π Solve these Questions --
I know you all are lazy and you will not solve the whole paper that is why I have selected some questions.
English and GK were of moderate level.
Always answer MCQ with reasons, why the answer is this and why not other options, this is a habit which will make your memory strong.
@CurrentLegalGK
I know you all are lazy and you will not solve the whole paper that is why I have selected some questions.
English and GK were of moderate level.
Always answer MCQ with reasons, why the answer is this and why not other options, this is a habit which will make your memory strong.
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π―2
CJ Pre Result-2022.pdf
11.7 MB
π€©
π Cut off 113
Mention if you are selected we will help you for mains (mention your real name)
@CurrentLegalGK
MPCJ resultπ Cut off 113
Mention if you are selected we will help you for mains (mention your real name)
@CurrentLegalGK
π6π2
π¨ββοΈπ©ββοΈ
β Case: Sita Soren v. UOI 2024
β Coram: 7 Judges
1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
2. A.S. Bopanna
3. M.M. Sundresh
4. J.B. Pardiwala
5. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
6. Manoj Mishra
7. Sanjay Kumar
β Issue: Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilegeβ
β Sections:
βοΈ105(2)- No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
βοΈ194(2)- Same for MLAs
β Facts: Jharkhand MLA did not cast vote after taking bribe in rajya Sabha election High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver, not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). (Scope of present judgment confined to doubting correctness of PV. Narasimha 1998)
β PV. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (5 Judge bench)
1. Two Issues were there 1 is the same as the present case and another one was MP falls within purview of POCA, 1988
[2024 judgment deals with only one issue]
Held:
βοΈ SP bharucha & S Rajendra babu -
1. In respect ofβ in Article 105(2) must receive a βbroad meaningβ MP is protected from any proceedings in a court of law that relate to, nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament.
2. Also -- Why does an MP not voting after taking Bribery will not come under 105 - immunity under Article 105(2) is operative only insofar as it pertains to what has been said or voted.
3. Bribe givers are liable.
βοΈSC Garwal & AS Anand
1. Expression βin respect ofβ precedes the words βanything said or any vote givenβ in Article 105(2). The words βanything said or any vote givenβ can only mean speech that has been made or a vote that has already been given and does not extend to cases where the speech has not been made or the vote has not been cast.
(Dissented majority)
2. Act of acceptance of a bribe for speaking or giving a vote against the motion arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of the vote by the MP.
βοΈ GN Ray concurred with 1st 2 judges this forming majority against S.C. Agarwal.
β Submissions made by Appellant and intervenors (on behalf of MLA of Jharkhand and Attorney/solicitors respectively)
1. Attorney General, the election of members to the Rajya Sabha is akin to any other election process and cannot be treated as a matter of business or function of the legislature, hence no immunity.
2. Intervenors - The offence under Section 7 (and Section 13) of the POCA does not require βperformanceβ. Therefore, Voting or speech is irrelevant of Bribery, Also word any should not include everything because of exceptional immunity and strict and narrow interpretation in corruption case.
3. Amicus curiae - Minority judgment of PV Narasimha is correct and USA Canada UK too does not give immunity to Bribery.
4. Appellant - The overruling of long-settled law in PV Narasimha Rao is unwarranted according to the tests laid down by this court on overturning judicial precedents (keshav mills co. 1965 cited)
-----------------------------------
β Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis
1. Smaller bench must follow larger bench judgment but similar bench can raise question and place it before larger bench (as happened here from 2 judges bench to 3 then 5 where doubtless was raised in 2023 and placed before 7 bench)
2. Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice. If this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
Topic: Bribery not protected by immunity/privileges of MPs/MLAsβ Case: Sita Soren v. UOI 2024
β Coram: 7 Judges
1. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
2. A.S. Bopanna
3. M.M. Sundresh
4. J.B. Pardiwala
5. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
6. Manoj Mishra
7. Sanjay Kumar
β Issue: Would a legislator who receives a bribe to cast a vote in a certain direction or speak about certain issues be protected by parliamentary privilegeβ
β Sections:
βοΈ105(2)- No MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.βοΈ194(2)- Same for MLAs
β Facts: Jharkhand MLA did not cast vote after taking bribe in rajya Sabha election High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the appellant had not cast her vote in favour of the alleged bribe giver, not entitled to the protection under Article 194(2). (Scope of present judgment confined to doubting correctness of PV. Narasimha 1998)
β PV. Narasimha Rao v. State 1998 (5 Judge bench)
1. Two Issues were there 1 is the same as the present case and another one was MP falls within purview of POCA, 1988
[2024 judgment deals with only one issue]
Held:
βοΈ SP bharucha & S Rajendra babu -
1. In respect ofβ in Article 105(2) must receive a βbroad meaningβ MP is protected from any proceedings in a court of law that relate to, nexus with anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament.
