LAWtool

बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया (बीसीआई) ने वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं, कानूनी फर्मों और स्वतंत्र वकीलों की सहायता करने वाले कनिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं के लिए न्यूनतम वजीफा की सिफारिश करते हुए नए दिशानिर्देश जारी किए हैं।यह कदम दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के 29 जुलाई के निर्देशों के बाद उठाया गया है, जिसके बाद अधिवक्ता सिमरन कुमारी ने जूनियर वकीलों के सामने आने वाली वित्तीय चुनौतियों के बारे में एक अभ्यावेदन दिया था। मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने पहले भी राज्य के सभी जूनियर वकीलों को ₹15,000 से ₹20,000 के बीच न्यूनतम मासिक वजीफा देने का आह्वान किया था।इसी तर्ज पर, शहरी क्षेत्रों में जूनियर वकीलों के लिए, बीसीआई ने न्यूनतम ₹20,000 प्रति माह वजीफा देने की सिफारिश की है। ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों में, अनुशंसित राशि ₹15,000 प्रति माह है, जो जूनियर अधिवक्ता की नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन साल की न्यूनतम अवधि के लिए प्रदान की जाएगी। हालांकि, न्यूनतम वजीफा अनिवार्य नहीं है। सभी राज्य बार काउंसिल और बार एसोसिएशन को संबोधित एक परिपत्र में, बीसीआई ने स्वीकार किया कि जूनियर अधिवक्ताओं को अक्सर अपने करियर के शुरुआती चरणों में महत्वपूर्ण वित्तीय कठिनाइयों का सामना करना पड़ता है। इसने यह भी उल्लेख किया कि छोटे शहरों या कम आकर्षक क्षेत्रों में वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं और फर्मों के पास पर्याप्त वजीफा प्रदान करने के लिए वित्तीय संसाधन नहीं हो सकते हैं। इसलिए, जबकि दिशा-निर्देशों को प्रोत्साहित किया जाता है, उन्हें पूरे पेशे में अनिवार्य रूप से लागू नहीं किया जाता है। बीसीआई ने इस बात पर जोर दिया है कि वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं और कानूनी फर्मों को न केवल वित्तीय सहायता पर ध्यान केंद्रित करना चाहिए, बल्कि जूनियर अधिवक्ताओं को मार्गदर्शन भी प्रदान करना चाहिए। इसमें कोर्टरूम अवलोकन, कानूनी शोध, प्रारूपण और केस रणनीति पर मार्गदर्शन के अवसर प्रदान करना शामिल है। दिशानिर्देश वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं और फर्मों को वजीफा राशि, अवधि और मार्गदर्शन के अवसरों को निर्दिष्ट करने वाले पत्रों के साथ जूनियर अधिवक्ताओं की नियुक्ति को औपचारिक बनाने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करते हैं। वजीफा भुगतान और नियुक्ति शर्तों का सटीक रिकॉर्ड बनाए रखा जाना चाहिए और वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में संबंधित राज्य बार काउंसिल को प्रस्तुत किया जाना चाहिए। जूनियर अधिवक्ता जिन्हें अनुशंसित वजीफा नहीं मिलता है या नियुक्ति से संबंधित शिकायतों का सामना करना पड़ता है, वे अपने संबंधित राज्य बार काउंसिल में शिकायत दर्ज करा सकते हैं। हालांकि, बीसीआई ने कहा कि वास्तविक वित्तीय बाधाओं पर आधारित शिकायतों को लचीले ढंग से निपटाया जाएगा, कुछ वरिष्ठ चिकित्सकों द्वारा सामना की जाने वाली सीमाओं को स्वीकार करते हुए। इसके अलावा, परिपत्र में उल्लेख किया गया है कि बीसीआई इन दिशानिर्देशों के कार्यान्वयन की समय-समय पर समीक्षा करने के लिए एक समिति का गठन करेगी, जो फीडबैक और मौजूदा आर्थिक स्थितियों के आधार पर वजीफा राशि को समायोजित करेगी।

