Use this to calculate
answers.

'Witness Protection Scheme Not Substitute For Bail Cancellation' : Supreme Court Deprecates Allahabad High Court's 'Cyclostyled' Orders
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/witness-protection-scheme-not-substitute-for-bail-cancellation-supreme-court-deprecates-allahabad-high-courts-cyclostyled-orders-302980

Accused is threatening witness.

What remedy does witness have?

1. Witness protection scheme
2. Cancellation of accused bail.

Complainant: sought cancellation

Allahabad HC said : Use witness protection scheme

SC said: 🙂 Cancellation of Bail is then otiose and bail conditions are of no use of its violation is brushed aside simply because alternative rmedy is present.


Witness protection Scheme v. Cancellation of Bail (both are different yet work simultaneously)

Thus, the purpose of the Scheme is to ensure that witnesses, who are the eyes and ears of justice, are not reduced to silence or falsehood by threats that invade their psyche. It does not displace or dilute the established jurisprudence of bail; rather, it works alongside it, providing a protective canopy so that the existing provisions can
operate in an environment where witnesses are free to testify. This duality is essential, as the law on bail restrains the accused through conditions, and prevents any further infractions of intimidation by cancellation of bail while the Witness Protection Scheme eradicate the invisible yet potent influence of fear, intimidation or threat, that are the consequences of the threats made by the accused persons to maintain the sanctity of trial.

Read on witness protection Scheme: https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6200

PHIRERAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 2025

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

If an Offence of Rape is committed by a man on her wife and husband pleads exception of marriage but the marriage is technically void due to one ceremony was not conducted even though both husband and wife were living together from 5 years as husband and wife, whether offence of rape is committed?

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can SC appoint Special Public Prosecutor?

See former CJI UU Lalit's appointment in 2G case.

Setting aside skin-to-skin judgement (Attorney General for India Vs. Satish and Another on 18 November 2021)

Rule of lenity: Para 38
Rule of ut res mages valeat qu pareat.

Application only in section 7 of POCSO

#POCSO@CurrentLegalGK
#IOS@CurrentLegalGK

Regulatory stakes: Constitutional implications of India’s real money gaming ban https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/regulatory-stakes-constitutional-implications-of-indias-real-money-gaming-ban

What Rajasthan’s coaching centre Bill says, why it matters so much 🔗
#coaching_centres #explained_law #express_explained #kota #rajasthan

Embracing AI in Arbitration: Enhancing Efficiency Without Compromising Justice | SCC Times
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/09/05/embracing-ai-in-arbitration-enhancing-efficiency-without-compromising-justice/

list of AI guidelines as of now.

@CurrentLegalGK

Press Release:Press Information Bureau
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2106239

Grounds of arrest in writing to accused as well as relative to make Article 22 meaningful

Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds
of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal

2. Arrest illegal if Groumds not provided.

VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 2025

KASIREDDY UPENDER REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself; if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest.

Reasons for arrest v Grounds for arrest (Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024)

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK SECTION 47

MIHIR RAJESH SHAH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA SLP(Crl) No. 17132/2024

Pending....

"The question that we are called upon to answer is as to whether in each and every case, even arising out of IPC, would it be necessary to furnish grounds of arrest to accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest? Another question we are required to consider is, in exceptional cases, on account of exigencies, if it is not possible to furnish grounds of arrest either before or immediately after arrest, whether even in such cases the arrest is vitiated on account of non-compliance with Section 50 CrPC

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

How the Indian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Shaped Each Other - The Wire
https://thewire.in/rights/how-the-indian-constitution-and-the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-shaped-each-other

S. 68 Evidence Act | Mandatory To Examine One Attesting Witness To Prove Will Even If There's No Dispute Between Legal Heirs : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-68-evidence-act-mandatory-to-examine-one-attesting-witness-to-prove-will-even-if-theres-no-dispute-between-legal-heirs-supreme-court-303070

'BNSS Removed Discriminatory Provision' : Supreme Court Closes Challenge To CrPC Section Which Says Only Male Family Members Can Accept Summons
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bnss-removed-discriminatory-provision-supreme-court-closes-challenge-to-crpc-section-which-says-only-male-family-members-can-accept-summons-262758

So even if a law is still in force and a substitute law has remedied the invalidity then no petition can be entertained for making earlier invalid provision invalid which is still applicable.

The Writ Petition under Article 32 challenged the constitutional validity of Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the ground that it was discriminatory against women by disabling them from accepting summons on behalf of the persons summoned.

3. Parliament, while enacting the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has incorporated the provisions of Section 66 which addresses the grievance.

KUSH KALRA V. UOI 2024

dismissed petition

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

🟰 Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer 2021

The Apex Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, held that “witness and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on the same footing.”

Accordingly, (i) there is no distinction carved out by the provisions of the CPC between a ‘party to a suit as a witness’ and ‘a witness simpliciter’; and (ii) documents may be produced to confront both a ‘party to a suit’ and ‘witness in a civil trial’ at the stage of cross-examination.

https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/01/party-and-witness-on-an-equal-footing-for-the-purpose-of-adducing-evidence-in-civil-suit-supreme-court-clarifies/#_ftn1

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK