LAWtool

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

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

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

A sessions court in Mumbai has ordered a 52-year-old businessman from Ghatkopar to pay Rs 16,000 in monthly maintenance to his 47-year-old wife, who is an entrepreneur and earns Rs 30,000 every month, observing that the maintenance A woman cannot be denied a claim, simply because she is employed and her husband earns less than her. In this case the annual income of the husband is Rs 2.90 lakhs, while the annual income of the wife is around Rs 3.50 lakhs. After a magistrate's court ruled in favor of the wife, the husband filed a petition in the sessions court. The court ruled that the magistrate's observations in the order were reasonable and legal. “From above, the income of the husband appears to be less than that of the wife. A wife, on the other hand, is the responsibility of her husband. He is obliged to support her regardless of his earnings. As a result, the order does not require any interference” as per the Court of Session. The man claimed that the woman and her adult sons lived in a "posh" apartment for which he had paid rent of Rs 26,000 per month, living in a transit camp and using a public toilet. He also told the court that both his sons had done more than him. According to his lawyer, “The economic condition of the wife is stronger than that of the husband. In 2015, the wife abruptly left her husband for no apparent reason." On the other hand, the woman claimed that her husband earns at least Rs 1 lakh per month. The sessions court referred to a Supreme Court judgment which held that even if the wife is earning, she is entitled to maintenance determination. "Consequently, it is argued on behalf of the husband that his wife is a breadwinner and she is not entitled to maintenance," the court said. It was also noted that the husband currently had no liabilities other than his own expenses. “He also owns a business and other properties. Consequently, he is unquestionably entitled to the maintenance and payment of rent to the wife while the domestic violence application is pending” the court held. The woman had gone to the magistrate's court to file a complaint of domestic violence. In 2015, she divorced the accused and accused him of adultery. The husband denied the allegations. She claimed that he had sent her a notice requesting that he come back and have sex with her, but she refused. After that, the man filed for divorce. He rejected the woman's claims of maintenance.

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

Delay in AIBE 17 (XVII) 2023 Result Issue Reaches Supreme Court- Lawyer Files Plea Says Right to Livelihood is in Jeopardy A lawyer has filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting the Bar Council of India (BCI) to announce the results of the 17th All India Bar Examination (AIBE), which took place in February 2021. The petitioner argues that failure to announce the AIBE results is jeopardizing her legal right to practice as an advocate, which will affect her source of income.  According to the Petitioner, life can be miserable without a livelihood, and article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life as a fundamental right, including the right to livelihood.  The AIBE is a mandatory examination for lawyers to enroll with a State Bar Council and engage in the practice of law. The delay in declaring the AIBE results is unreasonably abusing the BCI’s powers, and the petitioner has asked the Court to instruct the BCI to announce the results as soon as possible.

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

हाल ही में सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हुए एक वीडियो में एक जज और एक वकील हिंदी और अंग्रेजी भाषा को लेकर बहस करने लगते हैं। जानकारी के मुताबिक पूरा मामला तब शुरू हुआ जब एक वकील ने अपनी याचिका अंग्रेजी में देने से इनकार कर दिया। जज वीडियो में कहते हैं, ‘आपने फिर अपनी याचिका हिंदी में दी है।’ मुझे हिंदी समझ नहीं आती। अधिवक्ता जवाब देते हैं, “यह रोना है, सर, कि मैं भी अंग्रेजी नहीं समझ सका।” न्यायाधीश ने जवाब दिया, “मैं आपकी याचिका को अस्वीकार करता हूं।” मैं इसे करूँगा। अधिवक्ता ने कहा, “सर, पूर्ण पीठ को खारिज किया जाता है।” पूरी बेंच हिंदी का समर्थन करती है।” इस पर जज ने कहा, “आपका केस खत्म हो गया है, मैंने अगला केस बुलाया है।” अधिवक्ताओं का कहना है, ‘सर, नियम तो सुनकर ही आगे बढ़ना है।’ ऐसा कोई नियम नहीं है जो कहता है कि आप बिना सुने आगे बढ़ सकते। आज भी पटना हाई कोर्ट के सभी जज सुन रहे हैं। हुजूर अब अनुवाद का अनुरोध कर रहे हैं। अनुवाद विभाग देश की आजादी के पहले से ही यहां है। हम और हमारे मुवक्किल उन्हें मिलने वाले वेतन को आपस में बांट लेते हैं। अनुवाद के लिए हुज़ूर से पूछने का क्या मतलब है? मैं सच बोल रहा हूँ। हम अंग्रेजी अनुवाद प्रदान करने में असमर्थ हैं क्योंकि हुजूर ने इसका अनुरोध किया है। हम एक खंडपीठ के आदेश को प्रदर्शित कर रहे हैं, और उसके आलोक में आदेश पारित किया जाना चाहिए। सोशल मीडिया पर इस वक्त एक वकील का हिंदी बोलते हुए वीडियो वायरल हो रहा है। वैसे तो साफ है कि लोग हर जगह तेजी से अंग्रेजी का इस्तेमाल कर रहे हैं।

Case Title: Shaukat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabil Shaukat & Ors. Division Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar Citation: CRM (M) No. 238/2019 Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that an adult son or daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Central CrPC. A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar was considering a petition challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which has dismissed the petitioner's application for quashing the maintenance order passed in favor of the respondents. In this case, at the relevant time the respondent was living with his mother, who was living separately from her husband, the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service and thereafter the defendants also attained the age of majority. The petitioner filed another application before the trial magistrate seeking quashing of the maintenance paid in favor of the defendants. The said application was rejected by the trial magistrate. Mr. Prince Hamza, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, in terms of section 488 of J&K CrPC, only lawful or illegitimate minor children unable to maintain themselves are entitled to claim maintenance from their father. . It was submitted that the defendants having attained the age of majority are not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner from the date of their attainment of majority. The issue of consideration before the bench was: Whether an elder son is entitled to claim maintenance from his father under the provisions contained in section 488 of J&K CrPC. P.C.? The High Court said that a court has no power to add or subtract from a law which is not there. If a court finds some ambiguity in a statute that becomes an obstacle to achieving the object and object of the statute, the court may give an objective interpretation of the statute, but where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is open to Not there. The Court reserves the right to add, replace or supply the words in the said statute and there shall be no need for interpretation. The bench said that an eldest son or daughter cannot be maintained by a magistrate in exercise of his powers under section 125 of the Central Penal Code. P. C/488 of Jammu and Kashmir Cr. P.C. But in an appropriate case, a Family Court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance to a prominent Hindu daughter on the basis of a joint reading of the provisions contained in section 125 of CrPC. PC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The High Court observed that “the defendants have, of course, attained the age of majority, as such, they are not entitled to claim maintenance from their fathers after attaining majority. The trial magistrate did not have jurisdiction to grant maintenance in favor of the defendants over the age of majority. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Magistrate dismissing the petitioner's application for quashing the maintenance order, is without jurisdiction. , In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition and held that the respondent is entitled to maintenance from his father i.e. the petitioner only till he attains the age of majority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently, The Supreme Court answered an important question that when accused can be discharged in a criminal case. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal was dealing with the appeal challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court by which the Court has set aside the order passed by the court below vide which application filed by the Respondent nos.1 and 2 for discharge, was dismissed. In this case, The dispute arises out of an FIR registered for murder of Manmohan Singh Sukhdev Singh Virdi, a resident of Virdi’s Bungalow, Thombarewadi, Lonawala. His body was found lying in a pool of blood in his bedroom. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that a mini-trial has been conducted merely by referring to some of the statements recorded by the police during the investigation, which were forming part of the charge sheet. This was beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Court at the time of consideration of an application for discharge. The bench noted that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Supreme Court observed that the High Court vide impugned order had summed up the entire evidence in two paras without even referring to the Psychological Evaluation including Psychological Profiling, Polygraph Testing and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) tests of the accused and the other aides of respondent no.1 and ordered discharge of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities And Exchange Board Of India & Ors. Bench: CJI. N.V. Ramana and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167 of 2022 The Supreme Court on Friday stated that, SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking. The bench of CJI. N.V. Ramana and Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli stated that “Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same.” In this case, A complaint was filed by one Shri S. Gurumurthy, with the SEBI against Reliance Industries Ltd., its associate companies and its directors, alleging that they fraudulently allotted 12 crore equity shares of RIL to entities purportedly connected with the promoters of RIL, which were funded by RIL and other group companies in 1994. It was alleged that the company and its directors were in violation of Section 77 of the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Harish Salve, Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the challenge to the maintainability of the present appeal is misconceived. He stated that the interim application filed for seeking documents was argued at length before the High Court, which was ultimately not considered. Mr. Arvind Datar, Counsel for the respondents submitted that, present appeal is not maintainable as there is no criminal complaint pending as on this date. The appellant cannot seek documents in a criminal revision against dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation. The issue for consideration before the bench were: 1. Whether this appeal is maintainable? 2.Whether SEBI is required to disclose documents in the present set of proceedings? While dealing with the first issue Supreme Court stated that “Initiation of criminal action in commercial transactions, should take place with a lot of circumspection and the Courts ought to act as gate keepers for the same. Initiating frivolous criminal actions against large corporations, would give rise to adverse economic consequences for the country in the long run. Therefore, the Regulator must be cautious in initiating such an action and carefully weigh each factor.” While dealing with the second issue Supreme Court opined that “It is a matter of record that subsequently, the settlement proceedings were terminated by SEBI and thereafter SEBI has decided to initiate a criminal complaint against the appellant herein. In this context, the objection of SEBI that the issue of disclosure of documents is res judicata as the same was disallowed by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.” Supreme Court found that SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherry-picking. In view of the above, The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

