General Awareness

LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - September 2022

Sep 2022

Jun 27, 2023

Madras High Court: Caste Has No Role in Appointment of Temple Priests

The Madras High Court held that caste will have no role in the appointment of priests in temples, where the only requirement is for the person to be well-versed, properly trained and qualified to perform the pooja, as per the requirements of the said temple.
In his order, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said that the appointment of temple priests would be governed by Agama. However, citing past Supreme Court rulings, the order said that the caste of a priest was not integral to religion.
Announcing the decision, justice Venkatesh cited the Supreme Court's verdict in the 2016 All India Adi Saiva Sivachariargal Seva Sangam's versus Government of Tamil Nadu case, where the top court had held that the appointment of a temple priest is a secular function and not about a hereditary right. The top court had held that the religious service by an Archaka is the secular part of the religion and the performance of the religious service is an integral part of the religion.

Jun 26, 2023

Supreme Court Stays Orissa High Court Order on Granting Custody of Minor to Father

Putting a stay on the restoration of minor custody to the father, the Supreme Court remarked that Orissa High Court failed to ascertain the welfare of the child.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that welfare of the child is paramount consideration in legislations including Muslim law for adjudicating cases related to child custody.
On the basis of evidence and the submissions made before the Bench, the court put an interim stay on the order of the High Court of Orissa.

Jun 24, 2023

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Withdrawn PIL Seeking Inclusion of Kudmi Community under Constituti...

The Calcutta High Court dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the Union of India to correct by including Kudmi Community under the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950. The advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a third party but is claiming to be the proposed beneficiaries.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hrranmay Bhattacharyya prima facie of the view that such relief is not maintainable in a petition.
Technically, this petition should not have been classified as public interest litigation as rightly pointed by the Additional Solicitor General, the Court said.
Since the writ petition was presented as public interest litigation as could be seen from the presentation form, the Registry has entertained the same as public interest litigation. In any event, since the advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner can be termed to be the proposed beneficiary, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the petition and approach the appropriate forum.

Jun 20, 2023

Madras High Court Constitutes Special Bench for Implementation of POCSO Act, JJ Act

Taking in view the importance of implementation of the provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the High Court of Madras constituted a Special Bench for the purpose.
The Division Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed the Registry to inform all the associations of lawyers and advocates in both Chennai (principal bench) and Madurai to assist the court in dealing with the subject matter, given the importance of the issue.
The High Court further instructed the Director General of Police (DGP), Pondicherry and the Tamil Nadu DGP to submit before it, all data related to the children in conflict with law and survivors below 18 years of age.
It also sought details of all cases pending before the police for investigation and before the court for adjudication under the JJ Act and the POCSO Act.
The Special Bench, comprising Justice Mohan and Justice Venkatesh, was constituted in line with an administrative order dated April 4, 2023, passed by the Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, T. Raja.

Jun 18, 2023

Approver Need Not be Examined As Witness by Magistrate When Cognizance Is Taken By Special Court ...

The Supreme Court has held that when the Special Court chooses to take cognizance directly under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the question of Approver being examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate as required by Section 306 (4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not arise.
A Bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the judgment in a case pertaining to allegations of criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL. The Apex Court acquitted the accused persons who were convicted by the Special Court for CBI and whose appeals were dismissed by the Madras High Court.

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