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

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

Centre Issues Guidelines For Online Gaming, Prohibits Games Involving Betting The Centre issued regulations to control the internet gaming business on Thursday, prohibiting real money games including wagering or betting. The government has also chosen a self-regulation strategy for the online gaming sector, notifying three self-regulatory organisations that will approve the games that can function in the country in accordance with the guidelines.Internet games that entail wagering or betting would be subject to new online gaming regulations, according to Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Minister of State for Electronics and IT.“Permissible online games are ones that do not entail wagering, user harm in their content, or produce any addictive repercussions for children,” Chandrasekhar explained.He stated that online gaming will be governed by SROs comprised of industry, players, and other stakeholders, rather than the government.According to the rules, SROs should also include an educator, a psychologist or mental health specialist, an individual who is or has been a member or official of an organisation concerned with the protection of children’s rights, and so on.“This is an enabling environment that will enable for serious and considerable growth in the online gaming market in India, which is a very big opportunity,” the minister said.The online gaming rules have been added as an addition to the 2021 IT Rules.The online gaming self-regulatory authority may declare an online real money game lawful if “the online real money game does not include wagering on any outcome,” according to the The minister stated that if the SROs do not follow the guidelines, they will be denotified.When asked about several applications that promise monetary incentives based on the outcome of IPL cricket matches, the minister stated that real money gambling is allowed, but it becomes illegal when money is placed on the outcome of the game, and any SRO that allows such activities is breaking the regulations.According to the notified rules, SROs must provide a framework on their website to protect players from the risk of gaming addiction, financial loss, and financial fraud.The framework should contain recurrent warning messages at a higher frequency beyond a suitable duration for a gaming session, as well as the ability for a user to exclude himself when user-defined time or money limitations are reached.Some states have banned online fantasy gaming platforms in response to reports of suicide and addiction among residents.According to Chandrasekhar, any state that is truly attempting to crack down on betting or gambling would discover that these restrictions are not “ultra vires” to whatever they are doing.“Any jurisdiction that is attempting to cut and slice based on criteria that are beyond betting and being selective in terms of what is legal and illegal, we have made it very clear what is permitted and what is not permissible,” the minister added.According to the guidelines, games involving real money must adhere to KYC criteria.

Bar Council of Delhi Forms Committee to Draft Advocates Protection Act The Bar Council of Delhi has established a special committee to draft the Advocates Protection Act for the safety of lawyers practising in the national capital who are registered with the lawyers’ body. The move comes after recent attacks on lawyers, both inside and outside the courts. The legislation aims to be enacted by the Delhi Government, and the newly-formed Special Committee, led by K.C. Mittal, former Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, will draft the comprehensive plan. Other members include D.K. Sharma, Chairman of Executive Committee of BCD; Sanjay Rathi, Hony. Secretary of BCD; Ajayinder Sangwan, Co-Chairman of BCD; and Ajay Sondhi, Co-Chairman of BCD. The Bar Council of India has also proposed a similar legislation to the Government of India. The Bar Council of Delhi has also requested input from all its members and office bearers of the coordination Committee of the district bar associations.

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday said the judiciary is committed to take justice to every home through the use of technology. Stressing the need for live streaming of judicial proceedings, he said that justice could be taken to villages of the country by translating orders into local languages. “Through technology, we are trying to take justice to every home. Under E courts phase three, Rs 7,000 crore has been provided by the government of India. Through technology, judicial work can be linked with common life,” the CJI said Addressing a gathering during the inauguration of the new building of the Jharkhand High Court, Justice Chandrachud said the judiciary can take justice to 6.4 lakh villages when court work is done in languages mentioned in the Constitution. He said 6,000 court orders were translated into Hindi. The CJI said, “My journey in the Supreme Court has helped define the image of justice and injustice. For petty crimes, people are lodged in jail due to illiteracy.” Presumption of innocence is the base of the judicial system, Justice Chandrachud said. He said the delay in granting bail to the poor undertrial shakes the faith of people. Stressing the need for proper infrastructure in courts, he said there are numerous courts which do not have toilets for women. He said even now, tribals do not have proper land-related documents which should be taken into account.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

