General Awareness

LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - October 2022

Oct 2022

Jan 11, 2023

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh Appointed Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati HC

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was appointed as the acting Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.
Justice Singh would take over from January 12 after incumbent Chief Justice Rashmin Manharbhai Chhaya demitted office on January 11.

Jan 10, 2023

Authority Barred under Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be Appointed as Arbitrator: Allaha...

The Allahabad High Court, while disposing an application, observed that a person or authority barred under Seventh Schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2013, can neither be appointed as Arbitrator nor nominate a person as Arbitrator.
Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal passed this order while hearing an Arbitration & Conciliation Application U/s 11(4) filed by M.J.S Construction and others.
The prayer made in the application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Application Act, 1996 is for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of dispute between the parties.

Uniform Civil Code: Apex Court Dismisses PIL Challenging States Forming Committees for Implementa...

The Apex Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition which challenged the decision of the States of Uttarakhand and Gujarat for constituting committees for introducing and implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
A bench of Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice P. S. Narasimha termed a plea filed by one Anoop Baranwal devoid of any merit and said that constitution of such committees cannot be challenged as ultra vires before courts.
The Court talked about Article 162 and said that it indicates that executive power of states extends to what legislature permits it to. It further added that the Constitution of the committee cannot be challenged as ultra vires.
The bench stated that there was nothing wrong if states form committees as Article 162 of Constitution gives the power to executive to do so.

Jan 09, 2023

Petition Challenging Appointment of NUALS Registrar Withdrawn from Karnataka High Court

A petitioner withdrew his plea from Karnataka High Court, which challenged the appointment of Mahadev M.G. as Registrar of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS).
The Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran, during the hearing, told the petitioner to file a representation before the UGC, considering the appointment was made in 2014.
After the Counsel for the petitioner asked for permission to withdraw the petition, the High Court granted the same.
Advocate Sanjai D. Rajan had argued in his petition that the appointment of the Registrar of NUALS was made in violation of the University Grants Commission Regulations and mandates.

Jan 08, 2023

A Writ Court Can Entertain Only Writ Petition, Not a Mercy Petition: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court observed that the Writ Court can entertain only a writ petition, not a mercy plea.
A single bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit rejected a petition filed seeking direction to the respondents that in lieu of withdrawal direct the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to allot one plot/stray plot in Bengaluru and execute the lease cum sale agreement or sale deed directing the respondent BDA to receive the entire consideration together with interest, i.e., at the cost of his earlier allotment, as the cancellation is contrary statutory provisions of BDA Act from the petitioner.
Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the Court broadly agreed with the submission made by Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the BDA that the allottee of a site cannot turn around and complain that he should be given allotment even when no amount is paid or that even when the initial amount paid by him has been withdrawn unconditionally on his own.

Jan 07, 2023

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenges anti-conversion laws enacted by 5 states in Supreme Court

A public interest litigation was filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.
Filed through Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, the petition contended that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition Of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act, 2021; the Uttarakhand Freedom Of Religion Act, 2018; the Himachal Pradesh Freedom Of Religion Act, 2019; the Madhya Pradesh Freedom Of Religion Act, 2021, and the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 were enacted to 'harass' the inter-faith couples and implicate them in criminal cases.
As per the Islamic organisation, the provisions of all five Acts forced a person to disclose his or her faith, thereby invading the privacy of a person.
The compulsory disclosure of one's religion in any form amounted to violation of the right to manifest his/her beliefs as the said right included the right not to manifest one's beliefs, added the plea.

Parole Period to be Excluded from Sentence: Apex Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the period of parole granted to a prisoner is to be excluded from the sentence while considering his premature release.
Upholding a Bombay High Court order, a bench of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar said that if the period was included in the sentence, then a prisoner who may be influential may get parole a number of times.
"If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get parole for a number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted a number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment.
"We are of the firm view that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the HC holding so," the Bench said.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by some convicts undergoing life imprisonment, who were released on parole under the Goa Prisons Rules, 2006.

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