Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage.pdf
881.1 KB
π2β€βπ₯1
π¨ββοΈ
β¨
Ans. It is clear that the pronoun heβ is not defined anywhere in the POCSO Act. In view of the provision of section 2(2) of the POCSO Act, one must fall back upon the definition of that pronoun as it appears in section 8 of the IPC [ 2(10) of BNS ] Giving due regard to the fact that the Legislature enacted the POCSO Act in order to provide protection to children from sexual offences β regardless of whether an offence is committed upon a child by a man or a woman β the court must not interpret any provision of the statute that derogates from the legislative intent and purpose.
Interpretation based on legislative intent to protect child from sexual offences and a technical interpretation by refering to the principal act for residuary definition clause.
β¨ Section 2(10) BNS-
βgenderβ.βThe pronoun βheβ and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male, female or transgender.
β¨ Section 3 of POCSO reads as under:
3. Penetrative sexual assault.βA person is said to commit βpenetrative sexual assaultβ ifβ
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.
β¨ Question:
Issue: Independent thought v. UoI, 2017 held 375 IPC and section 3 and 5 POCSO in pari materia that is no differentiation then why 'he' in POCSO is different than in IPC/BNS
The essential offence is same in both but 3 and 5 of POCSO is not
limited to the offence of rape.
375 IPC starts with Man and 3 & 5 POCSO starts with Person.
There is no reason why he should not be read as person in 3 and 5 therefore women can be held liable.
Credits: The Question is posed by Shubhi Shubhi.
@CurrentLegalGK
Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT Delhi, 2024β¨
Can a Women be convicted under section 4
Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assaultβAns. It is clear that the pronoun heβ is not defined anywhere in the POCSO Act. In view of the provision of section 2(2) of the POCSO Act, one must fall back upon the definition of that pronoun as it appears in section 8 of the IPC [ 2(10) of BNS ] Giving due regard to the fact that the Legislature enacted the POCSO Act in order to provide protection to children from sexual offences β regardless of whether an offence is committed upon a child by a man or a woman β the court must not interpret any provision of the statute that derogates from the legislative intent and purpose.
Interpretation based on legislative intent to protect child from sexual offences and a technical interpretation by refering to the principal act for residuary definition clause.
β¨ Section 2(10) BNS-
βgenderβ.βThe pronoun βheβ and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male, female or transgender.
β¨ Section 3 of POCSO reads as under:
3. Penetrative sexual assault.βA person is said to commit βpenetrative sexual assaultβ ifβ
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.
illogical to say that the offence contemplated in those provisions refers only to penetration by a penis.
β¨ Question:
Difference between Section 63 BNS earlier 375 IPC and section 3 and 5 of POCSOβIssue: Independent thought v. UoI, 2017 held 375 IPC and section 3 and 5 POCSO in pari materia that is no differentiation then why 'he' in POCSO is different than in IPC/BNS
The essential offence is same in both but 3 and 5 of POCSO is not
limited to the offence of rape.
375 IPC starts with Man and 3 & 5 POCSO starts with Person.
There is no reason why he should not be read as person in 3 and 5 therefore women can be held liable.
Credits: The Question is posed by Shubhi Shubhi.
@CurrentLegalGK
π8π1
π
While reading POCSO I come accross section 2(2) and in particular IPC and CrPC but we all know new laws came.
Then what to do?
Should we refer new laws or not?
Any help from laws other than common sense.
Yes !
Section 8 of General Clauses Act 1897. Construction of references to repealed enactments
Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.
@CurrentLegalGK
New criminal laws referencesWhile reading POCSO I come accross section 2(2) and in particular IPC and CrPC but we all know new laws came.
Then what to do?
Should we refer new laws or not?
Any help from laws other than common sense.
Yes !
Section 8 of General Clauses Act 1897. Construction of references to repealed enactments
Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted.
See the image for Notification and not only for short title but especially for change in section numbers.
@CurrentLegalGK
π3π2π1
ππ
30 Days Challenge is Complete π―β
Winners areβ
Sushmita, Anmol, Bhavna, Jay kumar Singhal, chakshu, mansi, nikhil, shekh jeba, Param, Aman
and there are many who could not complete 21 days but were very close.
Congrats to everyone of those who have atleast tried.
Lesson: If you can control your extreme bodily wants then these exams are not that difficult for you to overcome.
Next Challenge starts from Today and will end after:
β60 Days.
β6 AM Daily.
Congratulations 30 Days Challenge is Complete π―β
Winners areβ
and there are many who could not complete 21 days but were very close.
Congrats to everyone of those who have atleast tried.
Lesson: If you can control your extreme bodily wants then these exams are not that difficult for you to overcome.
Next Challenge starts from Today and will end after:
β60 Days.
β6 AM Daily.
π―13π5π2β€βπ₯1β‘1π€©1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
A very good morning everyone πππππ€ Have a nice day to all of you ππ€π Timing :- 7:45 AM !
π
BEST Image from last 2 days.