2. Also -- Why does an MP not voting after taking Bribery will not come under 105 - immunity under Article 105(2) is operative only insofar as it pertains to what has been said or voted.
3. Bribe givers are liable.
βοΈSC Garwal & AS Anand
1. Expression βin respect ofβ precedes the words βanything said or any vote givenβ in Article 105(2). The words βanything said or any vote givenβ can only mean speech that has been made or a vote that has already been given and does not extend to cases where the speech has not been made or the vote has not been cast.
(Dissented majority)
2. Act of acceptance of a bribe for speaking or giving a vote against the motion arises independently of the making of the speech or giving of the vote by the MP.
βοΈ GN Ray concurred with 1st 2 judges this forming majority against S.C. Agarwal.
β Submissions made by Appellant and intervenors (on behalf of MLA of Jharkhand and Attorney/solicitors respectively)
1. Attorney General, the election of members to the Rajya Sabha is akin to any other election process and cannot be treated as a matter of business or function of the legislature, hence no immunity.
2. Intervenors - The offence under Section 7 (and Section 13) of the POCA does not require βperformanceβ. Therefore, Voting or speech is irrelevant of Bribery, Also word any should not include everything because of exceptional immunity and strict and narrow interpretation in corruption case.
3. Amicus curiae - Minority judgment of PV Narasimha is correct and USA Canada UK too does not give immunity to Bribery.
4. Appellant - The overruling of long-settled law in PV Narasimha Rao is unwarranted according to the tests laid down by this court on overturning judicial precedents (keshav mills co. 1965 cited)
-----------------------------------
β Reconsidering PV Narasimha Rao does not violate the principle of stare decisis
1. Smaller bench must follow larger bench judgment but similar bench can raise question and place it before larger bench (as happened here from 2 judges bench to 3 then 5 where doubtless was raised in 2023 and placed before 7 bench)
2. Ability of this Court to reconsider its decisions is necessary for the organic development of law and the advancement of justice. If this Court is denuded of its power to reconsider its decisions, the development of constitutional jurisprudence would virtually come to a standstill.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π1π―1
3. Court may review its earlier decisions if it believes that there is an error, or the effect of the decision would harm the interests of the public or if βit is inconsistent with the legal philosophy of the Constitutionβ.
4. After 1998 the judgement has been discorded in many cases.
β History of parliamentary privilege in India
1. House of commons - Privileges were acquired by colonial usage and not by statute.
2. 1833 Council Act
3. 1919 Act gave a qualified privilege of freedom of speech to the Houses of Legislature.
Note: At no point were these privileges demanded as a blanket immunity from criminal law, related only with legislative function.
4. The members of the Constituent Assembly were therefore keenly aware that their privileges under the colonial rule were not βancient and undoubtedβ like the House of Commons in the UK but a statutory grant made by successive enactments and assertion by legislatures.
β Parliamentary Privilege in India
1. Article 19 (1)(a) different from 105 and pari materia 194 explained - Alagaapuram R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly
A. Geographical limitation
B. Till tenure
C. Only to MPs
D. Not subject to 19(2)
2. Tej Kiran Jain v. N Sanjeeva Reddy, a six-judge bench of SC held that Article 105(2) confers immunity in respect of βanything saidβ so long as it is βin Parliament.β
3. Necessity test - They are powers which depend upon and are necessary for the conduct of the business of each House. (State of Karnataka v. UOI)
β BRIBERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
1. This Courtβs opinion in PV Narasimha rao hinged on two phrases in 105(2) These phrases were βin respect ofβ and the following word βanything.β
State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India 2018- Text to be read with context - word 'ANY' can vary according to context.
