๐ฎ๐ณHAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAYNO DAY IS BETTER THAN INDEPENDENCE DAY TO START A NEW JOURNEY......โ๏ธRead Description For More Details
@CurrentLegalGK
โคโ๐ฅ7โค5๐5๐ฅ2๐2โก1๐1
๐ฏ๐ฅThere were four judgements/orders of the Constitution Bench in the year 2022. Last year this number was three (3) and in the year before that this number was eleven (11).
๐ฅ Supreme Court upholds 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (as he then was) Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
๐ฅ Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009
๐ฅ A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority
The Constitution bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
Case Title: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Lts. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
๐ฅ Section 319 CrPC Power has to be exercised before pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction.
The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab 2019
@CurrentLegalGK
๐ฅ Supreme Court upholds 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (as he then was) Justice UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India with 32 connected matters | W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 and connected issues
๐ฅ Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act
The Constitution bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B. V. Nagarathna held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons, or the complainant turning a hostile witness, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances. Presumption of fact with regard to demand or acceptance may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when foundational facts have been proved.
Case Title: Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD) |Criminal Appeal No(s). 1669/2009
๐ฅ A judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority
The Constitution bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. In view of Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India concurrence of a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a judgment or opinion of the Court. It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.
Case Title: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Lts. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
๐ฅ Section 319 CrPC Power has to be exercised before pronouncement of sentence in case of conviction.
The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna held that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. The judgment also held that the trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. Power has to be exercised before the conclusion of the trial, which means before the pronouncement of the judgment.
Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab 2019
@CurrentLegalGK
๐21๐1
๐ฅ State Emergency/ President rule
โ๏ธStatic Provisions - Article 356, 355, 365, Quasi- Federal.
โ๏ธCurrent Topic - Suo Motu by S.C. in Manipur Tribal Conflict
โ๏ธOther Case laws -
- State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977)
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980)
- Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India and Another (2006) etc
โ๏ธMore Important for prelims.
#constitution
โ๏ธStatic Provisions - Article 356, 355, 365, Quasi- Federal.
โ๏ธCurrent Topic - Suo Motu by S.C. in Manipur Tribal Conflict
โ๏ธOther Case laws -
- State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977)
- Minerva Mills Ltd. vs Union of India (1980)
- Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India and Another (2006) etc
โ๏ธMore Important for prelims.
#constitution
๐7โ2๐ฅ1
Here is a Recent constitution Bench Judgement delivered by 5 Judges Bench Headed by Justice SK Kaul .
It can dissolve a marriage on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' of relations w/o refering to family court. Excercise its power U/A-142 COI which empowers the top court to pass any order that it deems neccesary for 'complete Justice' in any matter pending before it .
One Set of Question - what could be the broad parameters for the excercise of power U/A -142 COI to dissolve a marriage b/w consenting parties w/o refering them to family court to wait for mandatory period prescribed U/S - 13(B) of HMA 1955 ?
Whether the excercise of such jurisdiction by apex court U/A 142 should not be made at all ?
Whether such excercise should be left to be determined in facts of every case , use earlier refered to constitution bench ?
It held that the period of 6 months can be dispensed with subject to the requirements & conditions as specified in 2 judgements of this court . (Justice Khanna).
The bench also considering whether its 'sweeping power' U/A - 142 are inhibited in any manner in a scenerio where a marriage has irretrievably broken down in opinion of court but one of the parties is sesisting divorce .
it observed that social changes takes a 'little time' & sometimes it was eaiser to bring a law but difficult to persude society to change with it .
#irretrievable_breakdown - due to failure of the matrimonial relationship and the couple can no longer live together as man & wife .
Case - shilpa sailesh vs varun sreenivasan 2023
#family_law #complete_justice
It can dissolve a marriage on the grounds of 'irretrievable breakdown' of relations w/o refering to family court. Excercise its power U/A-142 COI which empowers the top court to pass any order that it deems neccesary for 'complete Justice' in any matter pending before it .
One Set of Question - what could be the broad parameters for the excercise of power U/A -142 COI to dissolve a marriage b/w consenting parties w/o refering them to family court to wait for mandatory period prescribed U/S - 13(B) of HMA 1955 ?
Whether the excercise of such jurisdiction by apex court U/A 142 should not be made at all ?
Whether such excercise should be left to be determined in facts of every case , use earlier refered to constitution bench ?
It held that the period of 6 months can be dispensed with subject to the requirements & conditions as specified in 2 judgements of this court . (Justice Khanna).
The bench also considering whether its 'sweeping power' U/A - 142 are inhibited in any manner in a scenerio where a marriage has irretrievably broken down in opinion of court but one of the parties is sesisting divorce .
it observed that social changes takes a 'little time' & sometimes it was eaiser to bring a law but difficult to persude society to change with it .
#irretrievable_breakdown - due to failure of the matrimonial relationship and the couple can no longer live together as man & wife .
