CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
The courts are closed on account of winter break.
1. The Supreme Court in N Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI held that the money deposited by the customer in the bank is not held by it as a trustee but becomes part of the banker’s fund who is under a contractual obligation to pay the sum of the amount deposited by a customer on demand. Full Story
2. The relationship between the central government and the judiciary has always been under a scanner. In a bail petition, the court observed that constitutional courts have praised the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi five times:
- Justice MR Shah praised Modi as a model and hero.
- Justice Arun Mishra called him a versatile genius.
- Justice MR Shah called him a vibrant and visionary leader.
- Justice PV Kunhikrishnan supported his photo on the COVID certificate.
- Justice Shekhar Yadav applauded him for his efforts for the COVID vaccination progress. Full Story
3. The Patna High Court in Anuj Kumar Gupta vs the State of Bihar held that a person whose death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment is eligible for remission. Such a person can be released from prison if he has served at least 14 years in jail. Full Story
4. Breaking: With the rising COVID-19 and Omicron variant cases, the Delhi government today decided to enforce a ‘yellow’ alert in the city. As per it, places of mass gatherings shall be closed or will be open as per the prescribed capacity by the government. The night curfew shall be from 11 pm to 5 am. The list of things allowed and not allowed has been issued by Delhi Government. Full Story
1. While speaking at a public event at Vijaywada, the CJI NV Ramana said that majority is not a defence to the arbitrary actions of the government. Compliance with the Constitution is mandatory. He said if the judiciary won’t be having the power of judicial review, the functioning of democracy is unthinkable. Full Story
2. Speaking at the Decolonisation of the Indian Legal System at Akhil Bhartiya Adhivakta Parishad, Justice Nazeer said that Indian Jurisprudence must be made a compulsory subject in all law universities. The eradication of the colonial mindset from the present legal system is a must, though it may take time. He said that today justice is not demanded but prayed for in the humblest terms. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in R. Rajendran vs the Inspector of Police & Kathirvel held that the administrator of a WhatsApp group is not vicariously liable for the objectionable posts by its members. Here the common intention cannot be established if his role was only of an administrator and nothing else. Full Story
4. The Madras High Court in Gopi @ Saravanan vs State held that if in an offence of rape the victim has not violently resisted does not mean that the act was consensual. Absent of violent resistance does not mean the victim consented. Full Story
Christmas leave. Courts closed.
1. The Supreme Court in Ram Ratan vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that mere exhibition brandishing or openly holding a weapon by an offender to threaten and create apprehension in the victim’s mind is sufficient to constitute an offence under section 397 of IPC. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Brijmani Devi vs Pappu Kumar And Anr held that while granting bail to an accused, the court must record reasons though not elaborative. A cryptic bail order without any reasoning is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Sandeep Aggarwal vs Priyanka Aggarwal held that if before the marriage wife fails to disclose her mental disorder, then it constitutes fraud on the husband. The court said marriage is not made of only happy memories and good times, and two people in a marriage have to face challenges and weather the storm together. There need to be an understanding between the two. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Mushtaq GK vs Ayesha Banu, while denying custody of the child to the father because he had remarried, held that the affection and love of biological and stepmother would not be ordinarily same towards the child. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Parvati Devi vs The State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand held that once the prosecution can establish that a woman was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand to dowry soon before death, the court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty with demand for dowry have caused dowry death under section 304B of IPC. Full Story
2. The Bombay High Court in Kashinath Narayan Gharat vs The State of Maharashtra held that after a long relationship, including a physical relationship, refusal to marry a woman does not constitute an offence of cheating under section 417 of IPC. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Star Paper Mills Limited vs Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd held that if the author of the document does not deny its signature on the concerned document, then he need not be examined by the court. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Manish Bakawale & Ors held that a candidate during his process of selection cannot alter its declaration of details which he has furnished earlier. The court said that allowing this can affect the position of others; therefore it is not justifiable. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Anu Kumar vs State and Anr held that while quashing a petition under section 482 CrPC, the court cannot issue directions for proceeding against a third party who was never produced before the court nor given any opportunity to appear. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Suman Chandra vs CBI held that from the time immaterial, it is accepted by the courts in India that quality of the evidence is the urgent desideratum (need, requirement) and not the quantity. The court held that reversing the order of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the trial court is not only erroneous (wrong, incorrect) but unreasonable and perverse. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Asha Devi vs Muneshwar Singh held that the person against whom an order of maintenance under section 125 of CrPC is passed, the fact of his residence is immaterial. The order may be enforced in any place. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court, while delivering a judgement on harassment by police against an 8-year-old girl, said that we cannot let our daughters grow up in anger. Immediate remedial steps should be taken in such cases. The court, therefore, directed the girl to be compensated with a grant of Rs. 1.5 lakh. Full Story
