Month: October 2022

There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. HELD The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity

The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes…

Repudiation of insurance claim – Consumer – HELD National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation and into the nature of coverage, also when the only ground on which repudiation of the claim was made was lack of financial coverage. Matter remanded to State Commission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JSK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

Right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN @ ANAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 32 – Wife contesting as an GPA of party subsequently enrolled as and Advocate – Will continue as GPA as HC already decided matter – subsequent proceedings on issue hit by res judicata HELD High Court has mischaracterised the issue before it. Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. RAMACHANDRA RAO — Appellant Vs. S. NAGABHUSHANA RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.