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

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

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

In pursuance of the assurance given before the Supreme Court, the Bar Council of India today published its syllabus for the upcoming All India Bar Examination. The updated syllabus can be read on the website of Bar Council of India (http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/syllabus-for-all-india-bar-exam-xvii/). It may be noted that the syllabus for AIBE 17 remains unchanged when compared with the syllabus for AIBE 16.

Title: Akella Lalita versus Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao Case No.: CA 6325-6326/2015 The Supreme Court recently ruled that a relief for which no pleading or prayer has been made, should not be granted. As per the Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari: it is a fact that absolutely no relief was ever sought by them for the change of surname of the child to that of first husband/ son of respondents. It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. This observation was made by the court while setting aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement directing a mother to change the surname of her child and to reflect the new husband’s name as a stepfather. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the main issue raised was whether the High Court was empowered to direct the appellant to change the surname of her child even though the respondent had sought no such relief before the trial court. At the outset, the Apex Court noted that it is well settled that if no reliefs are sought in the pleadings then it cannot be granted and if a court considers or grants such a relief for which no pleading or prayer was made depriving the respondent of the opportunity to resist the same then it would lead to miscarriage of justice. As per the bench, the High Court traversed beyond the pleadings by directing the change of surname of the child and therefore it set aside the impugned order thereby partly allowing the appeal. The court also reiterated that the mother, being the natural guardian of the child, has the right to decide the child’s surname and she also has the right to give up the child for adoption.

Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar and another v. Manjeet Kumar Bench: Justices Ritu Bahri and Ashok Kumar Verma Citation: FAO-3546-2021 (O&M) Punjab and Haryana HC Recently, the Punjab and Haryana HC ruled that one biological parent can give adoption to the step-parents out of which one of them can be a biological father or biological mother. The bench of Justices Ritu Bahri and Ashok Kumar Verma stated that “application for adoption of a child cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that a biological mother cannot become a mother in dual status i.e., a biological mother as well as an adoptive mother.” In this case, Manjeet Kumar (Respondent) was married to Renu (appellant No. 2) and a child was born. Later on, Manjeet Kumar and Renu got a divorce. Thereafter, Renu, solemnized her second marriage with Sanjeet Kumar (appellant No. 1). Both Sanjeet Kumar and Renu, filed an application under Section 56 of the Act read with Regulations 52(4) and 55(2) of the Adoption Regulations, for the adoption of a child, aged about 7 years daughter of Manjeet Kumar. High Court looked into the guidelines framed for the adoption of a child by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. As per, as per sub-clause (1) of Regulation 52, the couple which includes step-parents and one of the biological parents shall register in Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System with the required documents as mentioned in Schedule VI. High Court stated that “for all intents and purposes one biological parent can give adoption to the stepparents out of which one of them can be a biological father or biological mother. In the present case, all the required documents as per Schedule XX have been attached with the application and their application cannot be dismissed merely, on the ground that a biological mother cannot become a mother in dual status i.e., a biological mother as well as an adoptive mother.” High Court observed that as per Regulation 55, the definition of an adoptive parent has clearly been given in sub-clause (2) and Regulation 52 (1) includes the biological parent to be an adoptive parent. In view of the above, High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.