1. The Kerala High Court in Peter Myaliparampil vs Union of India and Anr, while rejecting the plea for removal of PM Modi’s photo from Covid certificate, said that it is we who elect eligible persons and send them to parliament and the majority party becomes leader. So citizens must respect the Prime Minister of India. The Indian Democracy is being praised by the world. The Prime Minister is elected because he has got people’s mandate. Full Story
2. National Lok Adalat was set up by Karnataka Legal Service Authority on December 18. A total of 3,37,680 cases have been settled in a day, out of which 8,606 were pre-litigation cases. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in Mathivanan vs Inspector of Police and Ors said that right to be funny can be mined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Being funny and poking fun at another are two different things. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in JSB Cargo and Freight Forwarder Pvt Ltd vs State and Anr held that section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not mandatory but a directory provision. The provision gives power to the court to hear the cheque bounce cases, to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. Full Story
1. While passing of Electoral Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2021, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that linking of Aadhar card with Voter ID would not be compulsory but voluntary in nature. The Lok Sabha has passed the Bill. Full Story
2. The Karnataka High Court in The State Of Karnataka & Ors vs CN Apporva Shree & Anr held that there cannot be any discrimination between an unmarried daughter and a married daughter regarding appointment on compassionate grounds. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court in Ramla vs Abdul Rahuf held that if a man refuses cohabitation or fulfilment of marital obligation with the first wife after a second marriage, then such act is violative of Quranic injunctions and a valid ground for divorce. Full Story
4. While speaking at the eighteenth annual convocation of NALSAR, Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India said that to succeed at trial advocacy, one requires a separate skill, including the presence of mind and intellectual inputs. The CJI urged young lawyers to gain experience at the trial court. He said it is necessary to be acquainted with ground proceedings to build or establish themselves as a big lawyer. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr vs Union of India held that initiating disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. Mental disability impairs the ability of a person to comply with the standards of a workplace in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Full Story
2. The Patna High Court in Shiv Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others directed social platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Meta and Messenger to cooperate in the probe with Bihar Police for social media posts against judges and higher dignitaries. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Jabbar Isak Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra held that the accused cannot be convicted solely based on admissions made by him under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court upholds Delhi High Court judgment in Bhavya Nain vs High Court of Delhi. The court held that Bipolar Affective Disorder is not a permanent disability. The court upheld the selection of Bhavya Nain as a judicial officer and capable of disposing of his responsibilities. Everything can be achieved with strong determination, added court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Company vs M/s Bhargavarma Constructions and Others held that plaintiff is Dominus Litis (master of the suit). It is he who is entitled to decide who all should be added as parties in the case. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Amrita Sinha held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The authority can evaluate the family’s financial position upon the death while in service. It is not a vested right but to enable the family to overcome financial crisis after the death of the bread-earning member. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Bordeuri Samaj vs Riju Prasad held that contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary and should be exercised in exceptional circumstances and sparingly with circumspection. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs the state of Rajasthan held that proceedings for arbitration and conciliation cannot be clubbed if it relates to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act. If conciliation proceedings have failed, an arbitration attempt is mandatory. Full Story
1. Breaking: Union Cabinet clears the proposal to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21 years. This move will make the legal age of marriage for both men and women the same, that is 21 years. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Padma Baraik vs Union of India held that the state is under a duty to protect the environment, natural resources, and nature to ensure that the citizens live with dignity and their right to dignified life do not get violated. Full Story
3. The Madras High Court in E-merge Tech Global Services P Ltd. vs Mr M.R.Vindhyasagar & Anr explained the difference between compensatory damages and restitutionary damages. The court said that compensatory damages are awarded to redress the loss suffered by the aggrieved party, whereas restitutionary damages direct the defendant to disgorge (discharge) the benefit accrued due to unjust enrichment. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in Ranjith vs the State of Kerala held that without indication of penetrative sexual assault and based on the vague statement of the victim that accused hugged him and impregnated her would not constitute an offence of rape. Full Story
1. While speaking at the felicitation ceremony organised for Justice Hima Kohli by “Women in Law and Litigation”, the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said that we need a higher percentage of women in the judiciary. Their representation is a must. Only 1 out of 4 girls wish to get into litigation. The ratio has to improve. The bar and bench must ensure a friendly atmosphere in courtrooms. Full Story
2. The Kerala High Court in JW Aragadan vs Hashmi N S and Anr held that it is the legal right of a child born out of an inter-faith couple to be maintained by his/her father. The caste, faith or religion cannot have any rational basis for determining the parental duty of a father. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Rakesh Rai vs the State of Sikkim held that recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act would not be admissible if the disclosure statement was made in connection to a crime undergoing a separate trial. And especially when the disclosure statement was not made to the jurisdictional police officer. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Suraj vs State held that the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a separate class by itself. The ultimate purpose of this law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy vs V Manjunath held that if a Karta has alienated the joint Hindu family property either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, then such alienation would bind the interest of all undivided members irrespective of the member being a widow or a minor. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Mohan @Srinivas @ Seena @Tailor Seena vs the State of Karnataka held that a trial court cannot be expected to act in a particular way if the case is sensitive. Every case has its journey towards the truth. If a trial court decides a sensitive case on its own merits, then it should rather be appreciated. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in N Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, explained the essentials necessary to attract sections 409, 420 and 477A of IPC. For section 409 IPC, the dishonest intention is the most crucial element to be proved; for section 420, deception with dishonest intention; and section 477A requires a falsification of accounts. Full Story
4. The Madras High Court in Munna vs State of Tamil Nadu, Sivaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu, while confirming the conviction of rape, said that men are usually glorified for their sexual adventures and women are stigmatized for the same. Treating women as an object in movies leaves a detrimental effect on society. Morality is the only buzzword to prosper society. Full Story
1. Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera has signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The bill also enables gay couples to adopt children. Piera said that “This new law will allow all children with a papa and mama, with two papas or with two mamas, to have the same rights and the same protection”. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in M/S Suvarna Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Karnataka and Anr held that just because some other person who might have committed the offence but are not arrayed as accused in the charge sheet, then the proceedings against a person whose name is in the charge sheet would not be quashed merely on that ground. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Kumari vs State of Karnataka and Ors allowed the victim of rape to terminate her pregnancy which crossed the stipulated period of 24 weeks. The court said it is necessary to terminate as not doing of same would endanger her physical and mental health. In exceptional circumstances, the court can allow such termination. Laws are not superior to human life but for the protection of life. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Late Indravathi Srinivasan vs Dr Sunitha Venugopal held that a decree can be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC at any stage of the suit where admission of facts has been made either in pleadings or otherwise. Full Story
1. Breaking: The Supreme Court designates seven retired High Court judges and eighteen lawyers as senior advocates. The decision has been taken by the Chief Justice of India and the judges of the Supreme Court in the full court meeting. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in State of Odisha vs Pratima Mohanty held that the court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, must not embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability of allegations made in the complaint or First Information Report. Full Story
3. The Allahabad High Court in Gulafsa Begum vs the State of UP held that a rape victim cannot be compelled or coerced to undergo a DNA test for determining the paternity of her child. Full Story
4. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neha vs Vibhor Garg held that recording the telephonic conversation of the wife secretly and without her knowledge is an infringement of her privacy. It is a clear-cut breach of her fundamental right to privacy. Full Story
1. Two High Courts in favour and 13 High Courts are against All India Judicial Services, said Law Minister Kiren Rijiju to the Lok Sabha. As per the government, it is a way to strengthen the overall justice delivery system. It will allow fresh talent to get selected properly on the All India merit selection system. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Gulab vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that if the weapon with which offence is committed is not recovered, then it would not discredit the case of the prosecution, which relies on the cogent direct evidence. Full Story
