाक्य (सी) के तहत जारी नोटिस कायम रखने योग्य नहीं है।”

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

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

1. "Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier." -Mother Teresa 2. "When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on." -Franklin D. Roosevelt 3. "Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." -Margaret Mead 4. "Don't judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant." -Robert Louis Stevenson 5. "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." -Eleanor Roosevelt 6. "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." -Benjamin Franklin 7. "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart." -Helen Keller 8. "It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light." -Aristotle 9. "Whoever is happy will make others happy too." -Anne Frank 10. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson 11. "If life were predictable it would cease to be life and be without flavor." -Eleanor Roosevelt 12. "In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." -Abraham Lincoln 13. "Life is a succession of lessons which must be lived to be understood." -Ralph Waldo Emerson 14. "You will face many defeats in life, but never let yourself be defeated." -Maya Angelou 15. "Never let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game." -Babe Ruth 16. "Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not." -Oscar Wilde 17. "The only impossible journey is the one you never begin." -Tony Robbins 18. "In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love." -Mother Teresa 19. "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." -Albert Einstein 20. "The purpose of our lives is to be happy." -Dalai Lama 21. "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." -John Lenno 22. "You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." -Mae West 23. "Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air." -Ralph Waldo Emerso 24. "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined." -Henry David Thoreau 25. "The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." -Nelson Mandela 26. "Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated." -Confucius 27. "May you live all the days of your life." -Jonathan Swift 28. "Life itself is the most wonderful fairy tale." -Hans Christian Andersen 29. "Do not let making a living prevent you from making a life." -John Wooden 30. "Life is ours to be spent, not to be saved." -D. H. Lawrence 31. "Keep smiling, because life is a beautiful thing and there's so much to smile about." -Marilyn Monroe 32. "Life is a long lesson in humility." -James M. Barrie 33. "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on." -Robert Frost 34. "Love the life you live. Live the life you love." -Bob Marley 35. "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." -Helen Keller 36. "You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose." -Dr. Seuss 37. "Life is made of ever so many partings welded together." -Charles Dickens 38. "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking." -Steve Jobs 39. "Life is trying things to see if they work." -Ray Bradbury 40. "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -Thomas A. Edison 41. "The secret of success is to do the common thing uncommonly well." -John D. Rockefeller Jr. 42. "I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -Thomas Jefferson 43. "Success is not final; failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts." -Winston S. Churchill 44. "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." -Walt Disney 45. "Don't be distracted by criticism. Remember — the only taste of success some people get is to take a bite out of you." -Zig Ziglar 46. "Success usually comes to those who are too busy to be looking for it." -Henry David Thoreau 47. "I never dreamed about success, I worked for it." -Estee Lauder 48. "Success seems to be connected with action. Successful people keep moving. They make mistakes but they don't quit." -Conrad Hilton 49. "There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure." -Colin Powell 50. "The real test is not whether you avoid this failure, because you won't. It's whether you let it harden or shame you into inaction, or whether you learn from it; whether you choose to persevere." -Barack Obama 51. "The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today." -Franklin D. Roosevelt 52. "It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation." -Herman Melville 53. "Successful people do what unsuccessful people are not willing to do. Don't wish it were easier; wish you were better." -Jim Rohn 54. "The road to success and the road to failure are almost exactly the same." -Colin R. Davis 55. "I failed my way to success." -Thomas Edison 56. "If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success." -James Cameron 57. "If you really look closely, most overnight successes took a long time." -Steve Jobs 58. "A successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him." -David Brinkley 59. "Things work out best for those who make the best of how things work out." -John Wooden 60. "Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value." -Albert Einstein 61. "Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great." -John D. Rockefeller 62. "Always bear in mind that your own resolution to success is more important than any other one thing." -Abraham Lincoln 63. "Success is walking from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm." -Winston Churchill 64. "You know you are on the road to success if you would do your job and not be paid for it." -Oprah Winfrey 65. "If you want to achieve excellence, you can get there today. As of this second, quit doing less-than-excellent work." -Thomas J. Watson 66. "If you genuinely want something, don't wait for it — teach yourself to be impatient." -Gurbaksh Chahal 67. "The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary." -Vidal Sassoon 68. "If you are not willing to risk the usual, you will have to settle for the ordinary." -Jim Rohn 69. "Before anything else, preparation is the key to success." -Alexander Graham Bell 70. "People who succeed have momentum. The more they succeed, the more they want to succeed and the more they find a way to succeed. Similarly, when someone is failing, the tendency is to get on a downward spiral that can even become a self-fulfilling prophecy." -Tony Robbins 71. "Believe you can and you're halfway there." -Theodore Roosevelt 72. "The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be." -Ralph Waldo Emerson 73. "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." -Maya Angelou 74. "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -Ayn Rand 75. "Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is." -Vince Lombardi 76. "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." -Henry Ford 77. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." -Wayne Gretzky 78. "I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the water to create many ripples." -Mother Teresa 79. "You become what you believe." -Oprah Winfrey 80. "The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." -Amelia Earhart 81. "How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." -Anne Frank 82. "An unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates 83. "Everything you've ever wanted is on the other side of fear." -George Addair 84. "Dream big and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan 85. "You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don't try." -Beverly Sills 86. "Life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it." -Charles Swindoll 87. "Nothing is impossible, the word itself says, ‘I'm possible!'" -Audrey Hepburn 88. "It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop." -Confucius 89. "When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it." -Henry Ford 90. "Too many of us are not living our dreams because we are living our fears." -Les Brown 91. "I have learned over the years that when one's mind is made up, this diminishes fear." -Rosa Parks 92. "I didn't fail the test. I just found 100 ways to do it wrong." -Benjamin Franklin 93. "If you're offered a seat on a rocket ship, don't ask what seat! Just get on." -Sheryl Sandberg 94. "I attribute my success to this: I never gave or took any excuse." -Florence Nightingale 95. "I would rather die of passion than of boredom." -Vincent van Gogh 96. "If you look at what you have in life, you'll always have more. If you look at what you don't have in life, you'll never have enough." -Oprah Winfrey 97. "Dreaming, after all, is a form of planning." -Gloria Steinem 98. "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve." -Napoleon Hill 99. "First, have a definite, clear practical ideal; a goal, an objective. Second, have the necessary means to achieve your ends; wisdom, money, materials, and methods. Third, adjust all your means to that end." -Aristotle 100. "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines, sail away from safe harbor, catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, Dream, Discover." -Mark Twain

