π
We will be sharing a detailed summary with important sub headings for your exam point of view tomorrow.
@CurrentLegalGK
News to sub ne dekh hi li hogi, legalising homosexual marriage wali.We will be sharing a detailed summary with important sub headings for your exam point of view tomorrow.
@CurrentLegalGK
π12π«‘3β€1
π¨ββοΈ Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co., AIR 1966 SC 543 17
Section 3 of indian contract act
@CurrentLegalGK
Section 3 of indian contract act
@CurrentLegalGK
π7π₯2
Same Sex Marriage case Judgement Summary.pdf
879.5 KB
Supriya vs UOI 2023 (5 JUDGES BENCH)
#same_sex_marriage
@CurrentLegalGK
No legal Recognition For Queer Marriage#same_sex_marriage
@CurrentLegalGK
π7β€4π₯1π«‘1
Article 20 (3) & Test Identification Parade: The Question Of Rights And Obligations
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/article-203-constitution-test-identification-parade-rights-obligations-240186
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/article-203-constitution-test-identification-parade-rights-obligations-240186
www.livelaw.in
Article 20 (3) & Test Identification Parade: The Question Of Rights And Obligations
The Supreme Court of India recently in a judgment[1] passed by it has delved into whether Test Identification Parade is violation of fundamental rights bestowed upon an accused under Article 20...
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Article 20 (3) & Test Identification Parade: The Question Of Rights And Obligations https://www.livelaw.in/articles/article-203-constitution-test-identification-parade-rights-obligations-240186
Test Identification Parade section 9 of Evidence act and protection from self incriminating article 20(3) of constitution.
54A of crpc
54A of crpc
π4π₯3
Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-judgment-explains-multiple-dying-declaration-240573
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-judgment-explains-multiple-dying-declaration-240573
www.livelaw.in
Principles To Be Followed In Case Of Multiple Dying Declarations: Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court recently laid down the principles to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations. The Court delved into the circumstances where the extent of burn injuries...
π―1
Decrypting Arnesh Kumar Guidelines For Making Arrest
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/decrypting-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-for-making-arrest-239715
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/decrypting-arnesh-kumar-guidelines-for-making-arrest-239715
www.livelaw.in
Decrypting Arnesh Kumar Guidelines For Making Arrest
It is almost a decade since the Supreme Court passed a slew of guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 for curbing unnecessary arrests at the hands of police officers. However, till ...
Remission Granted Or Not Granted: Crossing The βLaxman Rekhaβ
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/remission-granted-clemency-code-of-criminal-procedure-constitution-of-india-240047
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/remission-granted-clemency-code-of-criminal-procedure-constitution-of-india-240047
www.livelaw.in
Remission Granted Or Not Granted: Crossing The βLaxman Rekhaβ
βClemencyβ refers to the act of showing mercy or leniency to individuals who have been convicted of crimes. This can be in the form of a pardon, reprieve, commutation, or remission of their...
Unit-2.pdf
5 MB
Intention vs motive, knowledge, recklessness and negligence.
Section 86 of IPC, basdev, 307, 308
Section 86 of IPC, basdev, 307, 308
π₯3β1
π
β Case law -Supriyo v. UOI, 2023
β 5 Judges - 3:2 Split verdict
β Majority - 3 (Justice Bhat, Hima Kohli J and PS narsimha J) : 2(CJI &
Justice S.K. Kaul)
π¬Flashback- 20 Petitions were filed by Queer couples claiming that Special marriage act (SMA) , foreign marirage act, hindu marriage act are discriminatory as they do not recognise LGBTQI+ marriage.
βCourt refused to entertain oersonal laws hence proceeded with SMA
β Issue No. 1 - Adoption Rights to Queer couple.
π©βπ¦DISSENTING opinion by 2 Judges.
β Regulation 5(3) is contrary to the spirit and letter of the JJ Act and Section 57 in particular. The assumption made by CARA that only married heterosexual couples can provide a stable household for a child is wrong. There is no single form of a stable household, and the law should not discriminate against unmarried couples, (however individually are allowed)
[Read down 'Marital' to married or unmarried couple as against Article 15, CARA and adoption regulation (delegated legislation) not conforming to JJ Act]
πͺ MAJORITY Opinion
(There is an urgent need of regulation for the protection of rights of Queer parents and children, grey area)
β Why 57(2) exclusively for married couples because for the protection & "best interest of child" when marriage is broken.
β Point- This framework ensures that if one parent abandons the relationship, the other can still maintain themselves and provide for the child, a remedy that couples without legal recognition of marriage are deprived of.
[Thus state had an urgent need to grant the full range of rights to queer parents and children becaus eof no legal recognition]
β Issue No. 2 - Legal Recognition to LGBTQI+ marriage.
The Court also unanimously held that that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any interference but no directions were passed to legally recognise there marriage.
π©βπ¦DISSENTING Opinion
β> Freedom of queer community to enter into unions is guaranteed under the Constitution.
β> Special marriage act violative of Article 14 but it is the parliament to decide and not court.
πͺMAJORITY Opinion
βοΈEntitlement to civil union could only be through enacted law.
βοΈPOINT: Present case is not similar to earlier cases where protection was from violence but here the question of marriage which is a social institution and there could not be an unqualified right to marry which was to be treated as a
βοΈThis matter contains lot of policy making and legislature can do so constitutionally
βοΈ Queer couple have right to relationship but state is not obliged to protect those rights.
βοΈ Gender neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act may not be equitable and could result in women being exposed to vulnerabilities in an unintended manner (misuse)
βοΈTransgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry as per existing law said by CJI (dissent also)
β Directed - High powered committee to examine the rights for LGBTQI+ Union.
