📄✈️🛂 Lookout Circulars in India | Arrest at airport or prevention of accused from fleeing India.

https://chambers.com/legal-trends/indias-look-out-circular-guidelines

#Investigation
#BNSS
#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK

Abetment Of Suicide – Applicability Of Law In Suicide Cases At Workplaces
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/abetment-of-suicide-applicability-of-law-in-suicide-cases-at-workplaces-274119

Critical Analysis with other cases.

Read for Abetment of Suicide 306 IPC and 108 BNS
( hint:Ambulance 🚑)

@CurrentLegalGK

#Tip

Follow atleast one Art or hobby.

eg. Drawing, playing rubiks cube, chess, outdoor games, gardening, music instrument, juggling etc..

I believe do all one by one all are amazing.

Why?
Creativity fosters mind growth, these results will help you tackle your problems in learning and understanding and especially application of law and coming out with out of the box solution.

Fact: China Has compulsory calligraphy subject to make them learn patience and control.

@CurrentLegalGK

Domestic Violence Act Meant For Quick Remedy, Yet Cases Drag On Like Other Family Court Matters: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/domestic-violence-act-meant-for-quick-remedy-yet-cases-drag-on-like-other-family-court-matters-supreme-court-274188

Object behind Domestic violence Act | DV Act Object

@CurrentLegalGK

S.498-A IPC | Matrimonial Dispute Is Not Moral Turpitude; Cannot Be Used To Block Spouses' Right To Education: Bombay High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-matrimonial-dispute-right-to-education-498a-ipc-274076

🌟 Moral Turpitude

"Pertinently, the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution for offence punishable under sections 498-A (domestic violence and cruelty), 494 (second marriage during lifetime of first spouse) of IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s) (insulting an SC ST person) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on the basis of the report made by his wife. Apparently, this is a case of matrimonial i.e. personal dispute between the petitioner and his wife. It is difficult to hold that such offence can be termed as offence relating to moral turpitude, which may have an impact on the entitlement of the petitioner to pursue his educational upliftment through in-service Post Graduate Course

✍️ Case- {Doctor vs State of Maharashtra 2024}

🌟✓ Moral Turpitude Explained

Adoption vs Foster Care

BREAKING| Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b) : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/not-all-private-property-is-material-resource-of-community-which-state-must-equally-distribute-as-per-article-39b-supreme-court-274249

BREAKING| Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act Except Its Provisions Regulating Higher Education Degrees
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-upholds-validity-of-up-madarsa-education-act-except-its-provisions-regulating-higher-education-degrees-274258

Statute Cannot Be Struck Down On Ground Of Violation Of Basic Structure Of Constitution : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/statute-cannot-be-struck-down-on-ground-of-violation-of-basic-structure-of-constitution-supreme-court-274271

"From the above discussion, (see end👇) it can be concluded that a statute can be struck down only for the
1. Violation of Part III; or
2. Violation of any other provision of the Constitution; or
3. For being without legislative competence.
(doctrine of colourable legislation)

The constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for the violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

✓ The reason is that concepts such as democracy, federalism, and secularism are undefined concepts. Allowing courts to strike down legislation for violation of such concepts will introduce an element of uncertainty in our constitutional adjudication.

My Personal Opinion - Vagueness leads to uncertainity in interpretation thereby leading to conflict among judgments. (thus violates article 14 as on same facts you get different results)

What to do then?

In a challenge to the validity of a statute for violation of the principle of secularism, it must be shown that the statute violates provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism."


🌟 Cases Cited (From above discussion)-
1. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977)
2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
3. However, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) a Constitution Bench (Chief Justice Khehar's judgment) applied the basic structure doctrine to test the validity of Parliamentary legislation. Also In NJAC case, Justice Khehar built upon his reasoning in Madras Bar Association. However, Justice Lokur differed.


Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, Managers Association Madaris Arabiya UP v. Union of India and connected matters.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Remember This is for ordinary legislation and not constituional amendment

🌟 My earlier question?
On what grounds judicial review can be done, now you know what is the answer, apart from part 3 we can challenge and court can struck down on the basis of Any provision of Constitution.


🤔✍️ #Question-
Now tell me if there any law which violates any other provision other than part 3 of COI can you approach supreme court, if no why and if yes on what grounds?

On what provision NJAC was challenged to supreme court?

