𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
852 photos
11 videos
1.72K files
3.09K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

☺️ 360° Cases on topics.

Keywords: Civil Judge, MPCJ, UP PSCJ, Haryana ADA, DJS, CBI APP, RJS, JLO, CLAT PG, Supreme Court law clerk, AIBE, IBPS, UGC NET.
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Pertains To Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Stays Installation Of Dairy Booth Outside Private Residence https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-rules-diary-booth-outside-houses-violates…
Ajay Shivpuri v State of Rajasthan

Lisences are granted to install dairy booths in front of private properties by the government without consulting PWD Police stattions etc. departments, Petitioner contended that it violates his Right to life under Article 21 because of nuisance which will be created dur to the shop erection, therefore court did not decide but stayed the installation and directed an appointed commissioner to give a report.

These are common ground level practical issues therefore it is necessary to read them in order to know the application of laws in day to day activities.

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
❀3
#Maxim@CurrentLegalGK

1. Assentio Mentium: Assent of Minds

2. Consensus ad idem: Meeting of Minds)
(section 13 contract act)

3. Bona Vacantia: {Res Nullius}
Goods without an owner
(Escheat)

4. In limine: At the outset
(Motion not heard on merits but dismissed in limine).

#CPC@CurrentLegalGK
#TPA@CurrentLegalGK
#ICA@CurrentLegalGK
❀‍πŸ”₯3πŸ‘3❀2🀝1
All the best Uttarakhand Preliminary exam candidates.

I hope everyone of you give the best according to your potential and just one tip read twice even if you know the answer, to avoid silly mistakes
.

@CurrentLegalGK
❀4πŸ‘2
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
64_Patan_Jamal_Vali_v_State_of_AP.pdf
β™Ώβ™€οΈπŸ§Ύ Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2022

Rape against disabled women.
Intersectionality test.

Para 55 for SC ST Act.

Para 54 for testimony of disabled witness.

This kind of a judicial attitude stems from and perpetuates the underlying bias and stereotypes against persons with disabilities. We are of the view that the testimony of a prosecutrix with a disability, or of a disabled witness for that matter, cannot be considered weak or inferior, only because such an individual interacts with the world in a different manner, vis-a-vis their able-bodied counterparts. As long as the testimony of such a witness otherwise meets the criteria for inspiring judicial confidence, it is entitled to full legal weight. It goes without saying that the court appreciating such testimony needs to be attentive to the fact that the witness’ disability can have the consequence of the testimony being rendered in a different form, relative to that of an able-bodied witness. In the case at hand, for instance, PW2’s blindness meant that she had no visual contact with the world. Her primary mode of identifying those around her, therefore, is by the sound of their voice. And so PW2’s testimony is entitled to equal weight as that of a prosecutrix who would have been able to visually identify the appellant.

Deaf's identification by hearing same as ocular evidence.


Article 15(1) Navtej singh johar and intersectionality test (only on the ground)

#SCST@CurrentLegalGK
#BSA@CurrentLegalGK
#COI@CurrentLegalGK
❀4✍3πŸ‘1🐳1