May 26, 2023 10:04 PM नेशनल इंवेस्टिगेशन एजेंसी (एनआईए) ने हत्या और टेरर फंडिंग के मामले में दोषी करार दिए गए यासिन मलिक को फांसी की सजा की मांग के लिए दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की है। जस्टिस सिद्धार्थ मृदुल की अध्यक्षता वाली बेंच इस याचिका पर 29 मई को सुनवाई करेगा।एनआईए ने कहा है कि यासिन मलिक ने अपना गुनाह कबूला है इस आधार पर उसे फांसी की सजा नहीं देने का फैसला सजा देने की नीति पर सवाल खड़े करता है। ऐसे आतंकवादी जिसने देश के खिलाफ युद्ध छेड़ा है, उसने फांसी से बचने के लिए गुनाह कबूल करने का रास्ता चुना है। 25 मई 2022 को पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट ने हत्या और टेरर फंडिंग के मामले में दोषी करार दिए गए यासिन मलिक को उम्रकैद की सजा सुनाई थी । पटियाला हाउस कोर्ट ने यासिन मलिक पर यूएपीए की धारा 17 के तहत उम्रकैद और दस लाख रुपये का जुर्माना, धारा 18 के तहत दस साल की कैद और दस हजार रुपये का जुर्माना, धारा 20 के तहत दस वर्ष की सजा और 10 हजार रुपये का जुर्माना, धारा 38 और 39 के तहत पांच साल की सजा और पांच हजार रुपये का जुर्माना लगाया था। कोर्ट ने यासिन मलिक पर भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 120बी के तहत दस वर्ष की सजा और दस हजार रुपये का जुर्माना, धारा 121ए के तहत दस साल की सजा और दस हजार रुपये का जुर्माना लगाया था। कोर्ट ने कहा था कि यासिन मलिक को मिली ये सभी सजाएं साथ-साथ चलेंगी। इसका मतलब की अधिकतम उम्रकैद की सजा और दस लाख रुपये की सजा प्रभावी होगी। 10 मई 2022 को यासिन मलिक ने अपना गुनाह कबूल कर लिया था। 16 मार्च 2022 को कोर्ट ने हाफिज सईद , सैयद सलाहुद्दीन, यासिन मलिक, शब्बीर शाह और मसरत आलम, राशिद इंजीनियर, जहूर अहमद वताली, बिट्टा कराटे, आफताफ अहमद शाह, अवतार अहम शाह, नईम खान, बशीर अहमद बट्ट ऊर्फ पीर सैफुल्ला समेत दूसरे आरोपियों के खिलाफ आरोप तय करने का आदेश दिया था।  एनआईए के मुताबिक पाकिस्तान की खूफिया एजेंसी आईएसआई के सहयोग से लश्कर-ए-तोयबा, हिजबुल मुजाहिद्दीन, जेकेएलएफ, जैश-ए-मोहम्मद जैसे संगठनों ने जम्मू-कश्मीर में आम नागरिकों और सुरक्षा बलों पर हमले और हिंसा को अंजाम दिया। 1993 में अलगववादी गतिविधियों को अंजाम देने के लिए आल पार्टी हुर्रियत कांफ्रेंस की स्थापना की गई। एनआईए के मुताबिक हाफिद सईद ने हुर्रियत कांफ्रेंस के नेताओं के साथ मिलकर हवाला और दूसरे चैनलों के जरिये आतंकी गतिविधियों को अंजाम देने के लिए धन का लेन-देन किया। इस धन का उपयोग वे घाटी में अशांति फैलाने , सुरक्षा बलों पर हमला करने, स्कूलों को जलाने और सार्वजनिक संपत्ति को नुकसान पहुंचाने का काम किया। इसकी सूचना गृह मंत्रालय को मिलने के बाद एनआईए ने भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 120बी, 121, 121ए और यूएपीए की धारा 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 और 40 के तहत केस दर्ज किया था।

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