π―The conclusions mentioned by justice bhat are final directions given by majority the image is attached below π
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
LGBTQI+ RIGHT TO UNION β
OR MARRIAGEββ Case law -
β 5 Judges - 3:2 Split verdict
β Majority - 3 (Justice Bhat, Hima Kohli J and PS narsimha J) : 2(CJI &
Justice S.K. Kaul)
π¬Flashback- 20 Petitions were filed by Queer couples claiming that Special marriage act (SMA) , foreign marirage act, hindu marriage act are discriminatory as they do not recognise LGBTQI+ marriage.
βCourt refused to entertain oersonal laws hence proceeded with SMA
β Issue No. 1 - Adoption Rights to Queer couple.
π©βπ¦DISSENTING opinion by 2 Judges.
β Regulation 5(3) is contrary to the spirit and letter of the JJ Act and Section 57 in particular. The assumption made by CARA that only married heterosexual couples can provide a stable household for a child is wrong. There is no single form of a stable household, and the law should not discriminate against unmarried couples, (however individually are allowed)
[Read down 'Marital' to married or unmarried couple as against Article 15, CARA and adoption regulation (delegated legislation) not conforming to JJ Act]
πͺ MAJORITY Opinion
(There is an urgent need of regulation for the protection of rights of Queer parents and children, grey area)
β Why 57(2) exclusively for married couples because for the protection & "best interest of child" when marriage is broken.
β Point- This framework ensures that if one parent abandons the relationship, the other can still maintain themselves and provide for the child, a remedy that couples without legal recognition of marriage are deprived of.
[Thus state had an urgent need to grant the full range of rights to queer parents and children becaus eof no legal recognition]
β Issue No. 2 - Legal Recognition to LGBTQI+ marriage.
The Court also unanimously held that that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any interference but no directions were passed to legally recognise there marriage.
π©βπ¦DISSENTING Opinion
β> Freedom of queer community to enter into unions is guaranteed under the Constitution.
β> Special marriage act violative of Article 14 but it is the parliament to decide and not court.
πͺMAJORITY Opinion
βοΈEntitlement to civil union could only be through enacted law.
βοΈPOINT: Present case is not similar to earlier cases where protection was from violence but here the question of marriage which is a social institution and there could not be an unqualified right to marry which was to be treated as a
fundamental right. βοΈThis matter contains lot of policy making and legislature can do so constitutionally
βοΈ Queer couple have right to relationship but state is not obliged to protect those rights.
βοΈ Gender neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act may not be equitable and could result in women being exposed to vulnerabilities in an unintended manner (misuse)
βοΈTransgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry as per existing law said by CJI (dissent also)
β Directed - High powered committee to examine the rights for LGBTQI+ Union.
π―The conclusions mentioned by justice bhat are final directions given by majority the image is attached below π
#Case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π10π₯2β1π―1π«‘1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
π LGBTQI+ RIGHT TO UNION β
OR MARRIAGEβ β Case law - Supriyo v. UOI, 2023 β 5 Judges - 3:2 Split verdict β Majority - 3 (Justice Bhat, Hima Kohli J and PS narsimha J) : 2(CJI & Justice S.K. Kaul) π¬Flashback- 20 Petitionsβ¦
πConclusions and directions of Majority Judges.
Read summary notes of same sex marriage judgement here -
1. https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/409
2. https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/400
π―The next development in this topic will be the
β Committee Name & Members
β Directions by committee;Or
The Act passed by parliament.
β Connect it with UCC also.
@CurrentLegalGK
Read summary notes of same sex marriage judgement here -
1. https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/409
2. https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/400
π―The next development in this topic will be the
β Committee Name & Members
β Directions by committee;Or
The Act passed by parliament.
β Connect it with UCC also.
@CurrentLegalGK
π2π2β1π1π1
HONY and HOB: Copyrights in the Digital Market and the 'Modicum of Creativity'
https://www.thequint.com/opinion/hony-hob-brandon-stanton-karishma-mehta-copyrights-in-the-digital-market
https://www.thequint.com/opinion/hony-hob-brandon-stanton-karishma-mehta-copyrights-in-the-digital-market
TheQuint
HONY and HOB: Copyrights in the Digital Market and the 'Modicum of Creativity'
India, for a long time, followed the somewhat archaic βsweat of the browβ test regarding the originality of work.
π₯1
Right to Marry is a fundamental right under Indian Constitution β
Anonymous Quiz
57%
Yes under article 21
38%
No
3%
Both
2%
None
β3π₯2
Transwomen- transmen, transwomen-cismen, transmen-ciswomen have right to marry under special marriage act and personal laws?
Anonymous Quiz
38%
Yes
62%
No
π₯3π1
β1π₯1
Socio-Economic offences and laws.β No plea bargain is allowed
β Moral turpitude offences.
#chapter_21A_of_crpc
@CurrentLegalGK
β4π2π₯1
π₯πΊ
[Basdev v State of Pepsu AIR 1956]
βSo far as knowledge is concerned, we must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. But so far as intent or intention is concerned, we must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. Was the man beside his mind altogether for the time being? If so it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking, and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about, we can apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.β
#Mental_incapacity
#Insanity
#Intoxication
@CurrentLegalGK
Section 84, 85 and 86 of Indian penal code.[Basdev v State of Pepsu AIR 1956]
βSo far as knowledge is concerned, we must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. But so far as intent or intention is concerned, we must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. Was the man beside his mind altogether for the time being? If so it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking, and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about, we can apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.β
#Mental_incapacity
#Insanity
#Intoxication
@CurrentLegalGK
π3π₯1
π3β1