General Awareness

LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - June 2022

Jun 2022

Dec 16, 2022

No Vacation Bench of Supreme Court to Sit during Winter Break

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud declared that no Vacation Bench will conduct hearings during the upcoming winter break of the Supreme Court.
The CJI said that Vacation Benches were only formed when the Court went for longer breaks such as during summers in the months of May and June. However, the practice would not be followed during the winter break in December.
The Apex Court will go for Winter break from December 19 to January 2.

Dec 15, 2022

Direct Evidence of Demand of Bribe Not Necessary to Convict Public Servant under Prevention of Co...

The Supreme Court ruled that a public servant can be held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on circumstantial evidence. It further added that direct evidence of demand of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Act.
A Constitution Bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna said that even if the direct evidence of the complainant is not available, owing to any reasons, there can be conviction of the public servant under the PC Act, if the demand for illegal gratification is proved through inferential evidence based on circumstances.
The Court held that if there is an absence of evidence of the complainant (direct or primary), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability," the Court held.
The Court however added that foundational facts have to be proved in the cases.

Dec 14, 2022

CJI Chandrachud Inaugurates 10 District Court Digitisation Hubs in Odisha

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud virtually inaugurated 10 district court digitisation hubs (DCDH) in Odisha, and said that modernisation of judiciary is the need of the hour.
With the inauguration of 10 DCDHs, a total of 15 DCDHs have now become functional in the state, with each catering to a neighbouring district, thus covering all 30 district courts.
Appreciating the information and communication technology (ICT) measures adopted by the Orissa High Court under the leadership of its Chief Justice S. Muralidhar, he said, "Digitisation should be accompanied by a push for e-filing of cases."
He also said that the Orissa High Court, with its digitisation initiatives, is now a "role model" for all other High Courts of the country.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 5 Names to Centre as Apex Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium recommended to the Centre the names of five High Court judges for appointment as apex court judges. The recommendation came after the meeting of the six-member Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud. After the elevation of justice Dipankar Datta, former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, SC's current bench strength is 28 as against the sanctioned strength of 34. If the five names recommended by the Supreme Court collegium are notified by the central government, then the bench strength of the court will become 33.
The five names recommended for elevation are Justice Pankaj Mithal, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court; Justice Sanjay Karol, Chief Justice, Patna High Court; Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Chief Justice, Manipur High Court; Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Judge, Patna High Court; Justice Manoj Misra, Judge, Allahabad High Court.

Dec 13, 2022

Bar Council of India Suspends License of 29 Lawyers from Odisha

The Bar Council of India suspended licences of 29 lawyers from Odisha for a period of 18 months as they used un-parliamentary words to address judges, pushing and pulling the police officials and obstructing the court proceedings.
An interim order was also passed by the bar body for suspending practising licence of practice of all the members of Sambalpur District Bar Association (SDBA) until further orders.
The 29 lawyers who have been suspended for 18 months are Sureswar Mishra, Shib Diwan, Pramod Saraf, Satyanaryan Purohit, Srikant Panigrahi, Himansu Panigrahi, Mahendra Badhei, Anup Taria, Silu Mahapatra, Satyanaryan Panda, Prabin Singhdeo, Rabi Pujhari, Suraj Biswal, Chandrakanta Mohanty, Nabin Satpathy, Saroj Sahu, Manoranjan Dash, Manas Mishra, Sameer Mahapatra, Bandita Mishra, Rajib Satpathy, Basanta Mishra, Minketan Bhoi, Ratan Agarwal, Bijetendra Pradhan, Suranjini Barik, Pradeep Bohidar, Babull Panda and Manoranjan Panda.

Supreme Court Posts Pleas Challenging Validity of Citizenship Act's Section 6A

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court posted the pleas that challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, as inserted by an amendment in 1985 in furtherance of the Assam Accord, for directions to January 10, 2023.
The 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha heard the issue.
In the beginning of the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal apprised the bench that both the parties have agreed to sit together and identify the issues which were to be segregated and heard in the case.
As per the bench it has now been agreed between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General on one hand and Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising for segregating the cases which fall for decision before this court into distinct categories and the order in which the arguments are to be made.

Dec 12, 2022

Centre Notifies Appointment of Justice Dipankar Dutta As Supreme Court Judge

Almost three months after the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium, the Central Government notified the appointment of Justice Dipankar Dutta, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, as a judge of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court collegium led by the then CJI UU Lalit had recommended the elevation of Justice Dutta in the resolution passed on September 26. It is worthwhile to note that the Centre's notification came in the backdrop of the Supreme Court repeatedly criticising the Government for not acting promptly on the collegium recommendations.
Dutta practised mostly in the Calcutta High Court, but also practiced in Supreme Court and other High Courts in constitutional and civil matters. Justice Dutta was made a permanent judge of Calcutta High Court on June 22, 2006.He was later elevated on April 28, 2020 as the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. With the appointment of Justice Dutta, the Supreme Court now has 28 judges out of the strength of 34 judges.

Central Government Should Amend Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act which Excludes Female Me...

The Supreme Court asked the Central Government to consider amending Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act that excludes female members of Scheduled Tribes from having the equal share in the property of the father.
A bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari said that there can be no justification whatsoever for denying the right of survival to female members of a community.
As per the judgement when a daughter belonging to the non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny similar right to the daughter of the tribal community. Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession.
The bench further stated it is about time that the court reconsiders the provisions of the Act that have been prevalent since 70 years of the Constitution denying daughters of Scheduled Tribe being denied equal rights.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down 10A of Divorce Act, 1869

The Kerala High Court declared as unconstitutional the stipulation of one year of separation or more for filing a divorce petition by mutual consent under the Divorce Act, saying it is violative of fundamental rights.
A division bench of the High Court comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen also observed the Union government should seriously consider having a uniform marriage code in India to promote common welfare and the good of spouses in matrimonial disputes.
Observing that the law differentiates parties based on religion in regard to welfare in a matrimonial relationship, the High Court said in a secular country, the legal paternalistic approach should be on the common good of the citizens rather than based on religion.
The High Court gave this order on a plea filed by a young Christian couple challenging the fixation of the minimum period of separation of one year under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 as being violative of fundamental rights.

Share on

TCY Analytics (View Subscription Plans)

Subscribe to GK Updates

I want to receive

GK Tags

September GK, August GK, July 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