Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.”
The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence of a man who was convicted for raping the minor girl after noting that the girl herself had misrepresented her age and showed herself to be a major.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Rajnish Kumar, JJ. dismissed a PIL which was filed by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. in a recent case affirmed that Trial Court does not have power
Karnataka High Court: P. S. Dinesh Kumar, J., disposed of the petitions and upheld the State Government’s power and prerogative to impose
Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., allowed the writ petition filed with a prayer of expeditious disposal on the
Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi, J., allowed the application made for granting an anticipatory bail on the grounds
Allahabad High Court: The Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. decided a writ petition for the sanction of gratuity
Supreme Court: Refusing to expand the scope of the word ‘child’ under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) to include the
Supreme Court: In the case where the appellants were involved in at least 24 cases of various offences allegedly committed between 1988
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding upon 68 writ petitions filed by various Professors and Assistant Professors of the Panjab University