Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court said that it is not understandable that how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class especially when the complainant himself states that Hindu — Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony.
The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is sine qua non for the offence under Section 153-A1 of the Penal Code, 1860.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner could have been detained only under Section 8 (1)(a-1) of the PSA and not under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA, as both the clauses (a) and (a-1) operate in different fields
There is a distinction between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”, i.e., offences that target specific individuals fall under the category of “Law and Order” and it is only when the criminal activities of an individual adversely affect the public at large that their conduct is deemed to disturb “Public Order”.
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court unequivocally dismissed the antiquated notion of ‘pardanashin,’ affirming that a woman’s dignity transcends cultural stereotypes like the veil. Upholding fundamental rights, the court emphasized that dignity is intrinsic to every individual, irrespective of religious practices.
Calcutta High Court acknowledged the need for certain restrictions to maintain law and order during an international event.
The live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the imperative need to detain, must be harmonised to rely upon the alleged illegal activities of the detenue.
The Court also revisited the difference between disturbances relatable to ‘law and order’ and disturbances caused to ‘public order’ and said that it is trite that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.
On 19-5-2023, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 giving back
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.
Gujarat High Court: Rajendra M. Sareen, J. allowed a petition which was directed against the detention order passed by respondent–detaining authority in
Supreme Court: In a case where the detenu was accused of committing a series of criminal offences from October, 2017 to December,
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of A. Rajasheker Reddy and Dr Shameem Akhter, JJ., while addressing the matter has shed some
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the true test of a valid FIR is only whether
“Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order.”
“In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and, in fact, repudiates the right to equality.”
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Puneet Gupta, J. dismissed the writ petition and set aside the detention order on the grounds that
Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Nityanand Rai, in a written reply to a question regarding details on mob lynching
Gujarat High Court: A Bench of S.H. Vora, J. allowed the special leave petition and quashed the impugned order of detention by