Month: August 2019

Pre-Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibitions of Sex Selections Act, 1994, S.28–Cognizance of Offence—Inspection of Ultra Sound clinic—Inspection carried by Executive Magistrate/ Tehsildar being nominee of District Magistrate is legal and valid for the purpose of the Act 

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 1793 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1218 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna Criminal Appeal No(S).…

Bail—Re-Arrest—Addition of Offences—In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 1765 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1217 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Criminal Appeal Nos. 816-817…

Abetment of Suicide—Eve Teasing—Tarnishing of self respect of victim–If the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 1745 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1216 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.