3. The Allahabad High Court in Ishaque vs the State of UP held that the purpose of examination of the accused under section 313 of CrPC is to ensure that whether he had been given a fair opportunity to say what he wants to say against the prosecution case. If not given, then it would be a travesty of justice. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Ram Gaua Raksha Dal v UOI and Ors held that it is the right of the consumer to know in detail the items used for manufacturing food items. One should not resort to the deceit of the ingredients or the source. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Shri K Jayaram and Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority held that non-disclosure of past details and pending litigation concerning the subject matter of the dispute would amount to material suppression of facts. For a litigant to attract discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, he must come with clean hands. Full Story
2. Rajya Sabha clears the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 and the Assistive Reproduction Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2021. Both the Bills aim to regulate IVF (in vitro fertilisation) clinics. The Bill proposes establishing Surrogacy Board at the national and state level. It also proposes to prohibit commercial surrogacy but permits Altruistic Surrogacy. Full Story
3. Delhi Court in Tirthankara Lord Rishab Dev and Ors vs UOI held that wrongs of the past cannot be a basis for disturbing the present peace. The court said in an allegation which demanded the restoration of the temple complex instead of the existing Quwwat-Ul-Islam Masjid within the Qutub Minar Complex at Mehrauli. The court said India has a rich cultural history, but the same cannot be disturbed as it is a protected monument. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Rathee vs Seema Rathee held that if a daughter expects her father to support her in education, then she must also play the role of daughter. It cannot be a one-way street, said the court. Full Story
1. There is no proposal to make the Law Commission of India a statutory body, clarifies Central Government to the Supreme Court. The Ministry of the Law said that we are currently occupied with the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Law Commission. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Beena Devi and Ors vs Shri Vijay Kumar Dev and Ors said that providing food to the needy citizens should be the topmost priority of a state. Therefore, we expect Delhi Government to open a fair price shop within two weeks. This work is well within the government’s power. Full Story
3. The Calcutta High Court in Saddam Hussain vs State of West Bengal held that it would not be good to punish a person for rape if his promise to marry could not be fructified (successful, make something fruitful) due to subsequent events like opposition from family etc. We cannot say that a sexual relationship was made on account of the false promise of marriage. Full Story
4. In a debate over the Supreme Court and High Court (Salary and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2021, the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said that where the judiciary is independent, the Legislature and Executive are also independent. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Amudhavali and Ors. vs P Rukmani and Ors held that registration of a document is always subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties by the competent civil court. Full Story
2. While delivering a lecture on 13th BR Ambedkar Memorial Lecture on “Conceptualising Marginalisation”, Justice DY Chandrachud said that a narrow concept of merit only allows upper caste individuals to mask their obvious caste privilege. He said that castelessness is a privilege that only the upper caste can afford because their caste privilege has already translated into social, political and economic capital. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority vs N Nanjappa and Anr held that a separate suit is not required to be filed for questions relating to the right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 of CPC. Full Story
4. A Delhi Court in TTK Prestige Ltd vs Hiveloop Technology Private Ltd, while dealing with judgment on trademark infringement, quoted a few verses from the Bhagwad Gita. The translation of verse was: “The logic for action must be known, so also the logic for inaction and that the logic for a prohibited action must also be known, therefore the practice of ‘karma’ is profound.” (कररणण हपप बणदवयय, बणदवयय च पवकररण:|अकररणशच बणदवयय गहनन कर रणण गपत:||) It was recited to show the importance of weighing and evaluating a host of factors in a summary judgment. Full Story
1. In a lecture organised by the Advocates Association of Western India at Bombay High Court, Justice Abhay S Oka of the Supreme Court said that the five ethics on which the legal profession is based is integrity, objectivity, professional competence, confidentiality and due care. And the foremost duty of an advocate is to save the time of the court as time is very precious. Full Story
2. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Sanjeev Kumar vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr held that while exercising inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court cannot critically evaluate the statement of the prosecutrix which is recorded under section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Full Story
3. In a valedictory session of the 30th batch of Civil Judges of Bihar Judicial Services organised by Bihar Judicial Academy, Justice MR Shah, Supreme Court of India, said that the judges must devote all their time to the service of the people. He remarked that honesty, empathy and complete dedication of the work are hallmarks of a good judge. He said that a judge should always be humble and behave properly with the advocates and litigants. Full Story