June 19, 2023वकीलों के लिए बड़ी खबर: बार काउंसिल ने COP हेतु जारी किया फॉर्म- जानिए किसे भरना है ये फॉर्म और क्या है प्रक्रिया रविवार को बार काउंसिल ऑफ उत्तर प्रदेश ने उत्तर प्रदेश की अदालतों में प्रैक्टिस कर रहे वकीलों के लिए एक महत्वपूर्ण फॉर्म जारी किया। बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया सर्टिफिकेट एंड प्लेस ऑफ प्रैक्टिस (वेरिफिकेशन) नियम, 2015 के अन्तर्गत COP जारी करने हेतु ये फॉर्म जारी किया गया है। हाल ही में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बार काउंसिल ऑफ इण्डिया सार्टिफिकेट एण्ड प्लेस ऑफ प्रैक्टिस (वैरीफिकेशन) नियम, 2015 के वैधता को सही ठैराया और निर्देश दिया कि फ़र्ज़ी वकीलों कि छटाई जल्द से जल्द की जाये। इसी के क्रम में ये प्रक्रिया अपनायी जा रही है। आइये जानते है किसे भरना है ये फॉर्म यह फार्म केवल उन अधिवक्ताओं के लिये है, जिनको पूर्व में सी.ओ.पी. जारी किया जा चुका है और उनके सी.ओ.पी. की वैधता तिथि समाप्त होने वाली है / समाप्त हो चुकी है। यह नियम बार काउंसिल ऑफ इण्डिया द्वारा लागू किया गया है। क्या है फीस? इस फॉर्म के साथ रूपये 500/- (पांच सौ) का निर्धारित शुल्क नकद रूप से जमा करना होगा ।कैसे भरना है फॉर्म? यह फार्म पूर्ण कर अपने बार एसोसिएशन के अध्यक्ष / सचिव के द्वारा प्रमाणित करवाकर बार काउंसिल ऑफ उत्तर प्रदेश, प्रयागराज में जमा करना होगा। यदि आवेदक अधिवक्ता किसी भी बार एसोसिएशन के सदस्य नहीं है, तो कारण लिखें । कौन- कौन से दस्तावेज लगेंगे? नवीनीकरण फार्म के साथ अधिवक्ता कोई एक प्रमाण जैसे वकालतनामा, काज़ लिस्ट, केस स्टेटस, आदेश, प्रश्नोत्तरी नियुक्ति पत्र (शासकीय व अर्धशासकीय अधिवक्ता). नोटरी पत्र, ओथ कमिश्नर नियुक्ति पत्र, सेल डीड या अन्य कोई रजिस्ट्री पत्र, शपथ पत्र, निर्णय, टैक्सेशन में प्रैक्टिस करने वाले अधिवक्ता द्वारा कोई ऐसा प्रमाण जिससे यह स्पष्ट हो कि अधिवक्ता विधि व्यवसाय कर रहा है आदि की छायाप्रति संलग्न करें। (उपरोक्त प्रपत्र केवल 04 वर्षो के अर्थात् वर्ष 2018 2019 2021 एवं 2022 के संलग्न करें। कोविड-19 के कारण वर्ष 2020 की छूट दी गयी है। पिछले 05 वर्ष में यदि कोई आपराधिक मामला दर्ज हुआ है, तो उसका विवरण व स्थिति का भी उल्लेख करना है अनिवार्य है। फोटो स्टेट फॉर्म भी है मान्यसार्टिफिकेट एण्ड प्लेस ऑफ प्रैक्टिस (वैरीफिकेशन) के नवीनीकरण फार्म का फोटोस्टेट भी मान्य है तथा बार काउंसिल ऑफ उत्तर प्रदेश की वेबसाइट www.upbarcouncil.com पर सार्टिफिकेट एण्ड प्लेस ऑफ प्रैक्टिस (नवीनीकरण) फार्म डाउनलोड कर सकते हैं।

HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Boyfriend Saying 16-Year-Old Capable of Making Conscious Decision About Sex June 2023 In a significant ruling, the High Court of Meghalaya, headed by Justice W. Diengdoh, has quashed the proceedings in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case, emphasizing the importance of considering the consent and understanding of minors involved in relationships. The case, titled Shri. John Franklin Shylla vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr., saw the court reach a decision based on the peculiar facts and circumstances presented. The petitioner, Mr. John Franklin Shylla, was accused in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2021 under Section 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The case revolved around a relationship between Mr. Shylla and a minor girl, the daughter of respondent No. 2. The alleged incidents occurred in 2020 when Mr. Shylla, working at various households, became acquainted with the victim. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the relationship between Mr. Shylla and the minor girl was consensual and involved a boyfriend-girlfriend dynamic. It was argued that there was no element of sexual assault, as affirmed by the alleged victim’s statement under Section 164 and her deposition in court. The prosecution, represented by Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, conceded that there was no evidence of force involved in the sexual act. Citing previous legal precedents, the court acknowledged that cases involving teenagers and young adults involved in romantic relationships, despite being contrary to the law, should be considered carefully to ensure justice is served. Quoting the Madras High Court’s observations in Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. By. Inspector of Police, the court highlighted that “the objective of the POCSO Act was not to punish adolescents involved in relationships but to protect children from sexual assault, harassment, and pornography.”

