ADA FINAL ORDER P&H HC.pdf

SYLLABUS of ADA UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS.

ARTICLE 14 and 16 the test of reasonableness and rationale nexus with object failed.

Law without legality, process without fairness, and discretion without accountability are anathema to our constitutional order.

Salute to all the fighters and shame to all the recruiters like this one.

Article 320(3)(b)
#COI@CurrentLegalGK

RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
2025

Page 45, 67 to 94 on principles regarding quashing of criminal proceedings.

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

The Story of Bandi Chhor Divas – Sikh Dharma International
https://www.sikhdharma.org/the-story-of-bandi-chhor-divas/

🪔🎆 Happy Diwali, a festival of success celebrated by showing that in every situation of darkness, light always prevails.

I really hope you achieve your goals sooner than you think and enjoy that success fully as you wanted.

Old wishes: https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/661

Uttarakhand proposes amendments to UCC: What could change, why 🔗
#express_explained

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Trace the constitutional essence behind mediation.



Legal Analysis of Recent Judgments on Reservation Policies in India | SCC Blog
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/10/20/legal-analysis-of-recent-judgments-on-reservation-policies-in-india-legal-research-legal-news-updates-2/

Contradiction on one layest judgment that if rules prescribes an embargo the reserved candidate cannot go in general category seat which is against landmark judgments.

#COI@CurrentLegalGK

IPR and CRPC provisions dealing with child

Language and Literature in the World of Law.

Combined reading of law and literature especially of our own country helps in humanising the law, broadens our horizon for society, helps in fulfilling the purpose of law that is law is for society.

Translate krlena

#Readings@CurrentLegalGK

Tests To Determine Employer-Employee Relationship In Cases Under Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act Etc : Supreme Court Discusses
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/tests-to-determine-employer-employee-relationship-in-cases-under-industrial-disputes-act-factories-act-etc-supreme-court-discusses-307500

You see I discussed this in detail earlier as well, if you remember.

GENERAL MANAGER, U.P. COOPERATIVE BANK LTD v. ACHCHEY LAL & ANR. 2025

This is a good judgment clearing all doubts.

Employer employee relationship, contract law, tort law.

#Labourlaws@CurrentLegalGK
#Taxation@CurrentLegalGK

Hindu Succession Act Doesn't Apply To Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Reiterates
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/hindu-succession-act-doesnt-apply-to-scheduled-tribes-supreme-court-reiterates-307530

💯 RAM CHARAN v. SUKHARAM 2025

QUESTION OF LAW:

Whether a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not.

FACTS: Legal heirs of Dhaiya (GOND women) from scheduled tribe filed suit for partition of maternal grandfather property (nanaji) but the trial court, 1st appellate court and HC (2nd appellate) held that they couldn't prove that they are governed by hindu succession act 1956, therefore justified in dismissing the suit.

PROVISIONS FOR INTERPRETATION:
1. “Section 2(2) HSA, 1956 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”

2. Section 6 of Central provinces Laws Act 1875,
In cases not provided for by section 5 , or by Rule in cases any other law for the time being in force, the Courts shall act according to justice, equity and good conscience.

Briefly stating section 5 deals with family laws including succession for hindu mohammedan and customary as the case may be.

QUESTION BEFORE SUPREME COURT
SC after perusing the background of case concluded that hindu law has no application because parties could not prove they have adopted hindu tradition & since there no application of HSA, 1956 then customs must be proved but they are too not proved.

So now the whole case is dependent of Section 6 application of 1875 Act

SC held that HC rejection to apply 1875 law that it os repealed is incorrect because of saving clause.

LAW ON JUSTICE, EQUITY & GOOD CONSCIENCE

1. It is applied when there is void in law as in present case NO HSA NO CUSTOM
has any application in Dhaiya's case.

2. Landmark large bench case M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, 2020 (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple) discussed the law as follows:

"The common underlying thread is that justice, good conscience and equity plays a supplementary role in enabling courts to mould the relief to suit the circumstances that present themselves before courts with the principal purpose of ensuring a just outcome. Where the existing statutory framework is inadequate for courts to adjudicate upon the dispute before them, or no settled judicial doctrine or custom can be availed of, courts may legitimately take recourse to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to effectively and fairly dispose of the case"

RELIED ON: SC relied on Article 14, 15, 38 and 46 and precendents on equality such as Maneka Gandhi v. UoI 1978 and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2019

Excerpt from shayara bano
Overemphasis on the doctrine of classification or an anxious and sustained attempt to discover some basis for classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the Article of its glorious content…

HELD: No such custom of female succession could
be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is
also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be
shown in the slightest, much less proved and therefore relying on Justice Equity and Good conscience and Article 14 of constitution dhaiya and her legal heirs are entitled to equal share in property.

