Juris Luris - Law of India

Advocates’ day is celebrated in India by the legal fraternity on the 3rd of December to mark the birth anniversary of Dr Rajendra Prasad, the First President of India and an eminent lawyer.

Happy Advocate’s day!

Section 173(3) read with Section 158 of Criminal Procedure Code does not permit the Secretary (Home) to order further investigation/reinvestigation by another agency, other than the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station and/or his superior officer. (Supreme Court)[DocId #2208873]

CBI vs Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992):

The SC Held that a magistrate can authorize police custody for a maximum of 15 days after the arrest of the accused. After this period, any further detention must be in judicial custody, except in cases where the same accused is implicated in a different case arising from a separate incident or transaction. In such situations, the magistrate may consider authorizing police custody again.

𝘗𝘖𝘊𝘚𝘖 - 𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘮 𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘶𝘭 - 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 - 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥.

Absence of specific denial of fact - Said fact shall be taken to be admitted - Admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.

https://youtu.be/nq7Wf9pr14o

#IPC #Arguments on #Bail in #Murder_case in the Honble High Court of MP on in in the Honble High Court of MP

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1
"The constitutional vision of justice accommodates differences of culture, ideology, and orientation. The stability of its foundation lies in its effort to protect diversity in all its facets: in the beliefs, ideas and ways of living of her citizens."

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has passed the judgment in case titled Shiv Kumar Pankha vs Hon'ble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another on 05.04.2019, has observed that an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council ceases to practice as an advocate as soon as he/she takes a full time salaried employment even if he/she continues to occasionally appear in the court for his/her employer.

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala,1973

Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab, 1967

Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India, 1952

Issue

In this case, the First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was tested on the ground that it abuses the Part-III of the constitution and subsequently, should be viewed as invalid. Through this revision act, certain laws were brought which were diminishing right to property. For this situation, the contention which was advanced was that according to article 13, no law can encroach or annul basic rights so in what capacity the constitutional correction can disregard it?

Judgment

It was held by the Apex court that the force presented by Constitution under Article 368 to Parliament to alter the laws is exceptionally wide and it likewise incorporates the ability to remove the major rights ensured under Part III of Indian Constitution. Further, the Supreme Court collectively held that “The expressions of article 368 are completely broad and engage Parliament to change the Constitution with no exemption whatever. With regards to article 13, “law” must be interpreted as meaning principles or guidelines made in exercise of common authoritative force and no alterations to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent force, with the outcome that article 13 (2) doesn’t influence revisions made under article 368.”

Judgment

Then again, while dismissing the applicant’s contentions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India fought that Article 22 of the Indian Constitution is an independent Code and that he was kept by the system set up by law. The court additionally held that if an individual’s freedom is removed by the State as per the system set up by law for example in the event that the detainment was according to the technique of law, at that point it can’t be said that it disregards the arrangements contained in Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this specific case, the Supreme Court took a restricted perspective on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While applying the regulation of severability, the zenith court pronounced segment 14 as void as it discovers it to be unconstitutional and violative of the key rights. Court stated the rule of system set up by law and proclaimed the use of fair treatment condition and worldwide common liberties contracts unimportant in Indian premises. Further, the court proclaimed segments 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 as intra-infection the constitutions, thus legitimate. At long last, the Court found that the detainment was legitimate and thus writ was discarded in like manner.
(2/2)

A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras, 1950

Issue

AK Gopalan was a Communist leader who was kept in the Madras Jail in 1950 under the Preventive Detention Law. By writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution Law, he tested his detainment while contending that Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act abuses Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and along these lines, the said Act is ultra vires of the essential thing arrangements as revered under the Constitution of India. The solicitor further represented the issue of the Indian Constitution’s ‘method characterized by resolution’ condition.

The case involved the following issues:

Whether section 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are ultra-virus and violates the Art. 13, 19 and 21.

Whether article 19 and 21 are interrelated to each other in the protection of life and liberty.

Whether the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 is illegal.

Whether article 22 is the complete code in itself while dealing with preventive detention cases.

(1/2)

Juris Luris - Law of India updated their business hours.