General Awareness

LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - January 2023

Jan 2023

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that he should be given allotment even when no amount is paid or that even when the initial amount paid by him has been withdrawn unconditionally on his own.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.

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.

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