2. Extent of privilege exercisable by a member individually must satisfy the two fold test namely its tether to the collective functioning of the House and its necessity.
3. We may not interpret the words βanythingβ or βanyβ without reading the operative word on which it applies i.e. βsaidβ and βvote givenβ respectively.
4. The words βin respect ofβ means arising out of or bearing a clear relation and not too remote (overruled P.V. Narasimha)
5. The Constitution envisions probity in public life - Minority in P.V. Narasimha Rao was correct as Bribery not consistent with object/purpose of provision that is privileges essential for house collectively necessary for functioning,
corruption is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy.
Object is Free will (speech) and is not exercised when induced by bribe.
6. It is settled law that in interpreting the constitutional provisions the court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
7. Offence of bribery is not contingent on the performance of the promise for which money is given or is agreed to be given.
8. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery section 7 of POCA
9. Rejected the argument (bribe taking breach of privilege of house and house has taken action in past) of appellant and held - Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery -
The purpose of the proceedings which a House may conduct is to restore its dignity. Criminal trial differs from contempt of the House.
Bribe taking action may bring indignity to the House and may also attract prosecution. What it does not attract is the immunity.
β Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2)
1. Marginal note plays a very little part in the construction of a statutory provision. It should have much less importance in construing a constitutional provision, may be used for clue purpose but real meaning is from bare text of article.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
4. After 1998 the judgement has been discorded in many cases.
β History of parliamentary privilege in India
1. House of commons - Privileges were acquired by colonial usage and not by statute.
2. 1833 Council Act
3. 1919 Act gave a qualified privilege of freedom of speech to the Houses of Legislature.
Note: At no point were these privileges demanded as a blanket immunity from criminal law, related only with legislative function.
4. The members of the Constituent Assembly were therefore keenly aware that their privileges under the colonial rule were not βancient and undoubtedβ like the House of Commons in the UK but a statutory grant made by successive enactments and assertion by legislatures.
β Parliamentary Privilege in India
1. Article 19 (1)(a) different from 105 and pari materia 194 explained - Alagaapuram R Mohanraj v. TN Legislative Assembly
A. Geographical limitation
B. Till tenure
C. Only to MPs
D. Not subject to 19(2)
2. Tej Kiran Jain v. N Sanjeeva Reddy, a six-judge bench of SC held that Article 105(2) confers immunity in respect of βanything saidβ so long as it is βin Parliament.β
3. Necessity test - They are powers which depend upon and are necessary for the conduct of the business of each House. (State of Karnataka v. UOI)
β BRIBERY IS NOT PROTECTED BY PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
1. This Courtβs opinion in PV Narasimha rao hinged on two phrases in 105(2) These phrases were βin respect ofβ and the following word βanything.β
State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India 2018- Text to be read with context - word 'ANY' can vary according to context.
2. Extent of privilege exercisable by a member individually must satisfy the two fold test namely its tether to the collective functioning of the House and its necessity.
3. We may not interpret the words βanythingβ or βanyβ without reading the operative word on which it applies i.e. βsaidβ and βvote givenβ respectively.
4. The words βin respect ofβ means arising out of or bearing a clear relation and not too remote (overruled P.V. Narasimha)
5. The Constitution envisions probity in public life - Minority in P.V. Narasimha Rao was correct as Bribery not consistent with object/purpose of provision that is privileges essential for house collectively necessary for functioning,
corruption is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive and representative democracy.
Object is Free will (speech) and is not exercised when induced by bribe.
6. It is settled law that in interpreting the constitutional provisions the court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
7. Offence of bribery is not contingent on the performance of the promise for which money is given or is agreed to be given.
8. Delivery of results is irrelevant to the offence of bribery section 7 of POCA
9. Rejected the argument (bribe taking breach of privilege of house and house has taken action in past) of appellant and held - Courts and the House exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery -
The purpose of the proceedings which a House may conduct is to restore its dignity. Criminal trial differs from contempt of the House.
Bribe taking action may bring indignity to the House and may also attract prosecution. What it does not attract is the immunity.