4. While speaking at the Constitution Day celebration held by Adhivakta Parishad of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal said that India was never a Muslim, Christian or Hindu country. Adding of word ‘secular‘ to the Preamble was a narrow-minded approach. India has been ruled by innumerable rulers, and in every period, it was believed that India is beyond religion or a Devbhoomi. Full Story
1. Speaking at the event organised by the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad, the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana, said that the option of going to the court must be the last resort. The most important tool for resolving any dispute is the right attitude. Arbitration, conciliation and mediation are best efforts at restoring a relationship. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat held that section 202(2) of CrPC does not apply to the complaints made under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act concerning the examination of witnesses on oath. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West Bengal and Ors said that the right to food, clothing and shelter falls within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the constitutional mandate of all the States and Union Territories to ensure the distribution of a minimum quantity of dry ration to the sex workers without insisting them to produce ration cards for the same as it would be difficult for them to produce any identity proof. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs Mudrika Singh held that to uphold the mechanism of the acts such as sexual harassment at the workplace, the courts need to interpret the service rules and laws governing sexual harassment at the workplace that it renders justice to all. The service rules should not be interpreted in a hypertechnical manner. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Aditya Dubey (Minor) & Anr vs Union of India & Ors said that misreporting of the court proceedings conveys the twisted impression of the judge’s statement to the public. Some sections of media try to project us as “villains”, said CJI NV Ramana on Delhi pollution matters and the closing of schools. The court said we never directed the Delhi government to close the schools. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Shahrukh Ali vs the State of Delhi directed a man to serve three weeks in an animal care centre for violating his bail condition. The man did not commit any illegal activity; therefore, a lenient view was taken. Full Story
3. The Gauhati High Court in Amarjyoti Gogoi and Ors vs the State of Assam and Ors held that if the act of police or a public servant is connected to the discharge of official duty, then only a sanction under section 197 of CrPC is required. If the police get to indulge in a criminal conspiracy or any such other thing while on duty, then the same cannot be treated with the act done in discharge of official duty. The uniform cannot be used as a shield. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi vs the State of Gujarat held that the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to facilitate and enhance the acceptability of cheques and build people’s faith in negotiable instruments for the transaction of business. Section 138 of the said Act is attracted where debt is incurred after the check is drawn but before its encashment. Full Story
1. The Delhi High Court in Neelu Shrivastava vs State and Ors differentiated between FIR and Zero FIR. It said that FIR is registered where the incident occurs within the jurisdiction of a particular police station. In contrast, Zero FIR can be registered in any police station irrespective of where the incident took place. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Dr G Sadasivan Nair vs Cochin University of Science And Technology held that pension which is payable to the employee at the time of retirement shall be determined and regulated by the rules existing at the time of retirement. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Neha Tyagi vs Lt. Col Deepak Tyagi held that any dispute between husband and wife should not make a child suffer. It is the responsibility of the father to maintain the child till attaining majority. The child needs to be maintained as per the status of his father. Full Story
4. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Rayees Ahmad Khan vs Union Territory through P/S Kupwara held that unless circumstances so demand or compel the remedy of pre-arrest, bail application should be made before the court of the first instance instead of directly invoking the jurisdiction of High Court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Phool Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that a rape accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if she is found to be credible and trustworthy. Sole testimony should not be doubted by the court merely on the basis of assumptions and surmises. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya vs National Investigation Agency held that undertrials cannot be kept deprived of personal liberty unduly wrong pending trial. When it is obvious to the court that a timely trial would not be possible, then the court would be under obligation to enlarge the accused on bail. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Government of NCT of Delhi said that the Delhi government has failed to control the spread of dengue and deaths occurring due to it. The government was under the impression of fear that they might lose votes if they make strict policies or take strict actions against people. It is a very lamentable view of the government. Full Story
4. The Calcutta High Court in Nurai Sk @ Nurul SK vs State of West Bengal held that dragging scarf of a woman, pulling victim’s hand and proposing her for marriage does not create offence of sexual assault under POCSO Act. The accused can be held under section 354(1)(ii) and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Full Story
- November 2021 Law News
- October 2021 Law News
- September 2021 Law News
- August 2021 Law News
- July 2021 Law News
- June 2021 Law News
- May 2021 Law News
- April 2021 Law News
- March 2021 Law News
- February 2021 Law News
- January 2021 Law News
- December 2020 Law News
- Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
