Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
Hailing from Kangra district’s Garli, the first heritage village of India, Justice Sanjay Karol served his parent High Court of Himachal Pradesh as Acting Chief Justice and High Courts of Tripura and Patna as Chief Justice before his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge on 06-02-2023.
“In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”- Supreme Court’s direction
Regarding appellant’s attempt to overtake a vehicle, the Court stated that he was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. Furthermore, it was proved that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
“When a legislative body enacts a legislation there is a presumption of constitutionality unless proven otherwise, similarly, a policy decision when taken by the competent authority enters the fray of enforcement with a presumption in its favour of being in public interest, unless otherwise shown, demonstrated and proven to be among other grounds, manifestly arbitrary.”
“The failure to adequately assess health and environmental impact of Genetically Modified crops seriously infringes upon intergenerational equity as it potentially endangers the ability of future citizens to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.”
The Court allowed the ‘indigent woman’ to file an appeal as an ‘indigent person’, as her indigency was not extinguished by the compensation awarded, for she did not actually receive the money at the time of filing the appeal.
Supreme Court questioned the haste shown by the Central Govt issuing impugned notification during nationwide lockdown and held the inclusion of item 6 to be illegal.
The convict was charged with offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Supreme Court in the instant matter explained that when offence under Sections 272 and 273 was made out, offence under Section 59 of FSSA would be attracted.
“The punishment under PFA and the penalty under the FSSA cannot be imposed on the violator for the same misbranding because it will amount to double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.”
Justice Sanjay Karol served the High Courts of Tripura and Patna as Chief Justice before his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge on 06-02-2023.
With the Govt. of India notifying the appointment of the Judges, read more about the new appointees and what it means for Supreme Court’s Judges’ strength.