DJS PRELIMS RESULT

Cut off- 160.25
General (💯% accuracy)
@CurrentLegalGK

Isi Din ka intezaar tha 👍

Cut off is almost in range of Prediction 155-160 (still it is higher and was not expected this much)

Koi nahi jinka nahi hua 2024 is golden year kisi ke 5 marks kum honge kisi ke 10 to kisi ke 20 itne se farak nahi padhta.

Keep working vacancies pe dhyaan do aaj ke din thoda socho and aage badho 😎 new journey.

😊 Jinka hua hai they can tell us in the comment if they want, so that we can help you even more.

@CurrentLegalGK

Well Highest is 181.25 by Mayank

Great 👍 (out of 198 in negative marking exam)

Competition 🔥

Complete Result

☑️ 285th Law commission Report

"The whole jurisprudence around the law on criminal defamation has the essence of protecting one's reputation and its facets."

1. Criminal defamation acts as a deterrent against false and malicious statements, preventing damage to one's reputation that civil remedies might not adequately address.

2. The protection of reputation is not the only impetus behind criminalising defamation as avoiding public disturbances is an equally important motivation".

3. It is highlighted that reputation is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, which "cannot be allowed to be jeopardised just because an individual has to enjoy his freedom of speech" at the expense of hurting the sentiment of another.

4. The recommendations also underline that speech ought to be illegal only when it is meant to do substantial harm and when such harm materializes.

5. Community service in BNS for Criminal defamation.

😉 Use- Law commission reports in your answers they are almost equally valuable as recent judgments.

@CurrentLegalGK

🏛️ What is Government and Key Elements of Government.

2 MCQs in UPSC CSE directly came from 6th class book.

Read the deadly combo of one liners and MCQs

#NCERTs_JOTs
@CurrentLegalGK

Rule 2 - Both and Not

#120_rules

@CurrentLegalGK

👨‍⚖️ 6 high court chief justice

1. Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava (presently Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court. His parent High Court is Chhattisgarh High Court.

2. Justice Ritu Bahri (presently Acting Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

3. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh (presently Judge of Patna High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court.

4. Justice Vijay Bishnoi (presently Judge of Rajasthan High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.

5. Justice Arun Bhansali (presently Judge of Rajasthan High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

6. Justice S Vaidyanathan (presently Judge of Madras High Court) appointed as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Day 24 - Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors. [2018] 6 SCR 861.

Related to interference of court in the Bidding and Judicial Review

#64_cases
@Currentlegalgk

Solve these MCQs

🕉️🅾️ Translation English to Hindi and Hindi to English.

Note: Read only your medium language part and start translating it, thereafter check with translated version.

If you want consistency send the translation written on paper📜 below 👇

@CurrentLegalGK

Murder vs Culpable homicide 1 liner questions.

Application based.
https://www.delhilawacademy.com/home/study-material-llm-entrance-3/sample-llm-indian-penal-code/

Books and Authors of Ancient History.pdf

A Perfectly Valid Provision Can't be 'Read Down' Just Because It Imposes Harsher Consequences: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/a-perfectly-valid-provision-cant-be-read-down-just-because-it-imposes-harsher-consequences-supreme-court-248427

📉 Reading down

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, observed that if a plain reading of a clause fulfills the object and purpose of the statute, then the rule of 'Reading Down' the clause would not be applied just because the clause imposes harsher consequences.

Disagreeing with the observation made by the High Court, the Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, observed that the rule of 'reading down' the provision should not be applied at the first instance but should always be the last resort, i.e., only when the court finds that a particular provision, if for its plain meaning, cannot be saved from invalidation. Thus, by restricting or reading it down, the court makes it workable to salvage and save the provision from invalidation.

“When a court encounters a provision that, if interpreted according to its plain and literal meaning, might lead to constitutional or legal issues, the court may opt to read down the provision. Reading down involves construing the language of the provision in a manner that limits its scope or application, making it consistent with constitutional or legal principles.”

@CurrentLegalGK

🌟 Day 25 - TMA Pai Foundation and Ors v State of Karnataka and Ors [2002] Supp 3 SCR 587.

Minorities unaided educational institutions control and Administration.

#64_cases.
@CurrentLegalGk

😮 Kapur singh vs state of pepsu, 1956

Distinction between section 299 and 300 thirdly.

Answer the given question below 👇
@CurrentLegalGK

X inflicted as many as 19 injuries on the arms and legs of Y with a gandasa, resulting in multiple fractures on arms and legs and also profuse bleedings. The injuries cumulatively caused the death of Y. X is tried for the offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Determine the criminal liability of X from the alternatives given below:

A. Since X inflicted injuries only on nonvital parts of the body, hence he could not be attributed with intention to kill and therefore, cannot be held guilty of the offence of murder but only of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

B. Even though the accused did not have the intention to cause death but, nonetheless, he had intention to cause the injuries on the body of Y and the injuries so caused were thereby cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and so his case falls under Section 300

C. Since injuries were only on non-vital parts of the body, and there was no intention to cause death, the accused is liable only to be punished for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon

D. The liability of X can at best be causing death by rash act not amounting to culpable homicide

--> Answer 👇
1. Which option is correct,
2. What was his intention as well as motive?
3. Why not 300 thirdly?


@CurrentLegalGK