👨‍⚖️⚡ DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU VERSUS SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL), 2024

Referring to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr 2022 and other precedents, culled out certain principles :


1. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. (This is mandatory, word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.)

2. In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.


3. General Rule is to allow but disallowed if-
(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;

(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,

(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.


4 Some general principles to be kept in mind are –
(I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

(IV) If Aspect Introduced Is Necessary To Be Decided To Determine Issues Then Delay Occurred In Preferring Amendment Application Wouldn't Have Relevance

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🧠 #Question

A transfers Rs. 5,000 to B on condition that he shall marry with the consent of C, D and E. B marries without the consent of C, D and E, but obtains their consent after the marriage. B has not fulfilled the condition.

Whether the agreement is hit by section 26 of Indian contract, Act, 1872

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🧠⚡ Answer Explanation

People's Union For Civil Liberties & UOI, 2009

Under our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Voter's speech or expression in case of election would include casting of votes, that is to say, voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. For this purpose, information about the candidate to be selected is a must. Voter's (little man -- citizen's) right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The little man may think over before making his choice of electing law- breakers as law-makers."


Also Solve - /channel/CurrentLegalGK/3009

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🧠😎 Daily Quizzes—

Focus on Consistent practice of langauge, GK and law subjects (major minor local)

Compete with Competent candidates just like 'Amara' 😉

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE v. S. HARISH, 2024

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🌟 Storing Child Pornography legal or illegal?

👨‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Case- JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH
#POCSO #IT

[Section 14, 15 POCSO and 67B of IT, 292 IPC, Article 15(3) and 39 of COI.]

✓Section 14 POCSO- Punishment for using child for pornographic purposes.

✓Section 67B IT- publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct; or


✓Facts- Been watching child pornographic film from 2 years and downloaded the material.
✓Offence Type- Inchoate

⚡ Madras HC held not liable because S. 14 of POCSO did not apply, (Note: Ignored Section 15 altogether), 67B not applied as no publishing.


🌟 Issues before SC-
1. Scope of 15 and distintion b/w 3 sub sections
2. Foundational facts necessary to invoke presumption of 15 under section 30
3. Whether mere viewing possessing or storing of any child pornographic material is punishable?
4. Presumption while Quashing?

🤝Stay tuned...

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🌟 10th Semester and 6th Semester that is final semester candidates are allowed in AIBE without enrollment

9th and 5th semester of 5 year and 3 year course not allowed

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

Desire To Sexually Exploit Children Inherent In The Act Of Watching Child Sexual Exploitative Materials : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/desire-to-sexually-exploit-children-inherent-in-the-act-of-watching-child-sexual-exploitative-materials-supreme-court-270413

Читать полностью…

🚆 Amendments to come in Railway Act soon.

Are these activities not rising nowadays? and why?

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

We will Share other 2 parts.

R/W- /channel/CurrentLegalGK/1301


Read on your own no need of any brief, just remember you must know these judgments especially those which qre related to your exam subjects.

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🌟 Brief of Fact Check Unit Case.

⚡BOMBAY HIGH COURT
not supreme court

⚡ Case- Kunal Kamra vs Union of India, 20th sept 2024

⚡ Division bench split verdict, hence case referred to third judge -

Case- Firm Ladhuram Rameshwardayal vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivpuri and others, 1977 MPLJ

Letters Patent jurisdiction of the third Judge is limited to the point on which the Judges of the Division Bench are divided in opinion. The third Judge has no jurisdiction to decide any other point. It has been further held that even if the Division Bench directs that “the case must be referred to a third Judge”, the jurisdiction of the third Judge cannot be enlarged by the Division Bench. Thus if the third Judge expresses an opinion on any other point on which the learned Judges of the Division Bench were not divided in opinion or the third Judge finally decides the case as a whole, such opinion would have to be ignored as being without jurisdiction.


🌟 Issue— Challenged validity of Rule 3(1)(b)(v) 2021 IT rules (media ethics) on the ground of violative of—
1. 19(1)(a)
2. 19(1)(g)
3. Principle of natural justice
4. Article 14
5. Section 79 of IT Act, 2000
6. Test of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, 2015 (vagueness)

Some issues were differed by division bench and some are not or only 1 judge expressed its opinion on some.

Provisions—

1. Section 79 IT Act, 2000-
Safe harbour provision for intermediaries (eg. message by you on Kidskagram, fakebook, whatisapp then they are not liable provided the fullfil some conditions)

2. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) Due diligence by an intermediary that they make reasonable efforts [by itself, and
to cause the users of its computer resource to not host misleading or false information OR in respect of government business is classified as false by fact check unit.

🤝 No difference of opinion/only 1 judge expressed the same-
1. Article 14
discrimination and classification- Why central fovernment is placed on different footing? No intelligible differentia, held discriminatory.

2. Violative of Natural Justice-
No Procedure to counter the case set up as fake information
No mandate of FCU to pass reasoned order on what basis false information declared.

⚔️ Point of Difference—
1. 19(1)(a)
✓Patel, J - Article 19 (1) (a) Right can be restricted only by 19(2) and there is no rifht to truth under 19 (1)(a)

✓Gokhale, J- Rules are framed to carry out 69A amd 79 (2) of OT act and not against shreya singhal.

✓ Third judge: Cited Anuradha bhasin cricket association amd kaushal kishore [19(2) is the only provision for restriction of 19(1) (a)] and agreed with Patel, J

2. Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6)—
Discrimination between print media and digital media as the rules apy only to latter amd there is no rationale behind it Patel, J and third judge agreed.

3. Article 14- Government is the final arbiter in its own cause

✓ Patel, J - Nemo judex in causa sua (Ak kraipak)
✓ Gokhale, J - Court is the final arbiter and no basis for bias on the ground of FCU consists of government employee.