Comment 👇

@CurrentLegalGK

CJI Chandrachud’s Judgment Doesn't Say That Krishna Iyer Doctrine Did "Disservice To Constitution"; But Justices Nagarathna & Dhulia Disapprove It
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/property-owners-association-v-state-of-maharashtra-2024-insc-835-krishna-iyer-doctrine-1557042

🤝🙂‍↔️ Compounding of offences in case of non-compoundable offences.

We thus sum­ up and hold that   as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court  is   squarely guided by the   compromise between the 
parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extra­ordinary power enjoined upon a high Court under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this 
court under article142 of the 
Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and 
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C.  
Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully  in the context of quashing 
criminal proceedings, beqring in mind:-

1. Nature and effect of the 
offence on the conscious of the society.
 
2. Seriousness of the injury

3. Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim

4. Conduct of the accused 
persons, prior to and after the 
occurrence of the purported 
offence and/or other relevant considerations.

Read: https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/3464

Why All Private Properties Cannot Be Distributed For Common Good As Material Resources Of Community? Supreme Court Explains
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-all-private-properties-cannot-be-distributed-for-common-good-as-material-resources-of-community-supreme-court-explains-274310

🌟 Case name: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024

✅ Provision—Article 39(b) reads as follows:
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

✅ Issues: Total 2
1. Article 31C:
Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the
forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva mills;

2. Article 39(b):
Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(1983) by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy must be reconsidered.
Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in
Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned
privately and not by the state.

In this brief we are dealing the second issue—

✅ 3 Judgments CJI & others, BV nagarathna and Sudhanshu dhulia, see end for ratio 8:1/7:2.

✅ Ratio Decidendi- let's start 😉

1. All private owned resources satisfies only the term 'resources' not material or community.

2. If private Owned resources has to be excluded then instead of 'community' word 'State' would be there.

3. Meaning of Community-
Different from Individual, if 39(b) meant individual then community word would be absent.

4. Private Owned resources included in it hut not all only those whoch are Material and of the community.

5. As per Rangnath reddy means + good produce both included, i.e., Factory and private owned cars produced from factory.

6. Sanjeev coke- Phrase included, all things capable of producing wealth of the community,

7. ☝️Overruled- Both the views favours all private included which is held erroneous by majority and says that it favours particular economic ideology (communism ki baat ho rahi hai :) but constitution does not permits any particular ideology it is framed in broad terms.

8. Interpretation Against Article 300A- To hold that all private property is covered by the phrase “material resources of the community” and that the ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with the constitutional protection.

9. Test to determine whether the resource comes under 39(b) or not—
✓ Nature of the resource,
✓ Characteristics of the resource,
✓ Impact of the resource on the well-being of the community,
✓ Scarcity of the resource,
✓ Consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players.

The public trust doctrine can also be applied ( see M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996)

10. Gave non- exhaustive illustrations like Ponds, lakes, wetlands, fragile lands, resource bearing lands.
also, Natural gas, mines minerals, air waves, spectrum (scarcr and finite) may be privately owned and controlled.

✅🌟 Dissent—
1. B.V. Nagarathana-
She concurred with regard to not all private resource come under it however she penned different views on how private resource can be transformed to community and subsequently distributed to subserve common good.

Also she dissented on-
In my view, the judgments Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke, Abu Kavur Bai and Basantibai correctly decided the issues that fell for consideration and do not call for any
interference on the merits of the matters and as explained above.

Reasoning why sanjeev coke is good law as regard on merits of the case decided- In Sanjeev Coke this Court did not decide the case only on the basis of the opinion of Krishna Iyer, J. in Ranganatha Reddy.


✅ 2. Sudhanshu Dhulia-
Dissented from majority on meaning of the phrase “material resources of the community and favoured the 2 overruled judgments.

Note: Sudhanshu, J, is the only dissenting judge if question comes on whether ALL private owned comes under phrase of 39(b) & B.V., J, on merits of 2 past cases and dofferent reasoning of when private resouce is community.

@CurrentLegalGK

#vocabulary_@CurrentLegalGK

Gerrymander

Eg total votes more but still loses (see blue (democrats) voters more but red republicans win)

Note: This is just for example.

Delimitation exercise article 82 and 170.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/swarajyamag.com/amp/story/politics%252Fthe-integrity-of-politics-does-gerrymandering-exist-in-india

Next time you see the constituency being changed think from this perspective also.

Why the Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of UP Madarsa Act, 2004 🔗
#express_explained