The Necessity of Promulgation and Publication for Law Validity: An Analysis of Harla v. The State Of Rajasthan: Supreme Court Of India | CaseMine
https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/the-necessity-of-promulgation-and-publication-for-law-validity:-an-analysis-of-harla-v.-the-state-of-rajasthan/view#:~:text=The%20absence%20of%20promulgation%20or%20publication%20violates%20the%20principles%20of,retrospectively%20validate%20an%20invalid%20law.

My Answer to this Question is as Follows:

https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/5036?comment=457471

References Taken
1 https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/5061
2 https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/5055
3 Image

Answer is that a Publication is must for a law to be enforceable as it shows the clear indentifiable purpose, you see salman rushdie ban on import notification was not present court and court held:

“In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, we have no other option except to presume that no such notification exists, and therefore, we cannot examine the validity thereof and dispose of the writ petition as infructuous,

An inference may be drawn from this recent judgment that if there is no traces of notification, no law exists.

But still the Question is not purely resolved as one may say government has the law with it and has not published then what consequences to follow?

In Harla v. The State Of Rajasthan 1951 it was held promulgation is must for a law to become enforceable.

#Discernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK

US VP J D Vance attacks Germany over free expression: Laws that govern hate speech in the country 🔗
#explained_global #express_explained

Assam Police books Pakistan national linked to Elizabeth Gogoi: charges against Ali Tauqeer Sheikh 🔗
#explained_law #express_explained

Allahbadia bail condition: SC’s gag order and the question of free speech 🔗
#express_explained #ranveer_allahbadia

😉 Two Important issues.

1. Major development might come in future on law on social media:
The SC also sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India in the next hearing to tackle the “vacuum” in the regulation of online content.

2. SC imposed interim conditions while clubbing FIR on of which reads as follows:
The petitioner or his associates shall not air any show on Youtube or any other audio/video visual mode of communication till further orders.

Case: In this scenerio it is pertinent to mention a case Mohammed Zubair versus State of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 2022
A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion — an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold… — would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the court said.


✓Mistakes in this Article
1. There is only ban on video and audio posts and not textual.
2. Though tiny but a mistake as Bail provisions of CrPC explained and not BNSS

Could you explain what is the meaning of the expression?
"Selling Bail"

@CurrentLegalGK

India A Secular Country, Mandatory Jailtime Needed For Promoting Enmity On Religious Lines: Kerala HC Remarks In PC George's Anticipatory Bail Plea
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-p-c-george-anticipatory-bail-bns-mandatory-jail-sentence-284384

“First offender he can escape with fine, second offender he can escape with fine…there are sections in which second offence is given higher punishment there right?….According to me mandatory jail sentence is necessary, if there is offence, not in this case…mandatory jail sentence is necessary especially we India is a secular country…”

Inessence the argument is Minimum imprisonment necessary over "or fine"
Can a state government enhance punishment?

Will that amount to repugnancy between centre and state laws?

Right to Privacy 🙂

The inclusion of this third category- which allows the Central Government to declare a Data Fiduciary as a 'Significant Data Fiduciary' and demand information from Data Fiduciaries or intermediaries without informing the Data Principal- raises serious constitutional concerns.

Prone to Misuse.

Note: Obviously there would be grounds for asking it but you know the grounds can be any vague ground such as public order, sovereignty amd unity and integrity.

IPR and biodiversity  - iPleaders
https://blog.ipleaders.in/ipr


🌟"The term “biopiracy” has been derived from two words, ‘bio’ implying anything that is related to life or living organisms and ‘piracy’ meaning robbery. Hence, biopiracy can be inferred as a "Biological Theft."

🌟 "Biopiracy can be defined as misappropriation of living organisms that includes microbes, plants, animals and also the traditional cultural knowledge that is associated with them. It is an illicit appropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic resources by way of PATENTS."


🌟 "Biopiracy occurs when researchers or companies utilize biological resources or traditional knowledge from indigenous communities without their consent or fair compensation, often leading to the PATENTING of these resources or knowledge for commercial gain."

🌟 Intellectual Property Rights: Bioprospecting, Biopiracy and Protection of Traditional Knowledge - An Indian Perspective | IntechOpen
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/78249


#Emerging_Dimensions_of_Law @CurrentLegalGK

Doosro ki zindgi ka nyaay apne hath me chahiye? RAJA/ RANI ki kursi pe baithna hai??

Set your own high benchmarks daily on a paper✍️, and go BEYOND it.