Note- FCU constitued by govt. has main function to classify information relating to government business as false

Third Judge- Decision of the FCU can be subjected to challenge before a constitutional Court, the same
cannot be treated as an adequate safeguard.


4. Word “fake or false or misleading has no guidelines thus very vague and liable to be struck down

5. Interpretation-
A provision can either be struck down or read down or limiting the expression by any concession.

Read down cannot be made in case of word 'OR' (as disjuntive words are not read down but it amounts to read out which is not permissible) or complete definition of term is mentioned.

1. Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness

2. Doctrine of Proportionality

3. Doctrine of Chilling effects

NOTE: Soon a beautiful crisp note on proportionality and chilling effect will come here
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9gNrwJf05bMBIllR25

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

⚡💯 GS 2 POLITY UPSC CSE 2024 | Mains paper

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

"I would agree with the view of Patel, J that under the right to freedom of speech and expression, there is no further 'right to the truth' nor is it the responsibility of the State to ensure that the citizens are entitled only to 'information' that was not fake or false or misleading as identified by the FCU. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) seeks to restrict the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) by seeking to place restrictions that are not in consonance with Article 19(2) of the Constitution," Justice Chandurkar observed in his order.

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/citizens-have-right-to-free-speech-not-states-responsibility-to-ensure-that-they-only-know-truth-bombay-high-court-on-it-amendment-rules-270211

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

'Right To Get Unadulterated Food Fundamental Right' : Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Examine Lacunae In Food Safety & Standards Act
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-full-proof-food-safety-standards-act-rules-need-calls-for-amendments-no-unadulterated-food-items-available-market-270216

Читать полностью…

Implications Of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam On Digital Evidence In Ongoing Trials
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/implications-bhartiya-sakshya-adhiniyam-digital-evidence-ongoing-trials-270098

Читать полностью…

Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Principles On Amendment Of Plaint : Supreme Court Explains
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/order-vi-rule-17-cpc-principles-on-amendment-of-plaint-supreme-court-explains-270556

Читать полностью…

Contradiction” Under Section 145 Of The Evidence Act (Section 148 Of BSA) And Under The Proviso To Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. (Section 181 (1) Of BNSS)

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

Was Karnataka Governor’s sanction to prosecute CM Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam case legally valid? HC to decide 🔗
#cm_siddaramaiah #explained_law #express_explained #karnataka

Читать полностью…

🌟 Whether Ignorantia Juris non Excusat absolute?

👨‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Case- Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024

🌟 Test to Determine Plea of Unawareness of law—

1. An ignorance or unawareness of any law
2. Such ignorance or unawareness must give rise to a corresponding reasonable and legitimate right or claim.
3. The existence of such right or claim must be believed bonafide
4. The purported act sought to be punished must take place on the strength of such right or claim.

Accused didn't get the benefit as storgae of CSEAM is not a right and if he didn't know it is offence he must have a right to store it. (ordinary orudent mind test)

Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, 2003
This plea is a Doctrine of Equity and equity must supplement the law and it cannot supplant the law.


💯 Unawareness of law v. ignorance of law 

Unawareness is principle of equity based on 4 orong test as aforementioned.

Ignorance is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence and cannot be ignored at all.

✅ Both are same untill—
Even if all four prongs are satisfied, the courts are not bound to accept such a plea, if it is in negation or derogation of any law or the idea of justice."

Basically if the law is clear no defence if there is ambiguity then equity may be applied but subject to 4 prong test.

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

When Can Ignorance Of Law Be Taken As Defence?Supreme Court Explains
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/when-can-ignorance-of-law-be-taken-as-defencesupreme-court-explains-270536

Читать полностью…

⚡ #Question

In Tirupati Temple Prasad Laddoo or other such similar cases what can be the liability of the offender?

Try to include as much sections/rule/article of various laws as it is possible in the given case.


@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

⚡ Very Important development in POCSO

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH, 2024

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

Storage Of Child Pornography Without Deletion Or Reporting Indicates Intention To Transmit, Constitutes POCSO Act Offence :Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/storage-of-child-pornography-offence-under-pocso-act-supreme-court-270344

Читать полностью…

MP में आर्मी ट्रेन डिरेल करने की साजिश: ट्रैक पर डेटोनेटर बिछाए, कानपुर में फिर ट्रैक पर मिला सिलेंडर; पंजाब में पटरी पर सरिया रखी

https://dainik.bhaskar.com/fbcMlt9q5Mb

Читать полностью…

75 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments: Part I | Celebrating 75 Years of India's Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/landmark-supreme-court-judgments-270311

Читать полностью…

UPSC CSE 2024 GS-2 POLITY MAINS

Complete Model Answers

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

https://www.barandbench.com/news/rapid-increase-consensual-sexual-relationships-registered-rape-cases-gujarat-high-court

Читать полностью…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala

Referring to-

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India, 2013

We may emphasize that any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A paramount duty is cast on the States and its authorities to achieve an appropriate level of protection to human life and health which is a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 read with Article 47 of the COI.

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…

🌟📸 Watch/ With

https://www.youtube.com/live/2n6DMY01i98?feature=shared

Читать полностью…

⚡ Strategy for New criminal laws

As New criminal Laws are part of your AIBE examination, no need to worry just buy the bare acts if you haven't from any renowned publication

For preparation as always just read the changes

nothing else

Changes can be read from the bare acts itself or from the pinned message where I have shared the material.

Focus more on weightage subjects and solve PYQs + don't take the exam lightly read once all the acts.

Any other assistance needed then ask us here we will try as much as we can assist from our side as there are students who have asked us in the groups regarding AIBE.

BNS + BSA Daily voice Discussion in our groups are going on.

@CurrentLegalGK

Читать полностью…