World Teachers Day 2024: Why is World Teachers Day celebrated, what is the theme World Teachers Day 2024: World Teachers Day is being celebrated all over the world today. While Teachers' Day is celebrated on 5 September every year in India, World Teachers' Day is celebrated on 5 October every year globally. Its purpose is to salute the contribution of teachers around the world, their dedication, conscientiousness, encourage them and raise awareness about their rights. Apart from this, its objective is also to promote international solidarity and emphasize the importance of quality education globally. World Teachers' Day (International Teachers' Day) is organized jointly by UNICEF, International Labor Organization and Education International . Its celebration started in 1994. What is the history On October 5, 1966, a conference was held in Paris in which the 'Teaching in Freedom' treaty was signed. In this treaty, many recommendations were made to raise the level of rights, responsibilities, recruitment, employment, learning and teaching of teachers. In the year 1994, UNESCO's recommendation was passed with the support of 100 countries to celebrate World Teachers' Day internationally in the United Nations. After this, International Teachers' Day started being celebrated from 5 October 1994. What is the theme (World Teachers Day 2024 Theme): Theme of World Teachers Day 2024 Every year the theme of World Teachers' Day is decided by UNESCO. This time the theme is - "Valuing the voice of teachers: Towards a new social engagement for education". This theme highlights the importance of involving teachers in making educational policies. Happy World Teachers' Day to all teachers

क्यों मनाया जाता है कि विश्व शिक्षक दिवस, क्या है थीम. World Teachers Day 2024 : आज दुनिया भर में विश्व शिक्षक दिवस मनाया जा रहा है। भारत में जहां हर साल 5 सितंबर को शिक्षक दिवस मनाया जाता है, वैश्विक स्तर पर हर वर्ष 5 अक्टूबर को विश्व शिक्षक दिवस मनाया जाता है। इसका मकसद विश्व भर के शिक्षकों के योगदान, उनके समर्पण भाव, कर्तव्यनिष्ठा को सलाम करना, उन्हें प्रोत्साहित करना एवं उनके अधिकारों के प्रति जागरुकता बढ़ाना है। इसके अलावा इसका उद्देश्य अंतर्राष्ट्रीय एकजुटता को बढ़ावा देना और वैश्विक स्तर पर गुणवत्तापूर्ण शिक्षा के महत्व पर जोर देना भी है। विश्व शिक्षक दिवस (अंतर्राष्ट्रीय शिक्षक दिवस) का आयोजन यूनिसेफ, अंतर्राष्ट्रीय श्रम संगठन और एजुकेशन इंटरनेशनल (ईआई) मिलकर करते हैं। इसे मनाए जाने की शुरुआत 1994 से हुई थी। क्या है इतिहास 5 अक्टूबर, 1966 को पेरिस में एक सम्मेलन का आयोजन हुआ था जिसमें 'टीचिंग इन फ्रीडम' संधि पर हस्ताक्षर किए गए थे। इस संधि में शिक्षकों के अधिकार, जिम्मेदारी, भर्ती, रोजगार, सीखने- सिखाने के स्तर को ऊपर उठने के लिए कई सिफारिशें की गई थीं। संयुक्त राष्ट्र में विश्व शिक्षक दिवस को अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर मनाने के लिए साल 1994 में 100 देशों के समर्थन से यूनेस्को की सिफारिश को पारित कर दिया गया। इसके बाद 5 अक्टूबर 1994 से अंतरराष्ट्रीय शिक्षक दिवस मनाया जाने लगा। क्या है थीम ( World Teachers Day 2024 Theme ):विश्व शिक्षक दिवस 2024 की थीम हर वर्ष यूनेस्को की ओर से विश्व शिक्षक दिवस की थीम तय की जाती है। इस बार की थीम है - "शिक्षकों की आवाज को महत्व देना: शिक्षा के लिए एक नए सामाजिक जुड़ाव की ओर'। यह थीम शैक्षिक नीतियां बनाने में शिक्षकों को शामिल करने के महत्व पर रोशनी डालती है। सभी शिक्षकों को विश्व शिक्षक दिवस की हार्दिक शुभकामनाएं

