𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
831 photos
11 videos
1.65K files
2.94K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

πŸ‘¨β€βš– Filtered Information Brings Clarity.

🌐THE BEST FROM ALL LEGAL UPDATES BY EOD.

"Finding Quintessence of all possible POVs of provisions and Precedents
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Challenge To Surrogacy Law : Supreme Court Frames Issues To Consider, Hearing In July 2024 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-in-pleas-challenging-provisions-of-surrogacy-act-rules-256985
🌟 Challenge to Surrogacy Law

1. Whether the prohibition of commercial surrogacy under Sections 4(ii)(b) & 4(ii)(c) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 is constitutional?

2. Whether the right of a couple to avail surrogacy being restricted to married couples between the age of 23 to 50 years in case of female and between 26 to 55 years in case of male as provided in Section 4(iii)(c)(I) read with Section 2(1)(h) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, is constitutional?

3. Whether the right of a single woman to avail surrogacy being restricted to only widows or divorcees between the ages of 35 to 45 years as provided under Section 2(1)(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, is constitutional?

4. Whether the right of an intending couple to avail surrogacy being restricted to only those couples who do not have a surviving child as provided under Section 4(iii)(c)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, is constitutional?

5. Whether individuals who initiated the process of availing surrogacy
prior to the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 have any right to avail surrogacy in a manner beyond the scope of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, save for cases falling within the ambit of Section 53 of the Act?

Refer:-
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/874

@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘5πŸ”₯1πŸ’―1
Trial_Of_Summons_Cases_Explained_By_Justice_V_Ramkumar_Part_I.pdf
156.9 KB
🌟 Trial of Summons Case
2️⃣Read Twice


Pre-trial release of the accused

The purpose of stating the β€œparticulars of the offence” to the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C and thereafter taking his plea is for deciding whether or not the accused should be tried for the alleged offences. Once the accused pleads not guilty to the β€œsubstance of accusation” stated to him, the trial starts. Once the trial starts, the view taken by the Supreme Court is that the Magistrate cannot go back to the pre-trial stage and cannot prematurely terminate the proceedings and that the trial which has already started should reach its logical culmination by β€œconviction” or β€œacquittal” as the case may be. .{ Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal 2004 }

🌟 Dr. Kamala Rajaram v. Dy.S.P, Office of the S.P Neyyattinkara 2005
Even before the substance of the accusation is read over to the accused, the proceedings against him can be dropped and the accused can be released u/s 258

@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ”₯1🫑1
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Supreme Court Clarifies That Its Order On Minimum 1/3rd Women's Reservation In SCBA Posts Is On 'Experimental Basis' https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-scba-women-reservation-experimental-basis-257131
🌟 Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, 2024

In this case it was directed to make reforms and 1/3rd reservation seats for women.


Recent clarification order-
Court observed that SCBA is a β€œpremier institution,” and its norms cannot remain static. The Court also underscored the need for timely reforms to confront the institution's challenges. Thus, the Court also passed directions to the SCBA to call for suggestions from the bar for reforming the SCBA rules regarding eligibility conditions for contestants, admission fee etc.


minimum one-third seats for women in the Supreme Court Bar Association's executive committee is on an "experimental basis" and that any difficulty faced in implementing the reforms would be placed before the Court.


@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘3πŸ”₯1πŸ‘1
🌟When Parliament can Legislate on State list.

1. 249- National Interest.
2. 250- National Emergency
3. 252- Agreement with state.
4. 253- International treaty.
5. 356- President rule.
✨ 6. 369- Temporary Power to Parliament to make laws with respect to certain matters in state list, 5 years from enforcement of CoI.

@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘12πŸ’―2✍1πŸ‘Œ1
District_Judiciary__Fundamental_Rights1.pdf
635 KB
Role of District Judiciary In
Protecting Fundamental Rights

So if you say my favourite subject is Constitution you can quote these cases why constitution is essential for District Judiciary as well.

Landmark Judgments from CrPC / BNSS

@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ”₯5πŸ‘Œ2❀1πŸ‘1
PRECEDENT.pdf
640.2 KB
LAW OF PRECEDENTS
1. Ratio decidendi
2. Speaking order v. Non speaking order
3. Casual observations
4. Obiter dicta


Circumstances that weaken the
binding force of a precedent
β€’ Ruling reversed by a higher court
β€’ When affirmed or reversed on a different ground
– depending on the circumstances
β€’ When legislature enacts a statute that is
inconsistent with the precedent
β€’ Inconsistent with earlier decisions of a higher
court or a court of the same rank
β€’ Precedent sub silentio
β€’ When rendered per incuriam

Doctrine of merger by later cases that supercede earlier or enhance it.


@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘12πŸ’―2❀1
🌟 General Meanings of β€”

βœ“Pardon
βœ“Commutation
βœ“Remission
βœ“Reprieve or suspension
βœ“Respite

#Question
So a person will not be considered a rescidivist for section 75 IPC if he gets pardon???


@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘10πŸ”₯3🀩1
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Can Courts Admit Evidence Which Has Been Obtained Illegally Or Improperly? https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/illegally-obtained-evidence-admissibility-143609
🌟 Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection AIR 1974

After quoting the observations of the Privy Council in ( Kuruma v The Queen [1955]) the SC observed as follows:

"It would be thus seen that in India, as in English, where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out".

#Interview
@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘5✍3πŸ”₯2πŸ’―1