Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response On Plea To Decriminalise Consensual Sex By 16-18 Year Olds
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-seeks-centres-response-on-plea-to-decriminalise-consensual-sex-by-16-18-year-olds-235623

⚡🔥 Secunderabad Club vs CIT | 2023/ ARTICLE 141 EXPLANATION

Observations regarding the concept of ratio decidendi and binding.

1. What is binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution is the ratio of the judgment and as already noted, the ratio decidendi of a judgment is the reason assigned in support of the conclusion.

2. The reasoning of a judgment can be discerned only upon reading of a judgment in its entirety and the same has to be culled out thereafter.

3. The ratio of the case has to be deduced from the facts involved in the case and the particular provision(s) of law which the court has applied or interpreted and the decision has to be read in the context of the particular statutory provisions involved in the matter.

4. An order made merely to dispose of the case cannot have the value or effect of a binding precedent.

5. Although the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, it has only persuasive authority as far as the Supreme Court itself is concerned.

6. The decision is an authority for what is specifically decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom.

7. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with.

8. Declaration of the law by the Supreme Court can be said to have been made only when it is contained in a speaking order, either expressly or by necessary implication and not by dismissal in limine.

9. The precedential value of an order of the Supreme Court which is not preceded by a detailed judgment would be lacking inasmuch as an issue would not have been categorically dealt with order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.

10. If an order of this Court is brief and meant only for the purpose of closure of the controversy involved in a particular case and with a view to conclude the case, undoubtedly, such an order is binding on the parties to the said order, but in our view, it cannot act as a precedent for subsequent cases such as the present one with which we are dealing.

#Ratio_decidendi #stare_decisis
#Article_141 #Obiter_dicta
#concept

#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK

🚪👋Recusal Of Judges In India

"Independence and impartiality are the twin pillars without which justice cannot stand, and the purpose of recusal is to underpin them”

😯Why Recusal Of Judges❓
• Conflict of Interest.
• Nemo Judex In Causa Sua.
• Natural Justice
• Due Process of Law.

🙄What Does Recusal Mean❓❓
A judge can withdraw from hearing a case to prevent creating a perception that s/he carried a bias while deciding the case.

😇 Relevant Example💯
When an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court against a judgement of a High Court that may have been delivered by the SC judge when she was in the HC or Re-examination of SC judgement by same judge.

📚 Legal Provisions and Case Laws

No Specific Provision but there are S.C. rulings.

1. Ranjit Thakur v UOI (1987)
Test of Reasonable Apprehension in the mind of the party.
“The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, “Am I biased❓” but to look at the mind of the party before him,”

2. On 1997 S.C. adopted a Charter called the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life to serve as a guide to be observed by Judges, essential for independent, strong and respected judiciary, indispensable in the impartial administration of justice.

🚦Lacunas in the Recusal of Judges
⚡No codified rules which makes delay in proceedings.

⚡Judge is the Sole person to decide for himself and no other person but there should be 3rd party it can be the CJI/CJ/DJ or that court who refer the case to benches.

⚡It is Assumed that Judges are Unbiased due to the Oath given during Appointment.

⚡Lack of transparency; No reasoning is given when recuses.

Conclusion - This concept removes the doubts and brings confidence in Judiciary to the parties who are fighting for their life & liberty

🙂 Pinochet Principle- If a judge is interested in a cause being promoted by one of the parties, then he is automatically disqualified from hearing viz If a High Court was consulted before the notification of the amendment, that disqualifies the entire High Court.

#Impartial_Judiciary #Independent_Judiciary
#Recusal_of_cases
#Article_14 #Article_21

#Discernible_Topics
@CurrentLegalGK

Not exhaustive but 16 broad illustrations on expected Judge's life.

---->Restatement of values of judge's life 1997 SUPREME COURT

@CurrentLegalGK

Default Bail as a Right of Accused

What is default Bail ?😕

This type of bail is commonly referred as to as default Bail or compulsive bail, statutory bail or automatic bail as it granted on a/c of the default of the investigating agency is not completing the investigation within prescribed time, irrespective of the merits of the case .

It provides down that upon the expiry of a specified period, if the chargesheet has not been filed by the investigating agency, the accused immediately becomes entitled to seek bail.

Application has been made orally or in writing (but in daily proceedings the court requires in writing)

Default Bail u/s-167(2) is not mere statutory right but Fundamental Right also U/A- 21.

Default Bail is not matter of discretion but a matter of Rt. & it can ba availed by an accused irrespective of the gravity or nature of the offence.

Default Bail U/Cr.pc is an imp. Rt. And it can't be scuttled by filing chargesheet before the probe is complete.

Calculation of period of 90/60 days ❓

When does it start ? From the date of arrest or from the date of remand ? 🤔

Although in the most of the cases, day of arrest and remand are the same, but in still few cases, this situation may arise

"The total period of 90 days under Clause(i) and 60 days under Clause (ii) has to be calculated only from the date of remand & not from the date of arrest"


Case - Ritu chhabaria V/s UOI 2023

#default_bail
#CRPC_167
#Article21

@CurrentLegalGK

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 2023 6 MONTHLY DIGEST BY SUPREME COURT.

@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme Court Half Yearly Bail Digest 2023.pdf

@CurrentLegalGK

Important case Judgement By SC by 3 Judges Bench

Challenged the Ritu Chabbaria Vs UOI Judgement

As per Chabbaria Judgement SC said default Bail is not mere statutory right but also fundamental right #Article21 .

A special bench of the Supreme Court has ordered today that trial courts and high courts across the country, while considering an application for the grant of default bail under section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, shall decide the same independent of and without relying on the judgment of Ritu Chhabria vs. Union Of India & Ors.

Recall of the judgment in Chhabaria which held that an investigating agency cannot file a charge sheet in court without completing a probe to deprive default bail to an accused.

Case - Directorate of Enforcement vs Manpreet Singh Talwar 2023

#default_bail
#crpc167

@CurrentLegalGK

Lengthiest judgements

The main purpose of judgment writing is to convey the interpretation of the law as clearly as possible, not only to the parties in the litigation, but also to the people at large.


https://www.barandbench.com/columns/lengthy-judgments-unlimited-arguments

Legality of Lottery in India - Vakilsearch | Blog
https://vakilsearch.com/blog/legality-of-lottery-in-india/

• Wagering contracts
⚡In news - The controversy regarding game of skill and chance

Legal in Assam Arunachal Pradesh West Bengal Meghalaya Nagaland Mizoram Kerala Goa Maharashtra  Manipur Madhya Pradesh Punjab Sikkim

☑️Important changes in new bills.

BNS BNSS BSA
IPC CRPC IEA

Reference for Enforcement of bills 👇🏻
Read forensics under BSA it is clearly written that Infrastructure to be created within 5 years.

Why IPC WAS ENACTED❓
Expansion of britishers lead to difficulties in administration particularly in the legal sphere “Indian law prior to codification consisted of a complex array of Parliamentary Charters and Acts, Indian legislation (after 1833), East India Company Regulations, English common law, Hindu law, Muslim law, and many bodies of customary law.,”

According to Barry Wright, “The IPC project was delayed by governmental and legislative inertia, resistance by European residents to having the same legal status as indigenous populations.

Mention the limitations of this bill including what more could have been added in this major criminal amendment 👇🏻

@CurrentLegalGK

Recently 2 High courts gave landmark judgement over Changing the name comes under Fundamental Right

Right to change name is a F.R U/A-21

Right to keep or change one's name is vested in every citizen U/A- 19(1)(a)/21/14 & it can't be curtailed by any artitrary or unreasonable restrictions.

Case - Md. Sameer Rao vs St. Of U.P 2023

Another Judgement By Delhi High Court.

Right to identity is an 'intrinsic part' of the Right to life U/A-21 & that it includes the Right to have own's name / surname as per one's choice.

Case - Sadanand &Anr. Vs CBSE & ors. 2023

#fundamental_right
#A_14
#A_19
#A_21

@CurrentLegalGK

In the X v. Principal Secretary ruling, the Supreme Court made important observations on the reproductive autonomy of a woman. Women did not need to seek her family’s consent, nor could doctors impose extra-legal conditions, the court said. The only cases in which a woman would require her guardian’s consent is if she is a minor or suffers from mental illness.

#MRTP #Abortion_rights

👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️Landmark judgements on criminal Laws

☑️Death and Life Sentences

1. Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases:
(Sections 467 & 468)
Adopting a constructive and purposive interpretation, the constitutional bench held that in cases where the action was initiated well in time but cognisance was taken after limitation had expired, the person concerned should not be put to prejudice since the delay was a result of processes of the court. It was held that the benefit of limitation should always weigh in favour of the person concerned.

2. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. UOI

The constitutional bench examined the five heads established for praying for commuting death sentences -delay, insanity, solitary confinement, judgments declared per incuriam (no more a precedent) and procedural lapses.

2. Anokhilal v. State of MP
Qualification of Amicus curiae
Where a death sentence could be an option, the court has to be very circumspect and cautious and not hasty. Reasonable time should be given to the amicus curiae to prepare for the plea and such amicus curiae should have at least 10 years standing in court in capital offences.

