General Awareness

LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - June 2022

Jun 2022

Jan 06, 2023

Article 19 & 21 Rights Can Be Enforced Against Private Individuals & Entities

In an important development, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court said that the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 are enforceable even against persons other than the state or its instrumentalities.
"A fundamental right under Article 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities", the majority judgment held.

Jan 05, 2023

Justice Nazeer of Ayodhya Verdict Retires

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer of the Supreme Court, who was part of the consensus verdict in the Ayodhya dispute and headed the Constitution Bench that delivered verdicts on demonetisation and scope and ambit of free speech of public functionaries, demitted office.
Justice Nazeer was enrolled as an advocate on February 18, 1983 and practised in the Karnataka High Court where he was appointed as an additional Judge on May 12, 2003. He became a permanent judge on September 24, 2004, and was elevated to the Supreme Court of India on February 17, 2017.

Jan 04, 2023

Not All Religious Conversions are Illegal, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that all religious conversions cannot be presumed by a State to be illegal while agreeing to hear a Madhya Pradesh government appeal against a High Court decision freezing a mandatory provision requiring a person who desires to convert to another faith to give 60 days' prior intimation to the local District Magistrate.
A Bench led by Justice M.R. Shah issued notice but refused to order an interim stay of the High Court order even as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for Madhya Pradesh, argued that "conversion in the country is based on marriage".
The provision under question is Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh (Freedom of Religion) Act, 2021. Section 10(1) and (2) of the Act mandated that a person who desires to convert and a priest/person who intends to organise a conversion, respectively, should give a two-month prior declaration to the District Magistrate that the proposed change of religious faith is not motivated by force, undue influence, coercion or allurement. A person who wants to organise a conversion and refuses to give such a declaration would suffer penal consequences, which includes imprisonment of three to five years and costs of not less than Rs. 50,000.

HC Directs Delhi Govt. to Give Free Food, Treatment to HIV-Positive Persons

Delhi High Court directed the city government to ensure free food and medical treatment to HIV-positive persons living below the poverty line and strictly comply with the law dealing with the affected patients' grievances.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that several rehabilitative schemes and measures, including affordable treatment, had been put in place by the Delhi government to provide aid and assistance to HIV-positive patients and it was ensuring strict compliance under the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017.

Jan 03, 2023

Telangana High Court Promotes 36 Lawyers as Senior Advocates, Including 3 Women

The High Court of Telangana conferred senior designation to 36 advocates, which included three women.
The decision was taken by the High Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act read with guideline No 5 (viii) and 8 – Guidelines for Designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates.

Jan 02, 2023

Bombay High Court Makes E-mechanism Mandatory for Filing of Pleas related to Criminal and Commerc...

The Bombay High Court made it compulsory to use the e-filing mechanism for filing petitions pertaining to criminal and commercial cases.
The Notifications to this effect were released by both the original and appellate sides of the Court.
E-filing was also made compulsory in matters pertaining to all cases concerning Direct, Indirect tax; and non-commercial arbitration cases.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna Terms Demonetisation Unlawful, Gives Dissenting Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld demonetisation by 4:1 majority, with most of the justices holding the decision to be legal.
The five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer rejected the 58 petitions challenging the Union government's 2016 decision to demonetise Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes, while observing that the decision, which was taken by the Executive's Economic Policy, cannot be reversed now.
Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian agreed to the verdict. However, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented to hold that the November 8, 2016 notification was unlawful.
As per Justice Nagarathna, "Legislation made in secrecy is an ordinance. The Centre's powers are vast for the demonetisation of all currency and must be exercised only through plenary legislation and not just a gazette notification."

Share on

TCY Analytics (View Subscription Plans)

Subscribe to GK Updates

I want to receive

GK Tags

July GK, June GK, May GK, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENT, BUSINESS AND ECONOMY, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, SPORTS, NATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEFENCE, PERSONS IN NEWS, DAYS AND EVENTS, AWARDS AND HONOURS, GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND SCHEMES, GENDER/ HEALTH/ EDUCATION, ART AND CULTURE, BOOKS AND AUTHORS, TOURISM AND HOTEL INDUSTRY AWARENESS, ART AND CULTURE, LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Start Discussion

On any topic

Take Tests

Compiled from GK updates

Login

Sign Up

Forgot Password

Download TCY App

Unlock All Services And Enjoy The Premium Benefits

US$ 10

US$ 13

US$ 15

US$ 17

US$ 19

US$ 20

US$ 21

US$ 22

US$ 23

US$ 24

US$ 25

US$ 26