👨‍👨‍👧‍👦👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ Family Welfare Committees in Section 498A IPC | 85 86 BNS

1st case: Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP, 2017 --> 2 Judge Bench (unanimous) (Supreme court)

Issued Various guidelines on constitution of FWCs and their powers to give report and powers of Sessions judges to quash cases on settlement and guidelines relating to normally no arrest when case is before FWC (of 3 members of paralegal or volunteers etc..)

2nd Case: Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. UoI, 2018 ---> 3 Judge Bench (unanimous) (Supreme Court)

Held All the above guidelines (rajesh sharma) as invalid as such Interpretation of CrPC was not possible and beyond the criminal code to constitute a separate institute and give quashing like powers to district judges and other cases such as DK basu, arnesh kumar all are within the scope and are intended to curb the police powers.
Other guidelines relating to clubbing of cases, red corner notices and recovery of disputed dowry items not a ground for bail as valid.

3rd case: Criminal revision before Allahbad High court Criminal revision No. ­ 1126 of 2022 (1JB)

This judgment Relied on 2nd case social action forum, 2018 which declared Rajesh sharma, 2017 guidelines as invalid.
This judgment after relying and taking guidance from social action forum (🙂) issued guidelines again same as rajesh sharma, 2017 and in addition more guidelines of cooling period of 2 months on which no arrest and afyer that matter is sent to FWC and even a 5th year law student can be a member of FWC.

4th Case: Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, 2025 (same as 3rd one) 2 Judge Bench (Supreme court)

Guidelines framed in 3rd case (allahabad HC) Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.


Critical Analysis:
This 2025 judgment of Supreme Court being a 2 judge bench strength should have considered social action forum 2018 judgment and then proceed to refer it to 3 judge bench and then the 3 judge bench would be eligible to raise doubts on the correctness of decision in social action gorum and then refer it to 5 judge bench and then it could overrule social action forum and implement the guidelines laid down by Allahabad High Court.

Both the judgment of Allahbad (3rd) and Supreme Court (4th) are Sub silentio and per incuriam due to ignorance of law and wrong interpretation of law laid down.

This being against Article 141 the below courts are not obligated to follow these 2 judgments and have duty not to follow them but to refer it again as reference if possible.

Whatever be the case these cases have clearly showcased the social problem of how law and society interacts when a sensitive penal law is introduced to protect one class and when time have elapsed and now half or more portion of that class and not whole of it need that level of one sided protection, misuse comes with great powers, the limits of law are that it cannot take into account subjectivity of every individual any how it has to classify and draw lines and objectify the procedure and that's where the jurisprudential issue arises of law and society interaction.

Nevertheless Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 has Recommended to make it compoundable, still we have this debate of 498A where on one hand where genuine object is yet to be achieved by the true stakeholders and on the other hand misuse by the evil elements of society is rising.

Free to comment to share answers on how to solve this debate, need practical out of the box solutions.

#BNS@CurrentLegalGK
#Mybrief@CurrentLegalGK

COPYRIGHT IN THE AGE OF AI A CASE COMMENT ON ANI VS. OPENAI CS(COMM) 1028-2024.

@CurrentLegalGK

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1235094/

Direct and Indirect test under Article 19 AK gopalan.

#COI@CurrentLegalGK

'Employment Bond Valid, Doesn't Violate S.27 Contract Act' : Supreme Court Upholds Rs 2 Lakh Penalty For Premature Resignation
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/employment-bond-valid-doesnt-violate-s27-contract-act-supreme-court-upholds-rs-2-lakh-penalty-premature-resignation-292226

👨‍⚖️ Vijay Bank v. Prashant B narnaware.

"A plain reading of clause 11 (k) shows restraint was imposed on the respondent to work for a minimum term i.e. three years and in default to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The clause sought to impose a restriction on the respondent's option to resign and thereby perpetuated the employment contract for a specified term. The object of the restrictive covenant was in furtherance of the employment contract and not to restrain future employment. Hence, it cannot be said to be violative of Section 27 of the Contract Act

“The appellant-bank is a public sector undertaking and cannot resort to private or ad-hoc appointments through private contracts. An untimely resignation would require the Bank to undertake a prolix and expensive recruitment process involving open advertisement, fair competitive procedure lest the appointment falls foul of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16.”, the court said.

Whether this judgment will apply to private contractual employment in corporate sectors?

#Question@CurrentLegalGK
#ICA@CurrentLegalGK

Explained Interview | Unpacking the National Sports Governance Bill, now in Lok Sabha 🔗
#explained_sports #express_explained

With process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma now likely in Parliament, how impeachment works 🔗
#explained_law #express_explained #impeachment

Employment Bonds validity Judgment

#ICA@CurrentLegalGK @CurrentLegalGK

Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B narnaware.

#ICA@CurrentLegalGK

'SC's 'Tehseen Poonawalla' Directives Binding On State & Centre; Can't Monitor Mob Lynching Incident In PIL': Allahabad HC
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-mob-lynching-pil-monitor-govt-jamiat-ulema-tehseen-poonawalla-directives-supreme-court-298709

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Is there any system like separation of powers in the grassroot level democracy such as present in State and Union level. Comment.

👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️ Special Courts v. Tribunals.

#Difference@CurrentLegalGK

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs …
v.
Mahant Suresh Das & Ors

Deity as juristic personality.
1. Perpetual minor.
2. Validity of contracts?
3. Law of limitation

@CurrentLegalGK

I share judgments after researching a lot on the topic.

Though you may find similar law laid down in many judgments but I try to find the most authoritative judgment for you.

Use the channel wisely it is not a copy paste channel.

We might in future start our YT videos as well and then you will receive video explanations as well, though it will take time but will be extremely beneficial.

@CurrentLegalGK

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-mens-rea-offence-company-strict-vicarious-liability-human-agency-section-482-crpc-223573


"No doubt, the company being a corporate entity performs its functions through its officers including Chairman, Managing Director, Directors etc. However, it is trite position of criminal jurisprudence that no vicarious liability can be attached to said officers unless statute specifically provides so", t

Our Criminal Justice System Starts With Arrest & Ends With Bail; There's No Conviction Mostly : Justice Joymalya Bagchi
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-criminal-justice-system-starts-with-arrest-ends-with-bail-no-trial-conviction-justice-joymalya-bagchi-gangster-cases-298775

Heirship Certificate, Probate & Letter Of Administration – A Simple Legal Guide For Families Dealing With Succession
https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/heirship-certificate-probate-and-letter-of-administration-under-indian-succession-act-298782

🕉️ JURISTIC PERSONALITY OF IDOLS


1. History and meaning of legal personality:
From not recognising natural persons in law (during dark ages) to now recognising inanimate objects as legal person we have evolved historically. legal person can be group of natural persons or an inanimate object. to be a legal person is to possess certain rights and duties
under the law and to be capable of engaging in legally enforceable relationships with other legal persons.

2. The rights and liabilities that attach upon the object conferred with
juristic personality, must be determined keeping in mind the specific reasons for which such legal personality was conferred. The limits or boundaries of the rights ascribed to the new legal person must be guided by the reasons for conferring legal personality.

3. In Hinduism, physical
manifestations of the Supreme Being exist in the form of idols to allow
worshippers to experience a shapeless being. The idol is a representation of the Supreme Being. The idol, by possessing a physical form is identifiable.

4. Salmond's work on legal personality is authoritatively recognised.
such as distinction between object/corpus and the legal personality, the object is conferred rights but ultimately it is representing the interests and benefit of natural person.

4. Rationale behind the concept of juristic person.
History: Not based on strict rules but creation of history due to peculiar facts before courts and leading to absurd perverse findings so legal innovation needed. necessity and convenience: The conferral of legal personality on objects has historically been a powerful tool of policy to ensure the practical adjudication of claims.

5. For practical purposes the juristic personality is conferred on idol, not on devotees as collectively due to many idols, and also to avoid the alienation or mismanagement, of property gifted for pious purposes, by shebait for other purposes.
(originated case: Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v Lakhmiram Govindram, 1888)

6. Can a land itself be recognised as juristic person (manifestation of god) ( eg. ram janmbhoomi) No because of (a) A novel argument but not the purpose of conferring juristic person pretection of pious purpose can be achieved without recognising it. (b) It would open floodgates to future litigations (c) Constitutionally diverse methods recognised but absolute ownership over another religion is recognised by merits not by methods of religion.

7. It is an established position that a deity cannot on the ground of being a perpetual minor stand exempted from the application of the
Limitation Act. (adverse possession ✓)

8. A Hindu idol exists for its own interest as
well as for the interests of its worshippers but a minor does not exist for the interests of anybody else.

9. The Contract Act (Substantive law) has taken away the legal capacity of a minor to contract but the legal capacity of a Hindu idol to contract has not been affected by this Act or by any other statute.

10. It is the shebait that enjoys the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the deity. (but when shebait acts negligently then worshipper may also sue in personal capacity to declare acts of shebait null and void and stay them and sometimes to gain full remedy on behlaf of idol (a shebait is not a pujari he must exercise continuosly all the duties and rights properly for the purpose of property conferred to idol and not prejudicially to idol for being recognised as shebait).

On Evidence law:

The law recognises that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities, there could be different degrees of probability. This was succinctly summarized by Denning, LJ in Bater v Bater ,where he formulated the principle thus :
―So also in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of
probability within that standard. The degree depends on that
subject matter.

Interestingly even rivers are recognised as legal person in various cases (Mohd. Salim v State of Uttarakhand 2017)

#Basics@CurrentLegalGK
#Mybrief@CurrentLegalGK

🤔 How's life going RJS aspirants?

I hope everything is great 😎

Edit: Abhi to Heartbreak nahi fire emoji, and 'ready' in comments bolne wali spirit honi chahiye 😉.

@CurrentLegalGK