Non-violence is the greatest religion. Be the change you wish to see in the world. The greatness of humanity lies not in how powerful it is, but in how humane it is. Until you actually lose someone, you do not understand their value. To answer cruelty with cruelty is to accept your own moral and intellectual degradation. Love is the greatest weapon in the world. An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its people are treated." The United Nations General Assembly resolution of 15 June 2007 declared 2 October (Gandhi Jayanti) as the International Day of Non-Violence because of the universal appeal and relevance of non-violence, aiming to support "a culture of peace, tolerance, understanding and non-violence". Tributes to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, a symbol of truth, non-violence and peace, on his birth anniversary

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।

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।

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

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

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.

AIBE XVIII (18) 2023: The Bar Council of India has once again revised the whole AIBE 18 Schedule 2023. Updated on Nov 9, 2023 AIBE XVIII (18) 2023: The Bar Council of India has once again revised the whole AIBE 18 Schedule 2023. Candidates can now submit the AIBE 18 Application Form 2023 until November 16, 2023. Earlier, AIBE 18 (XVIII) Registration 2024 date was November 10. Candidates can now fill out their AIBE 18 Application Form 2023 until the last date. Candidates must check the AIBE 18 eligibility criteria before filling out the AIBE 18 2023 exam application form. The BCI released the revised AIBE 18 Exam Schedule 2023-24 on its official website. As per the new AIBE 18 (XVIII) Exam 2023 official notification, AIBE XVIII (18) 2023-24 Exam Date is December 10, 2023. Earlier, the AIBE 18 Exam Date was December 3, 2023. AIBE 18 (XVIII) Exam will be held in pen-and-paper mode.

Case Title : Raj Kumar Tulsyan Vs Savior Builders Pvt. Ltd. Noida Thr. its director Bench: Justice Abdul Moini Citation: RERA Appeal No. – 29 of 2022 The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow on Friday allowed the appeal filed against the decision of the RERA Tribunal and framed three important questions of law. A bench of Justice Abdul Moin was dealing with a case where the appellant had booked an apartment with the respondent promoter. As per the agreement reached between the appellant and the respondent, possession of the apartment was to be given by December 2015. When the respondent failed to deliver the possession, a complaint was lodged before the Authority in March 2018 praying for a refund of the amount paid by him to the appellant. The refund was claimed in view of Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which provides for a refund of the amount and compensation. The Authority, while disposing of the complaint of the appellant by the impugned order, directed the respondent to give physical possession of the apartment by a particular date and pay the fine as per rules. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the RERA Authority on the grounds of maintainability of the complaint under section 31 and appeal under section 44 of the RERA Act 2016 against the unregistered project. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that unregistered projects do not come under the purview of the 2016 Act and that complaints and appeals against unregistered projects are considered non-maintainable. Against the decision and order of the Tribunal, RERA appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow, whereby the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal and framed 3 important questions of law and stayed the order of the Tribunal. There were three important questions: Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal on appeal before the Appellate Authority against the non-maintenance and unregistered projects of the RERA Authority is based on misinterpretation of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Newtech Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. ? Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal on appeal before the Appellate Authority against the non-maintenance and unregistered projects of the RERA Authority, is against the provisions contained in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and thus, is perverse and law Not sustainable? Whether the learned Tribunal erred in finding that neither the complaint before the RERA Authority nor the appeal before the Appellate Authority would be maintainable against the unregistered projects, as the real estate developers/promoters would be liable to a penalty for not getting their projects registered. Will use it as tool.? In view of the above, the High Court stayed the order of the Tribunal till the next date of hearing.

1. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POSCO ACT) was formed in 2012 to protect children below the age of 18 years from serious crimes like sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and pornography. 2. This Act also intends to provide a child-friendly system for the trial of these offenses. 3. Under the POSCO Act it is the duty of the Police to report any offenses related to a child to the Child Welfare Committee inside 24 hours so that the Child Welfare Community can take necessary steps for the security and safety of the concerned minor. 4. There is a provision for medical examination of the child under this act. Doctors should conduct these medical examinations under the guidance of the concerned minor parents or guardians or anyone the child trusts in such a way that it inflicts the minor as minimum pain as possible. If the victim is a girl child, then only a female doctor should do the medical examination. 5. The Court must do the hearing of the cases that comes under the POSCO Act in a closed room and it is also important to keep the concerned child’s identity secret. 6. A Special Court determines the amount of compensation to be paid to the child. 7. POSCO Act makes Provisions of the following punishment; 1. Punishment for raping a girl below the age of 12 years is death. 2. Punishment for raping a girl below 16 years of age is imprisonment for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years. 8. Any kind of sexual behaviour towards a child of 18 years of age or below comes under the purview of this law. This law provides equal security to male and female children. 9. If a person uses his private part against a body part of a child, then under Section 3 this is considered a serious crime. POSCO Act specifies punishment for this crime under Section 4 which ranges from 7 years to life imprisonment. 10. If a criminal commits a crime that comes under any other law than the POSCO Act, then the culprit will be under the law that is more severe. 11. If a person touches the private part of a minor or forces a minor to touch their private part, then this will be considered a serious crime under Section 8 and they will be imprisoned for 3–5 years. 12. If a person does any kind of sexual act in front of a minor or forces a minor into doing any kind of sexual act or forces the minor to watch pornography, then they could be punished with a minimum of three years of imprisonment to a maximum of life imprisonment. 13. There is also a provision under the POSCO act that specifies if an adult knows of the sexual abuse suffered by a minor then they have to report it to the nearest Police Station and if they do not do so they can be imprisoned up to 6 months.

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

Case Title: Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha Bench: Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia Citation: Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)No. 2872 of 2022 Sec 143A NI Act | If Accused has Failed To Deposit Interim Compensation He Can’t Be Denied Right To Cross-Examination: Supreme Court The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of the right to cross-examine the witnesses. The bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that “if a statute prescribes a method or modality for the exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable.” In this case, an order was passed by the Trial Court directing the Appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in terms of Section 143(A) of the Act within 60 days. The amount was not deposited by the Appellant. An application was made on behalf of the Appellant under Section 145(2) of the Act seeking permission to cross-examine the Respondent. The complaint Case was accepted by the Trial Court finding the Appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Act. The appellant court and Karnataka HC upheld the order passed by the trial court. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Counsel for the appellant submitted that in case the order of interim compensation as directed in terms of Section 143A of the Act is not complied with, the amount can be recovered in terms of Sub-Section 5 of said Section 143A as if it were a fine under Section 421 of the Code, but it would not be within the competence of the court to deprive an accused of his right to cross-examine a witness. Mr. Anand Nuli, Counsel for the respondent submitted that orders passed by the courts below were consistent with the mandate of Section 143A and the right to cross-examine was rightly closed by the courts below. The issue for consideration before the bench was: Whether the accused can be denied the right to cross-examine if he has failed to deposit interim compensation? Supreme Court opined that the method and modality of recovery of interim compensation is clearly delineated by the Legislature. It is a well-known principle that if a statute prescribes a method or modality for the exercise of power, by necessary implication, the other methods of performance are not acceptable. The bench stated that “The concerned provision nowhere contemplates that an accused who had failed to deposit interim compensation could be fastened with any other disability including denial of the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. Any such order foreclosing the right would not be within the powers conferred upon the court and would, as a matter of fact, go well beyond the permissible exercise of power.” In view of the above, The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed to permit the Appellant to cross-examine the Respondent and then take the proceedings to a logical conclusion.

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

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

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. 

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

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

Prithvirajsinh Bhagirathsinh Jadeja v State of Gujarat and two others C/SCA/1672/2022 is the case no. The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that an advocate who does not appear and practice before the courts even when enrolled in the Bar Council cannot call himself an "advocate". As per the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, if the conditions of employment do not require an advocate to plead and appear before the courts, a person cannot be referred to as an 'advocate' during this period of employment. as he is not practicing as a lawyer. The remarks were made during the hearing of two petitions in which petitioners desirous of the post of Joint Charitable Commissioner in the General State Service were declared ineligible due to lack of experience required as an advocate under the Recruitment Rules. The rules state that at least ten years of experience is required. The primary contention of the petitioners was that as per the rules the candidate should be enrolled under the Advocates Act 1961 for at least ten years, which the petitioners did. He didn't lose his nomination just because he was employed. His nomination continues even if he is employed as his name is not removed from the list but only suspended. The GPSC, on the other hand, relied heavily on the judgment of Deepak Agarwal v Keshav Kaushik et al. 2013 (5) SCC 277 to argue that an advocate essentially means someone who practices before the courts. If they are employed but not acting or practicing as per this definition, they are no longer 'advocates' as defined by the Advocates Act. As a result, the High Court concluded that "the continuance of his name in the list of the Bar Council has no bearing on his right to practice, and such person cannot nominate himself as an advocate." Taking these precedents into account, the High Court dismissed the petitions and refused to find fault with the GPSC's order.

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।

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.

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

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

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

Sufficient Visitation Rights Must be Given to Parent Losing Child Custody to Maintain Social/Psychological Contact With Child: Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court has issued a directive to a woman to comply with the settlement reached with her husband regarding the guardianship, custody, and visitation rights of their minor son. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed a habeas corpus petition lodged by the father to produce the minor son and instructed the mother to relinquish custody of the child to the petitioner during the summer vacation in accordance with their agreement. The court emphasized that while guardianship pertains to overseeing the welfare of a ward, child custody and visitation rights for a parent without custody must be provided to keep the child in contact with both parents, especially if they live in the same city. The court also instructed the father to take leave from work during the custody period and spend the entire period with the child, accompanied by the child’s grandmother and aunt. The couple married in 2011 but did not stay together beyond 2014 due to matrimonial issues. The wife then requested maintenance for herself and the child under Section 125 CrPC, which the husband opposed in the high court but reached a settlement with the wife. As part of the settlement, the wife was allocated as the child’s guardian, while the father was granted custody of the child during summer and winter holidays and visitation rights on weekends. Unfortunately, the petitioner-father was denied access to the child during one of the weekends in January 2023, and despite the start of summer vacation, the son’s custody was not handed over to him according to the terms of the compromise. The court determined that the petition was maintainable according to the findings of the case Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan, which held that if one parent has custody of the child, a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable.

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

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

Ordinarily the Dispute under Insurance Policy Claims Would not be Referred to Arbitration when the Reference is Limited to Quantum of Compensation: Delhi HC In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi has shed light on the scope of arbitration clauses in insurance policy disputes. Justice Prateek Jalan clarified that when an insurer denies liability entirely, the dispute cannot be referred to arbitration. “However, if the insurer disputes specific claims falling outside the policy’s coverage, while admitting overall liability, such disputes are within the purview of arbitration. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate forum for resolving disputes in insurance policy agreements”, the court highlighted. A recent case before the Delhi High Court involved a dispute between two parties who had entered into an insurance policy agreement. The agreement contained an arbitration clause that mandated arbitration for disputes concerning the quantum of compensation, provided liability was otherwise admitted. The petitioner sought the appointment of an arbitrator, but the respondent rejected the request, arguing that the dispute pertained to liability and was outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court carefully examined the language and intent of the arbitration clause. Citing a precedent Mallak Specialities v. New India Assurance, the court emphasized that if an insurer denies liability in its entirety, arbitration is not appropriate. However, in the present case, the respondent disputed specific claims on the basis that they were not covered by the insurance policy, while admitting liability overall. The court drew a crucial distinction between scenarios where an insurer denies all liability and cases where specific claims fall outside the policy’s coverage. “It held that disputes falling within the latter category do not exceed the scope of the arbitration clause”, the cour added.