β Elections to the Rajya Sabha are within the remit of Article 194(2)
1. Marginal note plays a very little part in the construction of a statutory provision. It should have much less importance in construing a constitutional provision, may be used for clue purpose but real meaning is from bare text of article.
Continued...
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π2π₯2β€1π1π1
2. There is a clear departure from the term βLegislatureβ which is used in the first limb, to use the term βHouse of such a legislature" in second limb 105(2)
ποΈ Legislature Vs House of legislature ---
House of Legislatureβ refers to the juridical body, which is summoned by the Governor pursuant to Article 174. The term βLegislatureβ, refers to the wider concept under Article 168, comprising the Governor and the Houses of the Legislature. continues to function/exist even when the Governor has not summoned the House.
2. Role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (K.S. Puttuswamy v. UOI 2018)
3. Minority in PV Narasimha Rao to strengthen the proposition that while interpreting the Constitution, the Court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. No dispute with the proposition that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not part of the law-making functions and do not take place during a sitting of the House. However, the text of Article 194 consciously uses the term βLegislatureβ instead of βHouseβ to include parliamentary processes which do not necessarily take place on the floor of the House.
5. Overruled Kuldip nayar v. UOI, 2006 on the aspect that election of rajya Sabha not part of legislature however this court held that they are part (see 4th point)
β Conclusions
Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
ποΈ Legislature Vs House of legislature ---
House of Legislatureβ refers to the juridical body, which is summoned by the Governor pursuant to Article 174. The term βLegislatureβ, refers to the wider concept under Article 168, comprising the Governor and the Houses of the Legislature. continues to function/exist even when the Governor has not summoned the House.
2. Role played by the Rajya Sabha constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (K.S. Puttuswamy v. UOI 2018)
3. Minority in PV Narasimha Rao to strengthen the proposition that while interpreting the Constitution, the Court should adopt a construction which strengthens the foundational features and the basic structure of the Constitution.
4. No dispute with the proposition that elections to the Rajya Sabha are not part of the law-making functions and do not take place during a sitting of the House. However, the text of Article 194 consciously uses the term βLegislatureβ instead of βHouseβ to include parliamentary processes which do not necessarily take place on the floor of the House.
5. Overruled Kuldip nayar v. UOI, 2006 on the aspect that election of rajya Sabha not part of legislature however this court held that they are part (see 4th point)
β Conclusions
Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105(2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194 because a member engaging in bribery commits a crime which is not essential to the casting of the vote or the ability to decide on how the vote should be cast.
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π₯4π1π€©1π1
π¨ββοΈπ€©
Firstly Read the brief (which might look big but is easy to read and comprehend if you know 105 language) and then read conclusions.
Give feedback but only after reading it. π
@CurrentLegalGK
Landmark Judgment Brief
Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 Firstly Read the brief (which might look big but is easy to read and comprehend if you know 105 language) and then read conclusions.
Give feedback but only after reading it. π
@CurrentLegalGK
π2π―2π₯1
France becomes the first country to inscribe the guaranteed right to abortion in its constitution, marking a significant moment for women's rights worldwide. This happened on International Women's Day, March 8, sending a strong message of solidarity.
The amendment to the French constitution guarantees women's freedom to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, ensuring that future governments cannot drastically alter abortion laws.
Comparatively, abortion laws vary widely across Europe, with some countries like Hungary and Poland imposing stricter conditions. The French initiative might encourage efforts to include abortion in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
India's stance on abortion allows licensed medical practitioners to perform abortions under specific conditions, with recent amendments extending this to 24 weeks for certain cases. This reflects a broader global discussion on the accessibility of abortion services.
@CurrentLegalGK
The amendment to the French constitution guarantees women's freedom to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, ensuring that future governments cannot drastically alter abortion laws.
Comparatively, abortion laws vary widely across Europe, with some countries like Hungary and Poland imposing stricter conditions. The French initiative might encourage efforts to include abortion in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
India's stance on abortion allows licensed medical practitioners to perform abortions under specific conditions, with recent amendments extending this to 24 weeks for certain cases. This reflects a broader global discussion on the accessibility of abortion services.