Bar Council of India approves RV University's School of Law The Bar Council of India has approved RV University’s (RVU) School of Law and its five-year integrated BA LLB and BBA LLB programmes. The programmes will commence from August 2023. School of Law will be the sixth school under RVU. "Through the School of Law, we aim to nurture future lawyers who will uphold the principles of justice, integrity, and social responsibility. Our students will have the unique opportunity to learn the intersection of law with business, economics, technology and public policy," said Professor Y S R Murthy, Dean, School of Law, and Vice-Chancellor, RVU. “Through strategic tie-ups with corporate and law firms, industry partners, banking and financial institutions, think-tanks, and NGOs, we are committed to providing our students with invaluable learning opportunities,” he added. Board of Studies Dr A V S Murthy, Chancellor, RVU, opined that the university has assembled a distinguished Board of Studies, comprising experts from India and the world. “Under their guidance, our curriculum was crafted with care, incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives to equip our graduates with the skills needed to thrive in a rapidly evolving legal landscape,” he said.

सुप्रीम कोर्ट के रिटायर जस्टिस की जमीन हड़पने की कोशिश मामले में एक गिरफ्तार June 27, 2023 रांची, सुप्रीम कोर्ट के रिटायर जस्टिस स्व. युसूफ इकबाल की जमीन हड़पने की कोशिश मामले में रविवार रात पुलिस ने भू- माफिया जुनैद रजा उर्फ चुन्ना को गिरफ्तार किया है। थाना प्रभारी दयानंद कुमार ने सोमवार को बताया कि मामले में एक आरोपित को गिरफ्तार किया गया है। एक अन्य आरोपित की गिरफ्तारी के लिए संभावित ठिकानों पर छापेमारी की जा रही है। उल्लेखनीय है कि रविवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट के रिटायर जस्टिस स्व. युसूफ इकबाल की जमीन हड़पने की कोशिश मामले को लेकर दो भू- माफियाओं के खिलाफ प्राथमिकी दर्ज की गई थी। इसे लेकर लोअर बाजार थाना में जमीन की देखरेख में प्रतिनियुक्त हवलदार जैनुल अंसारीकी ओर से मामला दर्ज कराया गया था।

Adipurush Ban: Allahabad HC Issues Notice to Manoj Muntashir, Asks Centre Whether It Will Take Any Action in Public Interest June 27, 2023 The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow on Tuesday issued notices to Manoj Muntashir, who is Dialogue Writer of Adipurush movie, while dealing with two PIL pleas filed against the exhibition of the film Adipurush.  In a hearing today, the Court asked the Union of India whether it is considering taking action under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to protect the public interest.  This provision enables the government to call for the record of any proceeding pending before or decided by the Central Board of Film Certification.  The Court also allowed an application to include Manoj Muntashir Shukla, the dialogue writer of the film, as a party respondent in one of the PIL pleas and directed for notice to be issued to him.  The Court criticized the filmmakers of Adipurush for depicting religious characters like Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman in an objectionable manner.  It noted that the CBFC should have taken action while granting certification for the film.  The petitioner’s counsel drew the Court’s attention to objectionable coloured photographs of some parts of the film and guidelines for certification of films for public exhibition issued under Subsection 2 of Section 5-B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.  The petitioners argued that the film may adversely affect the sentiments of people who worship Lord Rama, Devi Sita, Lord Hanuman, etc., and would create disharmony in society. 

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

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

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

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

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।

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

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

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

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।”

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मंगलवार को दिल्ली पुलिस को 20 वर्षीय एक महिला को सुरक्षा देने का निर्देश दिया, जो कथित रूप से घर से भाग गई थी और अपने परिवार के सदस्यों से अपनी जान को खतरा होने की आशंका से डर रही थी। शीर्ष अदालत ने मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय के उस आदेश में हस्तक्षेप करने से इंकार करते हुए आदेश पारित किया, जिसमें महिला के अपहरण के आरोपी व्यक्ति की अग्रिम जमानत को रद्द कर दिया गया था। चूंकि मामले की सुनवाई न्यायमूर्ति बेला एम त्रिवेदी और न्यायमूर्ति प्रशांत कुमार मिश्रा की अवकाश पीठ कर रही थी, इसलिए महिला वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग के माध्यम से पेश हुई और अदालत से उसे व्यक्तिगत रूप से पेश होने की अनुमति देने का अनुरोध किया। अनुमति दिए जाने के बाद, वह पीठ के सामने पेश हुई और आशंका व्यक्त की कि उसके परिवार के सदस्यों से उसकी जान को खतरा है और आरोप लगाया कि उसका भाई उसका पीछा कर रहा है। महिला ने आशंका जताई कि उसे जबरन वापस अपने घर ले जाया जाएगा, जहां वह नहीं जाना चाहती। उसके मुताबिक, वह वाराणसी में रहती है और वहीं लौटना चाहती है। हालांकि, उसने सुरक्षा मांगी थी। जब महिलाओं ने अपनी स्थिति के बारे में अदालत को बताया, तो पीठ ने कहा कि उच्च न्यायालय ने यह देखते हुए कि वह जांच में सहयोग नहीं कर रहा है और बुलाए जाने के बावजूद जांच अधिकारी को जवाब नहीं दे रहा है, उस व्यक्ति को दी गई अग्रिम जमानत को रद्द कर दिया है।