Live-in Couple (Live-in Relationship)
- Hindu Marriage Act.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Whether her husband had committed an act which can be said to be an offence under Section 377 I.P.C.
Live-in Couple (Live-in Relationship)
10 Important Judgements in India
10 Important Judgements in India
2. AK Gopala V State of Madras
3. Vishaka and others V State of Rajastan
4. Shayara Bamo V Union of India
5. Menaka Gandhi V Union of India
6. Nalsa V Union of India
7. Joseph Shine V Union of India
8. SR Bommai V Union of India
9. Justice K.S. Putta Swamy V Union of India
10. Navtej Singh Johar V Union of India
Kangana Raut Case
Kangana Raut Case
Reason: Hateful tweets
1. 153A (IPC)
2. 124A(IPC)
3. 295A(IPC)
4. 34(IPC)
Misbehave with Police Officials in Pandemic Situation
Misbehave with Police Officials in Pandemic Situation
IPC Sections:
1. 269
2. 270
3. 290
4. 294 (b)
5. 506 (i)
Disaster Management Act:
1. 51
UP Police registers FIR against Twitter, The Wire, Rana Ayyub, Shama Mohamed, Mohammed Zubair for tweeting Ghaziabad attack video
UP Police registers FIR against Twitter, The Wire, Rana Ayyub, Shama Mohamed, Mohammed Zubair for tweeting Ghaziabad attack video
While the video was portrayed as an attack on Muslim man by Hindus, the UP Police has maintained that the attackers were both Hindus and Muslims and the reason for the attack was a personal dispute and not communal.
While the video was portrayed as an attack on Muslim man by Hindus, the UP Police has maintained that the attackers were both Hindus and Muslims and the reason for the attack was a personal dispute between the man and his attackers.
FIR was, therefore, registered against for offences under Sections 153 (provocation to cause riot), 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups), 295A (insulting religious beliefs), 505 (public mischief), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
[Sushant Singh Rajput case] Bombay High Court refuses anticipatory bail to NDPS accused Sahil Shah
[Sushant Singh Rajput case] Bombay High Court refuses anticipatory bail to NDPS accused Sahil Shah
Justice PD Naik observed that WhatsApp messages, statement of arrested accused and the investigation conducted reveal Shah's complicity in the crime.
The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to Sahil Shah an accused in one of the cases under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act being probed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in connection with the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
Justice PD Naik observed that WhatsApp messages, statement of arrested accused and the investigation conducted reveal Shah's complicity in the crime.
"This is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. Hence, no case is made out to grant relief in the Application," Justice Naik said rejecting Shah's application.
Shah is accused of offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 27, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the NDPS Act. The offences include consuming and financing drugs and harbouring offenders.
During their interception of co-accused Ganesh Shere and Sidharth Amin, NCB seized 310 grams of marijuana and suspected that the contraband was supplied by Shah.
Apprehending arrest before the Sessions Court, Shah moved the Special NDPS Court, Mumbai. However, the Court refused to grant protection through an order of April 23, 2021.
Aggrieved by the order, Shah approached the High Court.
Advocates PS Malhi and Amandeep Singh, appearing for Shah, submitted that there was no cogent evidence to show Shah's involvement the crime.
"The contraband which was allegedly recovered was from the co-accused was of small quantity. The WhatsApp chat relied upon by the prosecution does not establish involvement of the applicant," they stated.
They also submitted that Shah was never issued any summons by NCB up until he approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail.
In any case, the lawyers argued, Shah had never been issued summons in any other case being investigated by NCB.
Advocate Shreeram Shirsat, appearing for NCB, submitted that there was strong evidence to show Shah's complicity in the crime.
"The whatsapp message collected by the Investigating Agency shows the involvement of the Applicant in the present case as well as his involvement in drug trafficking in the past," Shirsat submitted.
He also pointed out that Shah's name was also disclosed in the other two complaints registered with NCB pertaining to the offences under NDPS Act in connection the death of Rajput.
NCB opposed Shah's application stating that Shah was never available for interrogation and had been avoiding arrest.
Upon hearing submissions of the parties and examining the documents, Justice Naik rejected Shah's application.
Demanding fees for facilities that students cannot use is profiteering: PIL in Bombay High Court seeks 50% reduction in school fees
Demanding fees for facilities that students cannot use is profiteering: PIL in Bombay High Court seeks 50% reduction in school fees
The petition stated that since schools did not open for physical classes for long period during 2020-21, the school managements would have saved overheads and requiring costs on various items.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed Maharashtra government to file its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a direction to schools to collect only 50 percent of the annual fees for the academic year 2020-21.
