๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
18.9K subscribers
831 photos
11 videos
1.64K files
2.94K links
๐Ÿ“ฒ Contact โ†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

๐Ÿ‘จโ€โš– Filtered Information Brings Clarity.

๐ŸŒTHE BEST FROM ALL LEGAL UPDATES BY EOD.

"Finding Quintessence of all possible POVs of provisions and Precedents
_____________
๐Ÿง  Daily Quiz โ†’ @LegalQuizzes

โณ๐Ÿš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
๐ŸŽ‰๐Ÿฅณ Happy New Year ๐Ÿ•›๐ŸŽŠ

๐ŸŒŸ เคชเฅƒเคฅเฅเคตเฅ€เค‚ เคงเคฐเฅเคฎเค‚ เคงเฅƒเคคเคฎเฅ - Which Means เคงเคฐเฅเคฎเค‚ is that which holds life on earth ๐ŸŒ

Earth ne 2023 ka round complete karliya ab 2024 ki baari is revolution me kuch revolutionary hi karna hai. So life me โ€œเคงเคฐเฅเคฎเค‚ " ko follow k
ijiye and Dekhiye Kaise sub sahi hota hai โœ๏ธ๐Ÿ‘จโ€โš–๏ธ

I hope you all will work deliberately to achieve your goals in this Year 2024

๐ŸŒ„Daily habits pe focus karna in 366 days me.




Future Updates-
https://youtube.com/@NaturalJustice?feature=shared
๐Ÿ™4๐Ÿ”ฅ3๐Ÿ‘2๐Ÿค2๐ŸŽ‰1๐Ÿซก1
๐ŸŒŸโœ๏ธ UOI v. Sriharan, 2016

In this case, interpreting Section 432(7) of the CrPC, the constitution bench held that even if an offence is committed in State A and the trial takes place and the sentence is passed in State B, it is the latter State which shall be the appropriate government.  

#Bilkis_Bano
@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘4โœ1
๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
๐ŸŒ„๐Ÿ‘จโ€โš–๏ธ 2023 Landmark Judgments Brief ๐ŸŒŸ Vivek Narayan Shamra v. UOI ๐ŸŒŸ S kaushal kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh ๐ŸŒŸ Anoop Baranwal v. UOI ๐ŸŒŸ UOI v. M/S Union Carbide corporation ๐ŸŒŸ Government of NCT Delhi v. UOI ๐ŸŒŸ Subhash desai v. Principle Secretary, governorโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ‘จโ€โš–๏ธ 2023 Landmark Judgments Brief

๐ŸŒŸ Vivek Narayan Shamra v. UOI
๐ŸŒŸ S kaushal kishore v. State of
Uttar Pradesh
๐ŸŒŸ Anoop Baranwal v. UOI
๐ŸŒŸ UOI v. M/S Union Carbide
corporation
๐ŸŒŸ Government of NCT Delhi v. UOI
๐ŸŒŸ Subhash desai v. Principle
Secretary, governor of
Maharashtra
๐ŸŒŸ Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh
ishwarbhai Modi
๐ŸŒŸ Supriyo @ supriya chakraborty
v. UOI
๐ŸŒŸ Dr. Balram dingh v. UOI
(Manual scavenging)
๐ŸŒŸ In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿค5๐Ÿ‘2๐Ÿ˜2โค1
Explanation to the Quiz on Gang Rape

โœ“Option 1 ruled out due toโ€“
The expression "in furtherance of their common intention" as appearing in the Explanation to Section 376(2) relates to intention to commit rape. A woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit rape. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant is right in her submission that the appellant cannot be prosecuted for alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g).

โœ“Option 2 Correct
Unlike man, a woman can also be held guilty of sexual offences. A woman can also be held guilty of gang rape if she has facilitated the act of rape with a group of person,"

Another reasoning could be the 2013 criminal law Amendment Act which susbtituted 375(1)(g) and 376D of IPC.


@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘1๐Ÿ”ฅ1๐Ÿ˜1
๐ŸŒŸ๐Ÿง  Conceptual Question 1 of 2024

1. Precedent is made from decision or the reasoning of decision?

โœ“Factual Questionsโ€“
If there is a 5 judge constitutional bench deciding the constitutionality of a law gives a decision in 3:2 split verdict, now the 3 majority judges decision is same but the reasoning differs.

2. What will happen if the reasoning of every judge is different? Will that become a precedent?

3. What if 2 judges have same reasoning and 1 differs in his/her reasoning.

4. A court is bound by statute or by the decisions of superior courts?

Ratio decidendi
#Discernible_Topics @CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘2๐Ÿ”ฅ2๐Ÿคฏ1
๐ŸŒŸ Some Exceptions to Article 20(1) through Landmark Judgments.


1. Sunderaramier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pardes, AIR 1958
Similarly, a tax can be imposed retrospectively.

2. Jawala Ram v. Pepsu, AIR 1962
Imposing retrospectively special rates for unauthorized use of canal water is not hit by Art. 20(1).

3. Union of India v.Sukumar, 1966
Art. 20(1) does not make a right to any course of procedure a vested right. Thus, a law which retrospectively changes the venue of trial of an offence from a criminal court to an administrative tribunal is not hit by Art. 20(1).


4. Shiv Bahadur v. Vindhya Pardesh, AIR 1953
A change in court entitled to try an offence is not hit by Art. 20(1).

5. Sajjan singh v. state of punjab 1964
Similarly, a rule of evidence can be made applicable to the trial of an offence committed earlier.

Can you mention any recent landmark case on Protection against Ex post facto lawsโ“


@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘4โคโ€๐Ÿ”ฅ2โค1