ANALYSIS:
The SC mentioned that trial courts and appellate courts presumed the negative connotation that customs of equal share to women doesn't exist in Gond tribe and cpurts relied on a case of where custom is required to be proved, SC said trial courts could have presumed reciprocally by presuming existence of equal share and let defendants prove there is no equal share.

Well generally the burden of proving is on the person claiming the right but in this case there was a void and in these type of situations basic constiutional ethos must be kept in mind such as equality.

#HSA@CurrentLegalGK
#SUCCESSION@CurrentLegalGK

☝️this is very good read it

In Tirith Kumar, the Supreme Court had urged the Parliament to extend the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes. Likewise, in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), the Supreme Court noted that “it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.”

Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Muslim Personal Law; Adopted Child Has Same Status As Biological Child : Madras High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-jj-act-prevails-over-muslim-personal-law-307529

Section 138 BSA Is The Misconceived Product Of Judicial Misinterpretation
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/accomplice-testimony-and-section-138-bharatiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-analysis-307532

🔪🤝 Section 138 BSA and jurisprudence regarding testimony of an accomplice.

Why evidence of an accomplice?

Conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness”. (Badri Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 1958)
direct evidence is seldom available.

Approver v. Accomplice v. co accused.

Slight answer to-
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6204

✓Accomplice- Partner in crime.
✓Co-accused- Charged along with other accused.
✓Approver- Granted pardon under 343/344 BNSS.

An “approver” is an “accomplice” who has received pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C ( Somasundaram @ Somu v. State rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police AIR 2020)

Also in order to be examined as a witness, an “accomplice” need not necessarily become an “approver” or even an “accused”. (Chandran Manichan v. State of Kerala AIR 2011)

Can courts interpret Indian statute using decisions of English cases on their statutes?

1. General Rule-
State of West Bengal v. B. K. Mondal AIR 1962 SC 1961 
where we are dealing with the problem of construing a specific statutory provision it would be unreasonable to invoke the assistance of English decisions dealing with the statutory provisions contained in English law.

2. Exception- Ramanandi Kuer v. Kalawati Kuer, AIR 1928 PC (not binding but pursuasive value only)

If the words used in the Indian statute are obscure or ambiguous perhaps it may be permissible in interpreting them to examine the background of the law or to derive assistance from English decisions bearing on the point;.

Loosened standards of Evidence permissible

Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State AIR 2001 SC 3488 = (2001) The Apex Court in this verdict in paragraph 26 has taken Judicial notice of the fact that in “conspiracy cases” loosened standards of evidence outside the Evidence Act, is permissible.

3 classification of witnesses

Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 
1. Wholly reliable – No corroboration is needed
2. Wholly unreliable – Deserves to be rejected even if there is corroboration
3. Partly reliable and partly unreliable corroboration necessary

What is 114 evidence act.

It says court may oresume existence of certain facts which have likely to have happened regard being had to human conduct etc... in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

illustration (b) says court may presume that uncorroborated testimony of accomplice is unworthy of credit.

Section 113 of evidence act said it is legal to convict an accused on uncorroborated testimony of an accused.

Why incorrect Interpretation???

Now what Judiciary have interpreted using English cases like Rex v. Baskarville (1916) and Buboni Sahu v. The King AIR 1949 PC 

that as a rule of prudence became rule of law.

It positions an illustration (b) of one section (114) in a prevailing position over a substantive provision(133)

No conflict between 114 and 133

114 deals with "Particular cases" and that illustration (b) cannot be applied as a rule in every case to make a provision redundant.

Section 138 has worsened the position by substituting uncorroborated with corroborated and even standing committe report has praised it.

Why corroboration should not be required (in law it is required)

Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975
“An Approver is the most unworthy friend, if at
all, and he, having bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility in Court.

Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 — 2 Tests for accomplice testimony to be admissible.

1. whether as an accomplice, the approver was a reliable witness (which is common to all witnesses) and his version was intrinsically credible, and

2. if so, whether his evidence was corroborated against each accused in material particulars by other evidence direct or circumstantial.

The author argues that why corroboration is required when the antecedents of the witness, whether good or bad, are also factors which go into the process of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of any witness including an approver. (test 1 is sufficient)

Continued.......

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

Conclusion: In present legal situation section 138 BSA there is a mandate that corroboration is required and as regards 133 Evidence Act the rule of prudence or caution as mentioned in 114 (b) (now in 119(b) is rule of law that means rarely courts will allow conviction on uncorroborated testimony of accomplice.

Landmark Judgment

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 (relied by SC in 2007 and subsequently in various cases)
Judges must mention that why conviction eithout corroboration to mention that rule of caution was considered before delivering judgment and if corroboration is required then-
1. All that is required is evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.
2. independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice.
3. Corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal.
4. Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. 

Comment if anything is left 😊

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK