Decoding Jurisprudence And Applicability Of Section 28 Of Indian Contract Act,1872 – An Analysis
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/decoding-jurisprudence-applicability-section-28-of-indian-contract-act-301740

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 - Constitution of India
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-judgments-and-orders-half-yearly-constitutional-law-digest-2025-301811

Victim's Appeal Under S.372 CrPC Against Acquittal Can Be Continued By Legal Heir : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/victims-appeal-under-s372-crpc-against-acquittal-can-be-continued-by-legal-heir-supreme-court-301733

Non-Legal Heirs Can Continue Prosecution On Complainant's Death Even If Legal Heirs Have Not Come Forward: Kerala High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-non-legal-heirs-prosecute-complainant-death-legal-heirs-not-come-forward-301766

If heirs can file an appeal, they must equally be entitled to prosecute an appeal already filed by a deceased victim, otherwise, the right would be rendered illusory.

@CurrentLegalGK

Under which provision of BNSS these rules are made or decided there power from?

Section 63 and 64 BNSS

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

hostile witness

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Consider the following statements:-

1. Opinion of Expert Evidence is inadmissible due to not examined as witness.

2. Expert Witness has substantive probative value

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK
#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Seema sued Kashish for defamation, alleging that Kashish had made derogatory remarks about him in a letter sent in a series of business correspondence between them. The correspondence was related to a dispute over the quality of goods supplied by Seema to Kashish. Several other letters exchanged between Seema and Kashish discuss the same dispute, but none of them contain any evidence of defamation is not a defamatory statement. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 2023, which of the following statements is correct?

(A) Only the letter containing the defamatory statement is relevant. The other letters have no evidentiary value.

(b) All letters of correspondence relating to the dispute are relevant facts, even if they do not contain defamatory statements.

(C) Only letters written subsequent to the alleged insulting letter can be accepted as relevant facts.

(d) No letter, including the letter containing the alleged defamatory statement, is admissible as evidence in the suit.

You have to tell the relevant Section.

BREAKING| Death Sentence Can Be Challenged In Article 32 Petition For Breach Of Procedural Safeguards: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/death-sentence-can-be-challenged-in-article-32-petition-for-breach-of-procedural-safeguards-supreme-court-301845

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can you answer?

Is it possible to access the remedy of injunction in case criminal defamation?

Question by one member.

Kalpana mehta v union of India

It concluded that while parliamentary debates and reports may aid in interpreting laws, they should not be treated as binding evidence in court cases

Section 57(4)/ 52 BSA and 74/74 BSA

judicial review v judicial overreach.
There is no strait-jacket
formula for determining what constitutes judicial restraint and
judicial progressionism. Sometimes, there is necessity for the
Courts to conceptualise a path that can be a wise middle path.
The middle course between these two views is the concept of
judicial engagement so that the concept of judicial restraint does
not take the colour of judicial abdication or judicial passivism.
Judicial engagement requires that the Courts maintain their
constitutional obligation to remain the sentinel on qui vive.


#IOS@CurrentLegalGK

Manoj v State of MP 2022

Guidelines
Para 213 to 217

There is urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is
noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the appellate stage.

The strength of ‘precedent’ and ‘consistency’ is perhaps, therefore, lowest when it
comes to matters of sentencing, as long as it is within the confines of legality and resulting
in ‘principled sentencing’.

Death penalty 235(2) crpc sentence hearing.
#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

"The writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj was followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj v. MP 2022 SC judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.

We

however add a word of caution

. Article 32 of the Constitution is the bedrock of constitutional remedies but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards, as these breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person's basic rights like dignity and fair process" observed the Court

@CurrentLegalGK

Constitutional Morality.

Grote, Ambedkar, Kesavanand bharti (2 judges), naz foundation v NCT delhi 2009, navtej singh johar, sabrimala, manoj narula.

This Court has always been guided by constitutional morality and not by social morality. (Navtej) 2018

@CurrentLegalGK

FORMAL TO SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY: IS INDIA
EXPERIENCING A DOCTRINAL SHIFT?

@CurrentLegalGK