Jaise bhookh lagi ho ya na lagi ho, taaqat ho ya naa ko, khaana toh khana hi hota hai . Similarly, motivation ho yaa na ho, energy ho ya na ho, benchmark reach karne ke liye-

Do whatever it takes.

•Wake up late in the night, or sleep early for it.
•Eat more or eat less, whatever fuels you.
•Eat healthy, stay fit, zabardasti, roz.
•Have faith, surround yourself with people, apps, thoughts, activities (internal & external) that ONLY help you achieve your benchmarks daily.


CHALLENGE OF 21 DAYS × 3 SETS


Save this post and reply to it once you successfully complete 1 set (21 days) of reaching your benchmark or going beyond it, daily.

Let's see kis aspirant me dum hai ki sirf 21 din bhi khud ke benchmarks achieve kar pae. 😏💪🧠



There's no reward from our end for doing these 3 sets of winner-benchmark. Har cheez lollipop ke liye karna zaruri hai kya?!!

Times Up Guys.

Update time.

I have achieved 70% of my target.

Atleast eligible for MPCJ 😁

Senior Designations Can't Be Monopoly Of SC & HC Advocates : Supreme Court Flags Lack Of Opportunities For Trial Court Lawyers
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/senior-designations-cant-be-monopoly-of-sc-hc-advocates-supreme-court-flags-lack-of-opportunities-for-trial-court-lawyers-284597

This FIR invoked

Sections – 79 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman),
95 (Hiring, employing or engaging a child to commit an offence),
294 (Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.) &
296 (Obscene acts and songs) BNS read with

Section 67 of IT Act, 2000 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically), read with

Section 4/7 of Cinematograph Act 1952 read with

Section 4/6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

Any more charges that you may impose in the recent infamous case of obscenity

@CurrentLegalGK

#Discernible_Topics
Ratio decidendi
Law of Precedents

Whether Judgments of High Court Binding upon Subordinate/district courts?

So far the decisions of the High Courts are concerned there has not been any specific provision under the Government of India Act, 1935 nor in the Constitution of India, like Article 141. This question was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in one of the decisions reported in

M/s East India commercial Co. Ltd. V. collector of Customs, Calcutta. AIR 1962

The Supreme Court, on consideration of Articles 215, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India came to the conclusion that the cumulative effect of the above noted provisions of the Constitution is that the decisions of the High Court have binding
effect upon the subordinate judiciary and the tribunals.

But, every decision does not constitute a precedent nor is a ruling. Many cases are decided and disposed of on facts. What constitutes precedent is the "proposition of law" as laid down in the decision.

Article 141 #COI@CurrentLegalGK @CurrentLegalGK

What is Article 101(4)? Why should Amritpal not worry about it? 🔗
#amritpal_singh

✨ Section 187(2) & (3)

Issue: Upto 10 Years it is 40 Days or 60 Days period in which 15 days Police custody can be given in whole or in parts.

Judgment: 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.

Is this not a departure from Bare Language?

✨ Reasoning by High Court judgment which supreme court refused to interfere Next post

But first Let us see the Offences which are charged in the present case.

✓ 108 Abetment of suicide:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine

✓ 308(5) Extortion:
Either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Others are not of our use.

"The Phrase Which may extend to ten years is being interpreted in the lines of 187 (2) & (3)"

👉 2 Important Phrases
S.187- 10 Years or More &
S. 108 Punishment- 
Extend to 10 years

Note: HC judgment considered 167 and 187 as same.

👮‍♀️ Custody period Judgment

∆ Case: Hyder Ali v.State of Karnataka, 2024

167 CrPC: Not less than 10 years and 187 BNSS: 10 years or More ——>
Means threshold period of 10 Years.
BOTH ARE SAME NO CHANGE IN NEW LAW.

Reason for the aforesaid issue :
The offence in the case at hand, does not bear a
minimum threshold sentence of ten years, but is extendable or to an extent of ten years, which would mean, discretion available to the concerned Court to impose punishment up to ten years. Therefore, the
minimum threshold is not ten years.

1. 10 or More means Minimum is 10 years.

2. Extend to 10 years means 1 to 10 years.

Both are different

In minimum 10 years it is 90 days and in upto 10 years it is 60 days maximum custody.

Again repeating no change in new law both are same 167 and 187.

Must be interpreted in the light of Article 21.

@CurrentLegalGK

Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/patna-high-court/patna-high-court-breath-analyzer-test-insufficient-proof-alcohol-consumption-284411