Representation Of People Act Doesn't Apply To Municipal Elections : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/representation-of-people-act-doesnt-apply-to-municipal-elections-supreme-court-539537

election" under Section 2(d) of the Representation of the People Act, which restricts its application to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures.

Read first 6 pages

TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
v. BARBARA ET AL.

Citizenship issue in USA

#World@CurrentLegalGK

How India’s biggest temples safeguard devotees’ offerings — and where Ayodhya's Ram Temple differs 🔗
#express_explained

Why Supreme Court ruled homebuyers can claim compensation despite delayed possession 🔗
#explained_law #express_explained

Citing AI-Generated Fake Precedents Is Advocate Misconduct; Judgments Based On Them Are Void : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/citing-ai-generated-fake-precedents-is-advocate-misconduct-judgments-based-on-them-are-void-supreme-court-539634

#AI@CurrentLegalGK

Exploring Legal Nature Of Passports And Citizenship
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/exploring-legal-nature-passports-citizenship-539581

Future like Cyber Hack incidents, do you think IT Act will apply if yes which provision?

ई-रिक्शा बैटरी लॉक कर रहे ठग, 300 रुपए मांगते हैं: भोपाल-उज्जैन समेत कई शहरों में शिकायत;
https://dainik.bhaskar.com/3yttHdJir4b


#cyber@CurrentLegalGK

Principles of Compromise decree

KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA
Versus
JITENDRA CHAUDHARY

Order 23.
#CPC@CurrentLegalGK

🤝 Principles of Compromise decree

KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA        
                 Versus
JITENDRA CHAUDHARY

Order 23.

Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Out Of Devotion Not Offence Under S.298 BNS: P&H High Court Quashes FIR
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/dressing-up-pet-dog-as-lord-krishna-not-offence-section-298-bns-desecration-insult-to-religion-539788

Pet Dog in Krishna Avtar?

CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE
" individual expression of the petitioner, shaped by her personal experiences, cannot be criminalized merely because it does not align with the sensitivities of others. In the absence of mens rea, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated to validate subjective perceptions of hurt. Constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity which leads innocent acts to be construed as desecration."

MEANING OF THE TERM 'OBJECT'
The first ingredient as to commission of the alleged offence relates to the actus reus i.e. damage, destroy, or defile a place of worship or object. The present case relates to subject matter of 'object'. In relation to Section 298 of BNS (erstwhile Section 295 of IPC), the word 'object' has been interpreted in a plethora of precedents: the landmark is Queen Empress v. Imam Ali, (1887) . A combined reading of the aforesaid authorities reveals that the term 'object' must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the word 'place of worship'; accordingly, unless the 'object' is in a place of worship, or carried in a procession on a festive occasion, Section 298 of BNS would not apply. Hence, in the present case, the 'object' which the petitioner made her pet dog wear, cannot be interpreted as 'object' within the meaning of Section 298 of BNS.

RANJANNI GAUR
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
2026

#BNS@CurrentLegalGK