Case - shilpa sailesh vs varun sreenivasan 2023
#family_law #complete_justice
๐8โก1โค1
'Dissents that Shaped Our Constitution'
Important 6 judgements.
You can mention this as the chief result in Article 19(1)(a) that is freedom of speech as every voice should be heard.
Topic: Freedom of speech vs Hate speech ( An example under FOS)
๐ฉโโ๏ธDon't forget justice B.V. NAGARATHNA
#constitution #judges
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/senior-advocate-arvind-datar-dissents-that-shaped-our-constitution-207652
Important 6 judgements.
You can mention this as the chief result in Article 19(1)(a) that is freedom of speech as every voice should be heard.
Topic: Freedom of speech vs Hate speech ( An example under FOS)
๐ฉโโ๏ธDon't forget justice B.V. NAGARATHNA
#constitution #judges
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/senior-advocate-arvind-datar-dissents-that-shaped-our-constitution-207652
www.livelaw.in
'Dissents that Shaped Our Constitution'
"The law is shaped not merely by the majority rulings but sometimes it is shaped by the great dissenting judgments on our Constitution. What appears to be a dissenting view, a view contrary to...
โค4๐ฏ2๐1
Important Judgement Delivered by Constitution bench 5 Judges bench
A Judgement Delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the no. Of judges constituting the majority .
In view of A.145(5) a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a Judgement or opinion of the court.
Case title M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. V/s Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 2022
Landmark
A Judgement Delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the no. Of judges constituting the majority .
In view of A.145(5) a majority of the judges at the hearing will be considered as a Judgement or opinion of the court.
Case title M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. V/s Govt. Of NCT of Delhi 2022
Landmark
๐6โค1
Supreme Court judgment on writ of certiorari.
The court summarizes two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
"In granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
"The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking."
"In a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not."
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs Bikartan Das | 2023 INSC 633
#constitution #certiorari #writ #case
The court summarizes two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari.
"In granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal.
"The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking."
"In a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not."
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences vs Bikartan Das | 2023 INSC 633
#constitution #certiorari #writ #case
๐6
๐FREE Premium Subscription Article
Explained | Why is Biharโs caste-based survey facing a challenge in the Supreme Court? - The Hindu
๐Survey of Salary and Caste by bihar GOVT.
โ๏ธCONSTITUTIONAL LENS
โข Union List - Entry 69
โข Ministry of Home Affairs.
โข Article 246
Over All you can relate each provision of constitution with census as it is related to people of India which is a Democratic Country therefore whether it is Social Justice under DPSP or delimitation or Right to Equality from 14 to 18.
โ๏ธSurvey vs Census
The Court highlighted that a โcensusโ includes the collection of accurate facts and verifiable details, while a โsurveyโ is intended for the collection and analysis of opinions and perceptions of the general public, aimed at a specific community or group of people.
โ๏ธContentions by opposition
๐ฅState government competence-
๐ฅData Privacy issue-
โ๏ธPATNA HIGH COURT affirmed:
โข Appointment of commissions is not the only procedure for the identification of backwardness.
(Indra sawhney)
โข K.S. Puttuswamy case - reasonable restrictions on data privacy.
โข Executive authority is competent to frame a policy for better administration of the State.
THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED IN SC ON 18TH AUGUST
https://archive.fo/2023.08.17-131823/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-why-is-bihars-caste-based-survey-facing-a-challenge-in-the-supreme-court/article67167395.ece/amp/
Explained | Why is Biharโs caste-based survey facing a challenge in the Supreme Court? - The Hindu
๐Survey of Salary and Caste by bihar GOVT.
โ๏ธCONSTITUTIONAL LENS
โข Union List - Entry 69
โข Ministry of Home Affairs.
โข Article 246
Over All you can relate each provision of constitution with census as it is related to people of India which is a Democratic Country therefore whether it is Social Justice under DPSP or delimitation or Right to Equality from 14 to 18.
โ๏ธSurvey vs Census
The Court highlighted that a โcensusโ includes the collection of accurate facts and verifiable details, while a โsurveyโ is intended for the collection and analysis of opinions and perceptions of the general public, aimed at a specific community or group of people.
โ๏ธContentions by opposition
๐ฅState government competence-
๐ฅData Privacy issue-
โ๏ธPATNA HIGH COURT affirmed:
โข Appointment of commissions is not the only procedure for the identification of backwardness.
(Indra sawhney)
โข K.S. Puttuswamy case - reasonable restrictions on data privacy.
โข Executive authority is competent to frame a policy for better administration of the State.
THE MATTER TO BE DISCUSSED IN SC ON 18TH AUGUST
https://archive.fo/2023.08.17-131823/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-why-is-bihars-caste-based-survey-facing-a-challenge-in-the-supreme-court/article67167395.ece/amp/
๐ฅ4โ2๐2