4. Muthuramalingam v State: The 5-judge bench held that in normal circumstances, 2 life imprisonment must run concurrently. This was yet another benefit conferred on life convicts.

5. Swamy Shraddananda vs Karnataka, it was held that in a case where a death sentence is awarded and but the court finds the case does not warrant death sentence and at the same time mere award of life imprisonment would not be sufficient, the court may award a life sentence with a rider that the executive shall not exercise the power of commutation or remission for a fixed period of 20-25 years whatever the court decides.


☑️Substantive Challenges against Certain IPC Provisions

6. In Navtej Singh Johar v UOI, a constitutional bench held that Section 377 would not be a valid provision. As such, same-sex relationships entered into by individuals would not invite criminal action under Section 377 and they cannot be proceeded against. This was a significant development in the last decade.

7. Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
A trial won't be vitiated only because the informant and I.O. are same unless the defence counsel is able to show biasness or malafide on the part of the I.O. This case had overruled Mohanlal's judgment which had taken a contrary view.

8. Arup Bhuyan v State of Assam: It was held that mere membership of a banned organisation alone can be a factor to launch an investigation into the matter and that such membership can invite prosecution even if no act had been committed by such person in furtherance of the elements which constituted the crime in question.

9. Kapil Wadhawan case: The bench held that the day the remand order was issued by the court should be considered while calculating the period of 60 days or 90 days under Section 167 of CrPC.

#CRPC #CAPITAL_PUNISHMENT #IPC #UAPA #NDPS

@CurrentLegalGK

🦕📃Lengthiest Judgements By Supreme Courts

The main purpose of judgment writing is to convey the interpretation of the law as clearly as possible, not only to the parties in the litigation, but also to the people at large.

☑️Long Indian Judgements

Notably, the verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) that propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine contained 700 pages and was difficult to comprehend. The SP Gupta case (1981) that had roughly 830 pages. However, during the last few years, the Supreme Court of India has broken its own record of writing the longest verdict. It seems there is a competition among the judges to make new records in terms of writing long judgments. The NJAC judgment (2015) had 1042 pages; the Aadhaar judgment (2018) in the Puttaswamy case had 1,448 pages; the Ayodhya judgment had 1,045 pages.

☑️Foreign judgements' length

Even the judgments of the Supreme Courts of UK and USA, which Indian judges are very fond of, do teach a lesson. The verdict in the Parliament Prorogation case (2019) by the UK Supreme Court had only 24 pages. The Marbury v. Madison case (1803) that explained the doctrine of judicial review had just 18 pages. The leading Texas v. Johnson (1989) on free speech in the context of the right to burn the American flag had just 43 pages. The judgment in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that decriminalized sodomy in the State of Texas had only 49 pages, unlike Indian judges who used 493 pages to deal with similar questions in the Navtej Singh Johar case (2018). Another landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) dealing with abortion rights used just 66 pages to communicate the law.


Reasons of long judgements are different opinions/tests/doctrines that every judge applies even when concurring the same opinion as that of his/her colleague.

The era is of fast paced world where even legal associates need crisp information and it is pertinent to note that the law (Article 141) is for people itself if legal associates are facing difficulty in comprehension and the judgements are creating confusion how can we expect the people to remember the maxim "Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat".

Justice HR Khanna rightly said that the function of a judge while deciding a case is not the same as that of a research scholar.

#legal_fact #lenghtiest_judgements
#law_for_people

♀️♂️Changing gender is a constitutional right

☑️Provision- Section 15 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 which deals with health care facilities including Sex Reassignment Surgery and hormonal therapy.

☑️Opinion- The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar further said that if in modern society, we do not acknowledge this vested right in a person, to change one's identity, we would be "only encouraging gender identity disorder syndrome

Case referred- NALSA v. UOI, 2014

Case title - Neha Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 7796 of 2023]

🤔 Fundamental or constitutional right❓comment below with reasons


@CurrentLegalGk

🦁Power of magistrate to investigation at pre cognizance stage #S_156_(3) #crpc.

Recently SC explained the distinction b/w the power of magistrate to direct investigation of an FIR & investigation at pre-cognizance stage u/s- 156(3).

SC referred to Ramdev Food products Pvt. Ltd vs St. Of Gujrat.

S.156(3) is to be exercised on receiving a complaint or police report or information from any person other Police officer or upon his own knowledge before he takes cognizance u/s-190.

✍Once Magistrate takes cognizance, the magistrate has discretion to take recourse to his powers u/s- 202.

Case - Kailash vijayvargiya vs Rajlakshmi Chaudhary & others 2023

#crpc #cognizance
#S_156

@CurrentLegalGK®

50 MOST IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW JUDGEMENTS.

🖼️Pictorial representation