Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madras High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition after reviewing the State’s submissions, which indicated that the arrested individuals had been released on 08-10-2024, due to the Judicial Magistrate’s refusal to accept their remand.
The Telangana High Court noted that multiple issues could have driven Rohith Vemula to commit suicide and further, it could also not be established that the actions of the petitioners had driven Rohith Vemula to commit suicide.
Madras High Court viewed that the suspicion of the petitioner that her husband died of custodial torture is reasonable and cannot be brushed aside easily.
“Article 21 of the Constitution gives Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matter relating to marriage.”
Supreme Court noted that the bail application was rejected as the accused did not appear before the Trial Court.
Allahabad High Court also directed SIT, already constituted by the State Government to intimate about the action taken on the first information reports lodged by lawyers in respect of the incident, while submitting its interim report.
“The authorities are best judges to maintain the discipline of the Force. Unless gross violation of natural justice or perversity in the quantum of punishment compared to the quantum specified is seen, it will not be wise to interfere in writ jurisdiction although the power of this Court is sufficiently wide to root out any illegality wherever found.”
Allahabad High Court was not convinced with the version of the Police personnel, that such injuries on the petitioner’s skin occurred due to friction on the road when the Police personnel tried to pick him up and put him in the police vehicle.
It is quite unfortunate that the archaic beliefs that if a widow enters a temple, it will cause impurity continues to prevail in this State. Even though the reformers are attempting to break all these senseless beliefs, it continues to be practiced in some villages.
Supreme Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.
Bombay High Court explained that there is no power vested in the police under Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 to seal the factory premises, where the incriminating articles are situated.
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Union must exercise its powers within the boundaries created by the Constitution. NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution. The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a “State”.
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
Allahabad High Court reiterated that the dying declaration recorded by a police officer, can be acted upon if the same is found to be true, coherent, consistent, and free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make such a statement.
Madras High Court said that there are instances of human rights violation in police stations, but every instance of a casual police enquiry cannot be termed as human rights violation.
Bombay High Court: In a PIL filed by the petitioner who is a social activist highlighted the issue of conduct of mock
Allahabad High Court said that police personnel are not above the law and the application of law and legal provisions should be one and the same for all and no special treatment shall be given to them.
A written statement sent by post or deliver by another person, may not fall under ‘to examine orally' but a written statement submitted by witness himself to I.O., and if the I.O. has assured its genuineness and reduced it in writing, shall be a statement duly recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency
Tripura High Court: In a public interest litigation concerning custodial torture on a 28-year-old woman in the police lockup, the division bench