๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
18.9K subscribers
831 photos
11 videos
1.64K files
2.94K links
๐Ÿ“ฒ Contact โ†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

๐Ÿ‘จโ€โš– Filtered Information Brings Clarity.

๐ŸŒTHE BEST FROM ALL LEGAL UPDATES BY EOD.

"Finding Quintessence of all possible POVs of provisions and Precedents
_____________
๐Ÿง  Daily Quiz โ†’ @LegalQuizzes

โณ๐Ÿš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
X Corp Can't Challenge Indian Laws Regulating Social Media Invoking 'Citizen Centric' Article 19: Karnataka High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/x-corp-karnataka-high-court-article-19-indian-laws-regulating-social-media-305375
X CORP AND Union of India & Others

Platform X sought declaration section 79(3)(b) of IT act that it does not empower government to pass blocking orders rather 69A does therefore the impugned rule and portal is ultra vires to act and Article 19 (1)(a).

Held: X platform is a mere intermediary in IT act and nothing else and only citizens can use Article 19.

Can Indian Companies claim Article 19?
STAR INDIA Ltd. v. TRAI 2007


Yes with condition that majority of control and management vests with indian citizens and company incorporated in India.

Consequences: Citizens using such platforms are getting deprived of Article 19 although they can individually approach the court but the blocking orders are not public.

Digital constitutional crossbroder issue


#IT@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘3โค2
Two cases within fortnight.

๐Ÿ‘ฅ
"Public Trust In The Judiciary: A Pillar Of Democracy" โ€“ Justice BR Gavai

Duty of the Judiciary to ensure that faith of the people is not shaken: Justice MR Shah
๐Ÿง 
โ€˜Judges must uphold constitutional morality, not be swayed by popular opinionโ€™โ€”retd SC judge AS Oka
Judges Should Be Free To Decide By Law Not By Popular Opinion, The Terms Like "Judicial Barbarism" Must Be Condemned: Law Minister
"judicial verdicts cannot be the reflection of the influence of public opinion" JB pardiwala, J




1. Aravalli.
2. Unnao rape.

Both were heavily criticised and supreme court agreed to consider it again.

Earlier this happenned with Stray dog cases, Post facto environment clearance.

This somewhat shows that SC is now getting influenced (good or bad) by the constructive criticism brought by civilians via media channels.

Yes even sub judice matters can be criticised and this is the impact whether this is good accountability of judiciary to people or it is bad influence by public opinion rather than settled law, will be decided on "case to case basis" but one thing is sure the larger the protest the more SC/HCs will focus upon the matter....

Judges must take these decisions of protest they are of heavy violation and requires confidence to be idntilled in public but they must not decide on populist opinion but on merits, one or two occasional cases in a month of this nature are not new and will not impact other cases as we have thousands, lakhs and crores of pendency feom top to ground level judiciary.

There is no conflict in law all is harmoniously decided and eventually becomes harmonious conflict the limit of law ๐Ÿ™‚

@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ’ฏ6โค3
#History@CurrentLegalGK

The Adversarial system was not known in India. In the Hindu or the Mohamedan system the judge took an active role in eliciting the truth as in the Continental systems. The theory of the common law " that justice can best be achieved by giving each party the fullest opportunity to present his own case " was brought into vogue in India by the English. The Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes of India and the law of evidence enacted in the latter half of the nineteenth century are in conformity with this common law doctrine.
โค6
๐Ÿ‘ฎโ€โ™€๏ธ Custody period Judgment

โˆ† Case: Hyder Ali v.State of Karnataka, 2024

167 CrPC: Not less than 10 years and 187 BNSS: 10 years or More โ€”โ€”>
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
โค3๐Ÿ‘2