Amend Laws to Punish Rape of Dead Bodies: Karnataka HC Tells Centre By May 31, 2023 The High Court of Karnataka has asked the Centre to amend the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or bring in new ones criminalizing and providing for punishment for carnal intercourse’ with corpses. The High Court made the recommendations after acquitting a person under Section 376 of the IPC as the rape’ provision does not have clause for convicting a person accused of having intercourse with a dead body. The accused had murdered a woman and then had sexual intercourse with her body. The court, however, confirmed the rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000 for the accused under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. “Admittedly, the accused had sexual intercourse on the dead body. Whether it amounts to an offence under Section 375 or Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code? A careful reading of the provisions of Section 375 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code make it clear that the dead body cannot be called as human or person. Thereby, the provisions of sections 375 or 377 of the Indian Penal Code would not attract. Therefore, there is no offence committed punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code,” the Division Bench of Justices B Veerappa and Venkatesh Naik T said in their judgment on May 30. Citing the examples of several countries, including UK and Canada, where Necrophilia and crime against dead bodies are punishable criminal offences, the HC recommended that such provisions be introduced in India. “It is high time the central government amended the provisions of Section 377 of IPC and included dead body of men, woman or animal as contemplated under the said provision,” the HC said in its judgement. “The central government shall amend the new provision in the IPC with regard to sadism or necrophilia against the person whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the natural including the dead body of the woman, punishable with imprisonment of life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and also shall be liable for fine,” it suggested. The HC also directed the state government to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in mortuaries in all government and private hospitals to prevent offence against dead bodies within six months. It also recommended maintaining mortuary services properly and sensitization of the staff. The murder and rape incident dates back to June 25, 2015 and both the accused and victim are from a village in Tumakuru district.

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

Recently the Chief Justice of India N V Ramana stated that the “increasing number of media trials” are proving to be impediments to justice, and that “Kangaroo Courts” run by the media are harming the democracy’s health. “I urge the media, particularly the electronic and social media, to behave responsibly,” he said at the inaugural lecture in Ranchi in honour of Justice Satya Brata Sinha. Similarly, Justice Krishan Pahal of Allahabad High Court while rejecting bail to the prime accused in Lakhimpur Kheri violence case observed in his order: “Now the problem has been multiplied by the electronic and social media especially with the use of tool kits. At various stages and forums, it has been seen that ill-informed and agenda driven debates are being undertaken by media running Kangaroo Courts.“ What exactly is a Kangaroo Court? The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “an unofficial court held by a group of people to try someone suspected of a crime or misdemeanour, especially without good evidence.” As per Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Kangaroo Court is a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted ORa court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures In a less literal sense, it refers to proceedings or activities in which a decision is made in an unfair, biassed, and unjust manner. It is said that the kangaroo courts gained their name from their early quick and unpredictable movement from one location to another, or that they were somehow related with “jumping” (i.e., unlawfully occupying) mining claims. Kangaroo courts first appeared in the United States at the time of the 1849 California Gold Rush, and the term was first used in the southwestern United States. It first appeared in print in 1853 in a Texas book. In a Sydney Morning Herald article, Roly Sussex, Emeritus Professor of Applied Language Studies at the University of Queensland, stated, “The term first appeared in California, around 1849-1850.” At the time, there were approximately 800-1,000 Australian prospectors digging for gold. Locals quickly learned that (our forefathers) would occasionally make unofficial decisions.” Sussex contends that these people may have devised their own, fair or unfair, systems for deciding on claims to land where deposits were discovered. Another theory relates to the animal’s unusual hopping movement as well as the historical aspect. The phrase could have been used to describe proceedings in the same era, “often held by mutineers or prisoners,” including “dodgy practises by itinerant judges hopping from one jurisdiction to another,” according to Steven Poole, a journalist who writes about language and its usage over time, in The Guardian. Why the term “Kangaroo Court” is used in India? The usage of term “Kangaroo Court” in India is related to rising impact of Social and Online Media, which is not regulated very effectively. The Twitter, Facebook and other Social Media platforms are being used to judge people and create a opinion on any issue. Similarly it is being used to give Judgments/verdicts in those cases which are before the Court of Law and such verdict of “Kangaroo Courts” are usually based on ethinicity, religion and gender of the person who is being tried by such courts.

Charge Not More than Rs 600 from Law Graduates for Enrolment as Advocate: SC  In a big relief to law graduates with limited family income, the Supreme Court Friday said state bar councils cannot charge them an enrolment fee more than Rs 600, as prescribed under the statutes. A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice to all state bar councils and sought to know from them how much they charge the law graduates by way of enrolment fees and how much money is collected in a year from them. The bench said as per the Advocates Act, the enrolment fee prescribed stands at Rs 600, and no state bar council can charge more than that. Senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, appearing for the Bar Council of India, said the Rs 600 fee for enrolment was fixed in 1993 and costs have risen manifold since then. The bench did not concur with Mishra, who also heads the BCI. “The amount prescribed in statute cannot be subject to inflation,” Mishra said while referring to monetary inflation. The bench said law is a service oriented profession and exorbitant fees cannot be charged as they may be detrimental to the interest of people coming from poor background. It asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court in the matter and posted it for further hearing after summer vacation. On April 10, the top court had sought the responses of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and others challenging the “exorbitant” fees being charged by state bar bodies for enrolling law graduates as advocates across the country. “We will issue notice on this. This is a significant issue. The petition says that the exorbitant enrolment fee violates Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961,” the bench had said. The petition claimed the enrolment fee in Odisha stood at Rs 41,100, and in Kerala at Rs 20,050.

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

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

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

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

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

Out of 25 High Courts 9 HCs are Unrepresented in Supreme Court June 28, 2023 Recently, the Collegium showed a willingness to prioritize regional representation over seniority. This was seen when the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, who ranked higher in seniority, was overlooked in favor of a judge from the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had no representation in the Supreme Court. As of June 2023, there are 31 sitting judges in the Supreme Court. Nine out of the 25 high courts have one judge representing them in the Supreme Court. These include the Gauhati, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Patna, Telangana, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts. The Delhi and Allahabad High Courts have the highest representation in the Supreme Court, with four judges each. The Bombay and Karnataka High Courts follow with three judges each. The Punjab & Haryana, Calcutta, and Gujarat High Courts are represented by two judges each. The Madras High Court has one judge, while nine high courts have no representation in the Supreme Court. It is worth mentioning that two sitting judges of the Supreme Court, Justice P.S. Narasimha and K.V. Viswanathan, were elevated directly from the bar. Both judges are expected to become Chief Justices in the future.

Case Title: Ramesh Mendola v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Bench: Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh Citation: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32126 of 2022 Section 195(1) Of CrPC Does Not Bar Registration of FIR, Rules Madhya Pradesh HC The bench of Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh noted that “Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. only says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. There is nothing in the said provision which debars registration of FIR.” In this case, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Returning Officer, granted permission to hold a meeting wherein it was specifically mentioned that not more than 100 people will gather in the meeting. Applicant and co-accused being election controller and organizer of the said meeting violated the conditions of the aforesaid order. On the same day, FST In-charge made a written complaint along with a CD related to videography of the incident to Returning Officer, who forwarded the said complaint to SHO on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the applicant and co-accused for the offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. Shri V.K. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., an offence under Section 188 of IPC can only be registered on the basis of the written complaint to the Court and in the instant case, no such complaint has been filed before the competent Court, therefore, FIR registered against the applicant is liable to be quashed. The bench observed that “it has nowhere stated that the written complaint should be filed before the Court. The written complaint has been made by the public servant FST Incharge, and the same has been forwarded by his superior officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions of Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with. The facts of the cases cited by the counsel for the applicant are entirely different wherein no written complaint was made by the public servant, even then cognizance was taken.” In view of the above, High Court dismissed the petition.

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

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

Case Title: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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