Lawyer Assisting A Sovereign Function, Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act : Argument Before Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lawyer-assisting-a-sovereign-function-cant-be-brought-under-consumer-protection-act-argument-before-supreme-court-249606

🏡🙋‍♂️ Adverse Possession Explained -

☑️ Case law- VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. 2024

Plea of adverse possession is a blend of fact and law.

✅ Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, 2004 (The person who claims adverse possession must show the following:)

(a) on what date he came into possession;
(b) what was the nature of his possession;
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party;
(d) how long his possession has continued; and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.

The Court added that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor bcz the person seeking such possession is attempting to defeat the true owner's rights.

✅ Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009

“Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.”

✅ Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn, 1971
(Court extensively discussed the object of the Limitation Act)

“The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period,

1. To assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him;
2. To give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asseting them in a court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep)”


✅ Saroop Singh v. Banto, 2005

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. Further, the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession.

#case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK

🔥 Important Polity and Governance Topics.

@CurrentLegalGK

Electoral Bonds SC Verdict: Why did the Supreme Court strike down the electoral bonds scheme? | Explained - The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-electoral-bonds-scheme-explained/article67848657.ece

Detailed Demand on Maratha Reservation Notes

@CurrentLegalGK

👨‍⚖️ Reservation judgments compilation

Is Reservation under Article 15 & 16, a Fundamental Right?

@CurrentLegalGK

Roster Notified By Chief Justice Binding On All Judges; No Bench Can Hear A Case Unless Assigned By CJ: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/roster-notified-by-chief-justice-binding-on-all-judges-no-bench-can-hear-a-case-unless-assigned-by-cj-supreme-court-249725

🏋️ This Material is for Practice.

If you need material on Learning Translation inform us below, also one tip in Advance make your own glossary and just add that with our material.

Use Bare Acts and PYQs of All States.

@CurrentLegalGK

✍️👨‍⚖️ Case Title - Association for Democratic Reform v. UOI 2024

Don't need to Panick it is easy, Read the Images Given Above they are not Bulky as looking- Not explaining the Electoral Bonds Scheme, Amendments, here we will Discuss the Reasoning and Important Related Case Laws Cited by 2 Judgments

🌟 Important One Liners

✅ No Dissent, Unanimous verdict
✅ "Anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution" (Prelims + Mains)
✅ Amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Representation of Peoples Act, the Companies Act have been held to be unconstitutional.

✅ Issues-
1. Whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties according to the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of Representation of the People Act, Section 183(3) of the Companies Act, Section 13A(b) of the Income Tax Act are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

2. Whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act violates the principles of free and fair elections.

✅ Transparency (19) vs Shield to Donor privacy (21)

✅ Selective Anonymity due to Government or ruling Party having access of Donor information.

✅ ADR v. Union of India, 2002
PUCL v. Union of India, 2003
In these cases, Apex Court observed that voters have a right to information that is essential for them to exercise their freedom to vote.

✅ Quid Pro Quo - Corruption - Policy Inclination Towards Donor/corporate

✅ Information about political funding would enable a voter to assess if there is a correlation between policy making and financial contributions

✅ Sanjiv Khanna - Privacy
Data- 94% Donations in ₹1Crore Deniminations and Majorly from Corporates, "It will be rather difficult for a public (or even a private) limited company to claim a violation of privacy as its affairs have to be open to the shareholders and the public who are interacting with the body corporate/company.

✅ "Based on the analysis of the data currently available to us, along with our previous observation asserting that voters' right to know supersedes anonymity in political party funding, I arrive at the conclusion that the Scheme fails to meet the balancing prong of the proportionality test,"

✅ The voters right to know and access to information is far too important in a democratic set-up so as to curtail and deny 'essential' information on the pretext of privacy and the desire to check the flow of unaccounted for money to the political parties. While secret ballots are integral to fostering free and fair elections, transparency—not secrecy—in funding of political parties is a prerequisite for free and fair elections. The confidentiality of the voting booth does not extend to the anonymity in contributions to political parties,"

✅ Sanjiv Khanna- Dealing with Electoral Reform and Not Economic reforms, so under judicial review.
Also not all economic policy are not subject to judicial review (Rk garg v UOI)

✅ Burden of proof is on state after petitioner establish breach of F.R.

✅ right to vote is a constitutional and statutory right, (Article 326) grounded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as the casting of a vote amounts to expression of an opinion by the voter. (ADR vs Uoi 2002 and PUCL, 2003)

✅ Sanjiv khanna on Arguments of UOI

1. Retribution, victimisation or retaliation cannot by any stretch be treated as a legitimate aim. This will not satisfy the legitimate purpose prong of the proportionality test. (Retribution by other parties to donor)

2. Identity of donor can still be revealed on registration of criminal case by party.

3. Donor may like to keep his
identity anonymous is a mere ipse dixit assumption, identity is known to banking officers by KYC.

4. UOI, ruling party can have access to info of donor identify.