@CurrentLegalGK
π9π2
Paper_1_of_SC_law_clerk_exam_2024_with_Answer_key_@CurrentLegalGK.pdf
8.6 MB
Paper 1 of SC law clerk exam 2024 with Answer key
Past year papers - https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/1838
Paper 2 https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/2512
@CurrentLegalGK
Past year papers - https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/1838
Paper 2 https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/2512
@CurrentLegalGK
Explained: Why Lok Sabha is still 543 | Explained News,The Indian Express
Delimitation exercise
@CurrentLegalGK
https://web.archive.org/web/20230113005953/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/article-81-constitution-explained-why-lok-sabha-is-still-543-6067542/
Delimitation exercise
@CurrentLegalGK
https://web.archive.org/web/20230113005953/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/article-81-constitution-explained-why-lok-sabha-is-still-543-6067542/
The Indian Express
Explained: Why Lok Sabha is still 543
As per Article 81, the composition of the Lok Sabha should represent changes in population. But it has remained more or less the same since the delimitation carried out based on the 1971 Census. Why is it so?
π1
π¨ββοΈ
The paper was mostly moderate but some questions were on the tougher side as well.
@CurrentLegalGK
Supreme court Law clerk recent case laws questions.
The paper was mostly moderate but some questions were on the tougher side as well.
@CurrentLegalGK
π€3π―1
Is The Legislative Measure Of Repeal And Substitution Of The Three Existing Major Penal Statutes, An Inevitable Desideratum?
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/new-criminal-laws-justice-ramkumar-critical-analysis-251792
Author is a Former Judge, High Court of Kerala
Bns bnss bsa
@CurrentLegalGK
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/new-criminal-laws-justice-ramkumar-critical-analysis-251792
Author is a Former Judge, High Court of Kerala
Bns bnss bsa
@CurrentLegalGK
www.livelaw.in
Is The Legislative Measure Of Repeal And Substitution Of The Three Existing Major Penal Statutes, An Inevitable Desideratum?
On principle, I am against the proposed repeal of the existing major criminal laws namely, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which...
π―3π₯1
This Quote Means:β A woman without education is like a banyan tree without roots or leavesβ, by Savitribai Phule π
#express_explained
#express_explained
The Indian Express
This Quote Means: βA woman without education is like a banyan tree without roots or leavesβ, by Savitribai Phule
On Savitribai Phule's death anniversary, we examine a statement of hers on women's education. Quotes from historical figures are an important part of the UPSC Civil Services Exam syllabus.
π4π―2
MPCJ candidates don't worry whether you are selected or not we are here to help you, proceed with another state we all are helpless, lot to say but refraining from saying it.
For mains prep join the mains group selected candidates can share their names in that group for better help.
@CurrentLegalGK
For mains prep join the mains group selected candidates can share their names in that group for better help.
@CurrentLegalGK
π4π₯1
'No Live Issue Existing' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right
Reason- No Legal issue exists for now.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-live-issue-existing-supreme-court-dismisses-pil-to-declare-right-to-vote-as-fundamental-right-251862
Reason- No Legal issue exists for now.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-live-issue-existing-supreme-court-dismisses-pil-to-declare-right-to-vote-as-fundamental-right-251862
www.livelaw.in
'No Live Issue Existing' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the declaration of voting rights as part of fundamental rights. Chief Justice of India (CJI)...
π1π―1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
'No Live Issue Existing' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right Reason- No Legal issue exists for now. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-live-issue-existing-supreme-court-dismisses-pil-to-declare-right-to-vote-asβ¦
In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court by 4:1 majority held that the right to vote is a constitutional right, while the dissenting judge Justice Ajay Rastogi held it to be a fundamental right
Freedom to vote/ choice of candidate is fundamental right under Article 19
@CurrentLegalGK
Freedom to vote/ choice of candidate is fundamental right under Article 19
@CurrentLegalGK
Telegram
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
π³οΈElection commission of India
Issue: Appointment procedure of CEC & ECs
πRECENT DEVELOPMENT
π Bill Introduced in parliamentβ
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill,β¦
Issue: Appointment procedure of CEC & ECs
πRECENT DEVELOPMENT
π Bill Introduced in parliamentβ
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill,β¦
π―4