Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In cases of dislocation of minors from a foreign country to India, whenever children have been removed from their native country to India, the Court shall, in the best interest of the child, order for the return of the child to his native country.
The Court stayed the order dated 02-07-2024 passed by the Exclusive Magistrate, CBI, Patna, whereby CBI’s application for remand of the 13 accused was rejected.
The Court referred to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was explained that no lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439, CrPC.
“The Court said that even though the petitioner’s conduct in jail was ‘unsatisfactory’, he had already been punished for the offences committed in the prison and had already atoned for them.”
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on Delhi Water crisis; NEET UG 2024; Delhi Excise Liquor Policy; AOR exam; Manish Sisodia Bail; Seven sub-rights of Right to Property and more. It also covers top stories; Never reported Judgments; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in June; Know thy Judges.
“While fair and temperate criticism of the Court, may not be actionable, but attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice will be taken.”
A person accused of an offence under the Penal Code (‘IPC’) who has not been forwarded under Section 167(1) of the CrPC and has voluntarily appeared and filed a surrender petition cannot be dealt with under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
“We do not think that it would be in the best interest of the minor child, who is currently five years old, to be separated from his mother and his elder sister, who are living in Vinnytsia, Ukraine.”
Madras High Court pointed out that at this juncture that the minor child had been under the grandparents’ care since birth, which was disturbed due to the strained relationship between the parties.
The convict was charged with offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
Supreme Court said that the fact that when custody of the child was handed over to the aunt , she was un-married, and is now married having two children will not be a deterrent for this Court to come to the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the aunt as the child is living with her ever since she was 3-4 months old.
The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is a writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable grounds or probable cause being shown.
“Even if the mother is less capable financially, she becomes no less competent to ensure the welfare of the child, and the father will still be under an obligation to ensure the financial well-being of the child.”
“If the girl is not a major and has eloped with a person and expresses fear of life if her custody is given back to her parents, then the Court shall send her to appropriate shelter home where her interest could be best taken care of till she becomes a major.”
Supreme Cour refused to interfere with the High Court’s direction granting liberty to the father to file appropriate application in terms of Section 24 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking custody and visitation rights before the Family Court.
“The Court noted that “while passing the impugned order the Trial Court re-examined the allegations on merit and virtually sat in appeal over the order and rendered the order passed by the High Court nugatory.”
The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the alleged offense of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, based on a scheduled offence allegedly committed under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860.
Earlier in a writ petition concerning the issue of continuation of V. Senthil Balaji as a Cabinet Minister of the State consequent to his arrest, the Court left it to Chief Minister MK Stalin to decide about the continuance of Senthil Balaji (who is in judicial custody) as a Minister without Portfolio
With regards to custody of the child, the Calcutta High Court after considering the paramount welfare of the child, held the husband is not fit person for custody.