LAWtool

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

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

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

Title: Mandar Deepak Pawar versus the State of Maharashtra Case No.: CrA 442/2022 While quashing a rape case, the Top Court recently observed that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage and a breach of the promise made in good faith but was not subsequently fulfilled. At the outset, the court noted that the parties were in a consensual relationship from 2009-2011 and even though the victim submitted that the relationship was started on a promise to marry, the complaint was only lodged after three years. It is pertinent to note that the Bombay High Court had dismissed the accused’s petition after observing that rape is an offence against society. As per the Apex Court Bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh, the registration of FIR, in this case, is an abuse of the criminal process. The court opined that allowing further proceeding in the case would amount to harassment as the parties chose to get into a physical relationship for considerable and for some reason the relationship did not work out, and the same could have happened even after marriage. While referring to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar versus the State of Maharashtra, the court observed that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage given by the maker and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but is not fulfilled. Therefore, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the rape case filed against the petitioner-accused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

For SC Advocates Below 45 years of Age Can be Designated as Senior Advocate Only in Exceptional Circumstances On Friday, the Supreme Court passed a detailed judgment on improving the system of designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court and High Courts. A Bench of Justices SK Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar delivered the Judgment in the case of Ms Indira Jai Singh vs Supreme Court of India (M.A. Nos. 709/2022, 1502/2020) The Supreme Court has covered various aspects of the designation such as voting by secret ballot, Cut Off Marks, Points for publication, reported and unreported judgments, pro bono work, the domain expertise of an applicant under various branches of law, age, personal interview and other general aspects. Background ​​The designation of Senior Advocates in India is a prestigious title awarded to exceptional advocates who have made a significant contribution to the legal profession. This title is granted in recognition of an advocate’s standing and achievements in the field, which sets them apart as someone who can offer exceptional service to clients, the judiciary, and the public. The Advocates Act, 1961, provides for the designation of Senior Advocates in India through Section 16, which categorizes advocates into two groups: advocates and Senior Advocates. Under Section 16(2), the Supreme Court and the High Court are authorized to designate an advocate as Senior Advocate, with their consent. In the case of the Supreme Court, this power is provided in Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The system for designating Senior Advocates was challenged when Ms. Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate herself, filed a writ petition in 2015. She claimed that the existing system was flawed and not transparent or objective, meaning merit and ability were not always taken into account. She called for a permanent selection committee to be established, which would replace the current voting system. In response to this challenge, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued an elaborate judgment on October 12, 2017. The judgment put forth a series of guidelines to improve the designation process’s transparency and objectivity while still retaining the Court’s designation power. The guidelines provide for the creation of a Permanent Committee to be chaired by the Chief Justice and two of the most senior judges. The committee would also include the Attorney General/Advocate General of the State in question, with the fifth member being nominated from the Bar by the other members. Age of Advocates for Designation On the issue of age for designation, the Court said:We must also say that the Supreme Court rests on a different footing as the highest court of the land. Although designations in the Supreme Court in comparison to High Courts have usually taken place at the age of 45 plus, younger advocates have also been designated. While we would not like to restrict applications only to advocates who are above 45 years of age, only exceptional advocates should be designated below this age. We say no more and leave this aspect to the wisdom of the Permanent Committee and the Full Court. With respect to younger advocates the Court said: “Young Lawyers are naturally not precluded from applying for designation, particularly as the 2018 Guidelines do not require anything more than ten years of practice. However, we believe that such advocates would have to display that extra bit of ability to be designated.”

