Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Collegium led by CJI Surya Kant had recently assured that it is already working on filling the vacant positions of Chief Justice in several High Courts.
“An act done by a person pursuant to the judgment of the Court cannot form basis for prosecuting such person as the same does not come within the definition of “offence” as contained in IPC.”
“It is only in rare and exceptional cases that the Court may substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.”
In the instant case, the Court had to consider whether maintenance proceedings under S. 488 of CrPC before Trial Court can be quashed on the ground of husband’s pleading that he had already divorced his wife.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The High Court strictly noted that such a conduct is unbecoming for a person belonging to legal profession and also reprimanded the Tribunal for withholding the compensation from the petitioner due to a fee dispute between a layer and their client.
The High Court stated that that the person who asserts that there is equality in work has to prove the same first.
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani of J&K and Ladakh HC took oath of office on 25-03-2024 while 6 new Judges of Kerala HC were sworn in on 22-03-2024.
The High Court meaningfully stated the existence of prima facie evidence against the accused is to no avail if there is no justification for the arrest based on the doctrine of clear and present danger to the society.
The case revolved around a special package sanctioned by the Govt. of India for the revival of infrastructural projects which were affected severely due to rise of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1990s.
The live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain, must be harmonised to rely upon the alleged illegal activities of the detenue.
The Court stated that motive assumes great importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence as without motive, chain of events is incomplete.
The Court pointed out that despite issuance of several orders since 2018, the respondents have not submitted compliance details before the Court.
“It is not the case of the prosecution that trial is being delayed because of the conduct of the accused but it is a case where the victim is avoiding stepping into the witness box.”