π3π2π1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/maneka-sanjay-gandhi-v-union-of-india-wpc-5882024-with-rambhual-nishad-ca-106442024-1563675
ποΈπ¨ββοΈ
Cooperative between organs | Separation of powers.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Kant remarked, "With every law, there should be a legislative review. Reviews should not only be confined to judicial reviews, there should be legislative reviews of laws from time to time. You may have it every 20 years, 25 years or 50 years."
Justice Kant, suggesting that there be an expert body to undertake periodic legislative review, said, "One should have an expert body to find out whether a law has worked well, what was the object for which it was enacted and has it really succeeded in achieving that object. If not, what are the deficiencies, bottlenecks and grey areas which need to be taken care of."
@CurrentLegalGK
Judicial Review combined with legislative review will have better effect.Cooperative between organs | Separation of powers.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Kant remarked, "With every law, there should be a legislative review. Reviews should not only be confined to judicial reviews, there should be legislative reviews of laws from time to time. You may have it every 20 years, 25 years or 50 years."
Justice Kant, suggesting that there be an expert body to undertake periodic legislative review, said, "One should have an expert body to find out whether a law has worked well, what was the object for which it was enacted and has it really succeeded in achieving that object. If not, what are the deficiencies, bottlenecks and grey areas which need to be taken care of."
My Question:
Then What is the work of Law commissionβ
@CurrentLegalGK
π―3β€βπ₯1
Improper Rejection Of Juvenility Claim Even In SC's Curative Jurisdiction Not Final; Fresh Plea Can Be Raised : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/improper-rejection-of-juvenility-claim-even-in-scs-curative-jurisdiction-not-final-fresh-plea-can-be-raised-supreme-court-280421
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/improper-rejection-of-juvenility-claim-even-in-scs-curative-jurisdiction-not-final-fresh-plea-can-be-raised-supreme-court-280421
www.livelaw.in
Improper Rejection Of Juvenility Claim Even In SC's Curative Jurisdiction Not Final; Fresh Plea Can Be Raised : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a plea of juvenility, which was not properly considered by Courts as per due procedure, cannot be treated as final. Therefore, a fresh plea of juvenility can be...
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Improper Rejection Of Juvenility Claim Even In SC's Curative Jurisdiction Not Final; Fresh Plea Can Be Raised : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/improper-rejection-of-juvenility-claim-even-in-scs-curative-jurisdiction-not-final-fresh-plea-canβ¦
ππ«
Note: Read whole.
@CurrentLegalGK
What's above and after curative Petition? It is plea of juvenilityNote: Read whole.
@CurrentLegalGK
π2π1
CompNRIPIOOCI_25042017.pdf
83.5 KB
β€βπ₯1π1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
CompNRIPIOOCI_25042017.pdf
Sharing the comparison between the Indian Diaspora kinds on the occasion of biennial Celebration of the Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas that is on 9th Jan (When Gandhi came to India in 1915 from South Africa π)
π3π1π―1
π¨ββοΈπ¨ββοΈπ¨ββοΈ
As Nick Robinson noted in Interpreting the Constitution: Supreme Court Constitution Benches since Independence (2011), the Supreme Court of India has historically been "chief justice dominant." The article suggests that CJIs may have strategically chosen bench compositions to align decisions with their preferences. This is evident from the fact that between 1947 and 2009, the CJI dissented only 10 times on constitutional benches.
@CurrentLegalGK
CJI Influence on constitution benches
As Nick Robinson noted in Interpreting the Constitution: Supreme Court Constitution Benches since Independence (2011), the Supreme Court of India has historically been "chief justice dominant." The article suggests that CJIs may have strategically chosen bench compositions to align decisions with their preferences. This is evident from the fact that between 1947 and 2009, the CJI dissented only 10 times on constitutional benches.
@CurrentLegalGK
π2π2β€1
India Legal January 13th 2025 (1).pdf
16.1 MB
π€©6β€βπ₯2π1π1
CJI & Supreme Court Judges Not Amenable To Lokpal's Jurisdiction: Lokpal
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-supreme-court-judges-not-amenable-to-lokpals-jurisdiction-lokpal-280500
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-supreme-court-judges-not-amenable-to-lokpals-jurisdiction-lokpal-280500
www.livelaw.in
CJI & Supreme Court Judges Not Amenable To Lokpal's Jurisdiction: Lokpal
A Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal, held the Lokpal while refusing to entertain a complaint.The Lokpal held that a Judge of...
π1π―1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
CJI & Supreme Court Judges Not Amenable To Lokpal's Jurisdiction: Lokpal https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cji-supreme-court-judges-not-amenable-to-lokpals-jurisdiction-lokpal-280500
The Lokpal held that a Judge of the Supreme Court does not come within the ambit of its jurisdiction in terms of Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
As per Section 14, Lokpal has jurisdiction over a person who is or has been the Prime Minister, Union Minister, Member of Parliament, Group 'A', 'B', 'C' or 'D' officials serving the Union etc.
@CurrentLegalGK
As per Section 14, Lokpal has jurisdiction over a person who is or has been the Prime Minister, Union Minister, Member of Parliament, Group 'A', 'B', 'C' or 'D' officials serving the Union etc.
@CurrentLegalGK
π2
π9β€1β€βπ₯1