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।

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Wednesday Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification about appointment of Attorney General of India. The Notification states: Honorable President is pleased to appoint Shri R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate as Attorney General for India w.e.f. 1st October 2022. Mr. Venkatramani is a Supreme Court lawyer who has been practising for 45 years. In July 1977, he was admitted to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, and in 1979, he joined the chambers of Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court. In 1982, he established an independent practise in the Supreme Court. In 1997, the Supreme Court of India appointed him as Senior Advocate. Appointed to the Law Commission of India in 2010, and reappointed for a second term in 2013. He has practised in many areas of law, including constitutional law, arbitration law, indirect tax law, corporate and securities law, environmental law, education law, land law, criminal law, human rights law, consumer law, and service law. Mr Venkatramani has appeared in the Supreme Court and High Courts on behalf of several state governments, universities, and central and state public sector undertakings. Between 2004 and 2010, he was a Special Senior Counsel for various departments of the Government of India in the Supreme Court and High Courts, and he also acted as Counsel for the Supreme Court in matters pertaining to the service conditions of Court employees. He has been actively involved in academic activities since 1988, beginning with his association with the National Law School of India University in Bangalore, and is currently involved in academic activities at several law schools.

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

Oligopoly is that kind of market structure where at market is dominated by few sellers selling homogeneous or differentiated products . What are homogeneous products ? Homogeneous products are those that cannot be distinguished from the products sold by other sellers . Homogeneous products are similar in quality but differ on other attributes such as style , price of the product or brand image . To a buyer , the products appear similar and cannot make out a difference between a product on display except their price or brand image and therefore as a buyer , you make your selection of the almost identical products based on their price or brand image . For example : While buying a bag of strawberries you aren't aware who grew them and you probably don't care but you make your selection of the vendor who sells them at the best quality and the cheapest price as compared to the other vendor . How does Oligopoly differ from Monopoly and Duopoly ? A monopoly market is ruled by one firm whereas , a duopoly market is ruled by two firms and an Oligopoly market there is no particular upper limit to the number of firms , however , the number must be low enough where the actions of one firm influence the other . An Oligopoly market structure is one where competition exists among a few sellers and where the behaviour of every seller influences and impacts the other seller and the other seller too is influenced .

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

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

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

The difference between Section / Rule / Article / Act has been listed below: - Section A section refers to a distinct portion or provision of a legal code or set of laws, often establishing a particular legal requirement. For example- Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act. Article When any fundamentally critical document is framed or drafted which might be a grundnorm (a fundamental norm to support all other legal norms according to Kelsian pure theory of law) of that system at political, national or international level, then for the most part, it is separated from the customary municipal laws by referring to its provisos as articles rather than sections. For example - United Nations Charter,International Conventions, Constitution of a country, and so on, from where different laws or rules originate. Otherwise, municipal laws normally contain sections. Rule A Rule is a subsidiary enactment that helps in governing law. They are secondary in nature, meaning thereby that they don’t have an independent existence of their own.They are made to make the parent Act function. The rules provide for the details that have not been provided for in the Act, however, Rules by no means can go beyond the power conferred by the ACT, or extend the same. Act An Act is a law that is passed by the legislature. It is also known as a statute. However,most laws are not complete code in themselves, i.e. certain provisions as to their application or enforcement, etc. are deliberately left out by the legislature due to which rules come into the picture. For example- Companies Act 2013 is an Act. It has several rules governing its operations such as Companies (Incorporation) Rules 2014. Sections comes under the Act whereas it makes us enable us to understand underwhich act it comes from. Likewise, articles and rules are also different but makes it easy to know under which article we have to make an application. An act is a bill which has passed through the various legislative steps required for it and which has become law. So, simply put, an act is the formally codiedresult of deliberation by a legislative body. An article is a separate and distinct part of a written instrument, such as a contract, statute, or constitution, that is often divided into sections. A written instrument, containing a series of rules and stipulations that are each designated as an article. A section is the distinct and numbered subdivisions in legal codes, statutes, and textbooks.The basic difference between an act, an article and a section would thus be that one is the sub-division of the other. It goes as Act (the biggest) which has articles that are divided into sections. In general, terms, when a Bill is proposed to be enacted, it shall be presented before the respected legislatures (law making bodies) for approval. After it is approved, the bill is presented before the president. The bill, with the consent of the president, shall come into force as an Act, a Law, or a Statute. An Article or a section which are numbered are meant to indicate or reflect a specific provision of an Act or a Law

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

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

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

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