The petitioners, which include Member of Legislative Assembly Atul Dattatray Bhatkhalkar and Mumbai lawyer Siddharth Sharma submitted that the fees charged by the schools for the year 2020-21 remained as was normally charged and did not change despite the changing factors like the COVID pandemic.
The petitioners while acknowledging that schools may have incurred costs for developing online class process, maintained that such expenses would still be less than the expenditure incurred by parents to ensure their children had electronic devices, internet connectivity etc to attend such online classes.
The petitioners claimed that the management of schools should not be allowed to charge fees for activities and facilities which could not be availed by students due to the circumstances beyond their control in the pandemic.
The petition stated that since schools did not open for physical classes for a substantially long period during 2020-21, it is "apparent that the school managements will have saved overheads and requiring costs on various items".
"Demanding fees in respect of overheads on such activities (which students cannot avail) is nothing short of indulging in profiteering and commercialization. Overheads and operations cost would be nothing but an amount undeservedly earned by the school without offering such facility to the students during the relevant period," the petition stated.
The petitioners further submitted that Maharashtra had issued a directive on May 8 barring schools from hiking school fees for the academic year 2020-21 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown.
The High Court had imposed a stay on the directive in June 2020 but vacated the stay in their final order of March 2021.
The Court had, however, clarified in the final order that no student would be debarred from attending classes or examinations on account of non-payment of the “increased component of fees” nor will their reports be withheld.
However, the schools have failed to comply with the directions against debarring students and withholding results, the petitioners contended.
This, they claimed, prompted them to approach the High Court.
The petitioners claimed that the provisions of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulations of Fees) Act and the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Regulations of Fees) Rules have not been acted upon by the State government as the Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee have not been constituted by them.
Even the schools have not constituted the executive committee, the petitioners stated.
They, therefore, sought stricter implementation of the statutory provisions under which the school fees are approved.
A Bench of Justices SP Deshmukh and GS Kulkarni were informed by the Government Pleader Geeta Shastri that a Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee was constituted by the State through a notification on June 7, 2021.
She was granted leave by the Court to place on record the information with regard to the functioning and address of this authority.
Sedition (IPC 124A)
Sedition (IPC 124A)
Description:
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, a shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.Classification u/schedule 1 CrPC
|
Punishment |
Cognizance |
Bail |
Triable |
|
Imprisonment for Life +
Fine or 3 Years + Fine or Fine |
Cognizable |
Non-Bailable |
Court of
Session |
Standard Case Law:
1. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)
2. QE Vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1898)
3. Niharendu Majumdar Vs Emperor, AIR 1942
4. Emperor Vs Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Shankarlal Ghelabhi Sankar
Updated Cases: (2021)
1. Kangana Ranuat: (Bollywood Actress)
2. Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (CID)
3. Vinod Dua Vs Himachal Pradesh
1. Kangana Ranuat: (Bollywood Actress)
Fact of the Case:
The Bandra police registered an FIR against Ranaut and her sister Rangoli Chandel for offences punishable under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc), 295A (deliberate acts hurting religious sentiments) and 124-A (sedition) r/w 34 of IPC,for and allegedly trying to create a communal divide through their social media.
The FIR was registered following a Metropolitan Magistrate Court's order on a private complaint by casting director Munawar Ali Sayyed, last October.Sayyed alleged that the sisters deliberately tweeted to bring hatred and excite disaffection towards the Maharashtra Government.
2. Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (CID)
Fact of the Case:
YSR Congress MP K. Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju from Andhra Pradesh, who was arrested by Guntur CID on May 14 for alleged sedition and promotion of communal hatred over his speeches.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed surprise over the "brazenness" and "arrogance" that the Additional Advocate General, representing the Andhra Pradesh Government, displayed while putting forth his arguments in the matter pertaining to YSRCP MP Krishnam Raju's arrest in a Sedition case.
3. Vinod Dua (Journalist) Vs Himachal Pradesh
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court is hearing the plea filed by journalist Vinod Dua seeking the quashing of the Sedition FIR registered against him in Himachal Pradesh.
Vinod Dua is accused of having made certain statements in his YouTube program, the Vinod Dua show, which are alleged to be of the nature to incite communal hatred and lead to a breach of peace and communal disharmony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)