This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Model Police Officer
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
A practical case showing difference between Causa Causans AND Causa Sine Qua Non.
उत्तर प्रदेश की कानून-व्यवस्था और पारदर्शिता को मजबूत करने के लिए इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने एक अहम आदेश जारी किया है। कोर्ट ने निर्देश दिया है कि अब राज्य के सभी जिलों में पुलिस थानों में लगे CCTV कैमरों की मॉनिटरिंग और निरीक्षण की जिम्मेदारी मुख्य न्यायिक दंडाधिकारी (CJM) निभाएंगे।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण कुमार सिंह देशवाल (Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal) की एकल पीठ ने “Sanu @ Rashid v. State of Uttar Pradesh” मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान दिया।
क्या है पूरा मामला?
🔹मामला उस समय सामने आया जब आरोप लगा कि एक व्यक्ति को पुलिस ने अवैध हिरासत में रखा, और जब अदालत ने संबंधित पुलिस स्टेशन से CCTV फुटेज मांगी तो पुलिस अधिकारियों ने समय पर फुटेज उपलब्ध नहीं कराई।
कोर्ट ने इस पर सख्त टिप्पणी करते हुए कहा कि:
➡️ न्यायिक अधिकारियों के आदेशों की अवहेलना बिल्कुल भी स्वीकार्य नहीं है।
➡️ कई पुलिस थानों में CCTV कैमरों का खराब या बंद रहना “रूटीन फीचर” बन गया है।
हाईकोर्ट ने क्या निर्देश दिए?
✔️ हर जिले के CJM और न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट समय-समय पर पुलिस थानों का अचानक निरीक्षण (Surprise Inspection) कर सकते हैं।
✔️ निरीक्षण के दौरान यह देखा जाएगा कि CCTV कैमरे काम कर रहे हैं या नहीं और रिकॉर्डिंग सुरक्षित रखी जा रही है या नहीं।
✔️ निरीक्षण से पहले जिला जज को सूचना देना आवश्यक होगा।
✔️ किसी भी पुलिस अधिकारी द्वारा न्यायिक अधिकारी के आदेश की अवहेलना या असहयोग करने पर कड़ी कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देशों का पालन:
🔹हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि पुलिस थानों में CCTV कैमरे लगाने और उनकी फुटेज सुरक्षित रखने को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के “Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh” फैसले का पालन करना जरूरी है, ताकि हिरासत में होने वाली घटनाओं की निगरानी हो सके।
क्यों महत्वपूर्ण है यह फैसला?
इस आदेश के बाद:
⚖️ पुलिस थानों में पारदर्शिता बढ़ेगी
⚖️ हिरासत में अत्याचार या अवैध गिरफ्तारी की घटनाओं पर नियंत्रण लगेगा
⚖️ न्यायपालिका की निगरानी से जवाबदेही तय होगी
यह फैसला आम नागरिकों के मौलिक अधिकारों और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता की रक्षा के लिए बेहद महत्वपूर्ण माना जा रहा है।
यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण कुमार सिंह देशवाल (Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal) की एकल पीठ ने “Sanu @ Rashid v. State of Uttar Pradesh” मामले की सुनवाई के दौरान दिया।
क्या है पूरा मामला?
🔹मामला उस समय सामने आया जब आरोप लगा कि एक व्यक्ति को पुलिस ने अवैध हिरासत में रखा, और जब अदालत ने संबंधित पुलिस स्टेशन से CCTV फुटेज मांगी तो पुलिस अधिकारियों ने समय पर फुटेज उपलब्ध नहीं कराई।
कोर्ट ने इस पर सख्त टिप्पणी करते हुए कहा कि:
➡️ न्यायिक अधिकारियों के आदेशों की अवहेलना बिल्कुल भी स्वीकार्य नहीं है।
➡️ कई पुलिस थानों में CCTV कैमरों का खराब या बंद रहना “रूटीन फीचर” बन गया है।
हाईकोर्ट ने क्या निर्देश दिए?
✔️ हर जिले के CJM और न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट समय-समय पर पुलिस थानों का अचानक निरीक्षण (Surprise Inspection) कर सकते हैं।
✔️ निरीक्षण के दौरान यह देखा जाएगा कि CCTV कैमरे काम कर रहे हैं या नहीं और रिकॉर्डिंग सुरक्षित रखी जा रही है या नहीं।
✔️ निरीक्षण से पहले जिला जज को सूचना देना आवश्यक होगा।
✔️ किसी भी पुलिस अधिकारी द्वारा न्यायिक अधिकारी के आदेश की अवहेलना या असहयोग करने पर कड़ी कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट के निर्देशों का पालन:
🔹हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि पुलिस थानों में CCTV कैमरे लगाने और उनकी फुटेज सुरक्षित रखने को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के “Paramvir Singh Saini vs Baljit Singh” फैसले का पालन करना जरूरी है, ताकि हिरासत में होने वाली घटनाओं की निगरानी हो सके।
क्यों महत्वपूर्ण है यह फैसला?
इस आदेश के बाद:
⚖️ पुलिस थानों में पारदर्शिता बढ़ेगी
⚖️ हिरासत में अत्याचार या अवैध गिरफ्तारी की घटनाओं पर नियंत्रण लगेगा
⚖️ न्यायपालिका की निगरानी से जवाबदेही तय होगी
यह फैसला आम नागरिकों के मौलिक अधिकारों और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता की रक्षा के लिए बेहद महत्वपूर्ण माना जा रहा है।
COMPENSATION FOR HARM CAUSED DUE TO COVID VACCINATION DRIVE BY THE GOVERNMENT
The Supreme Court held that the State has an obligation under Article 21 to ensure a mechanism of redressal for affected families when a grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention. It observed that the absence of a structured framework to address adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) raises constitutional concerns.
i. The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.
ii. The existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events following immunisation shall continue, and relevant data shall be periodically placed in the public domain in accordance with the observations in Jacob Puliyel.
iii. No separate court-appointed expert body is considered necessary in view of the existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of adverse events following immunisation.
iv. It is clarified that this judgment shall not preclude any person from pursuing such other remedies as may be available in law. Equally, the formulation of the no- fault framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any authority.
Rachana Gangu v Union of India
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Judgement Date: 10 March 2026
Citations: 2026 INSC 218
Bench: Vikram Nath J, Sandeep Mehta J
The Supreme Court held that the State has an obligation under Article 21 to ensure a mechanism of redressal for affected families when a grave harm is alleged to have occurred in the course of a State-led public health intervention. It observed that the absence of a structured framework to address adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) raises constitutional concerns.
i. The Union of India shall, through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, frame a no-fault compensation policy for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.
ii. The existing mechanisms for monitoring adverse events following immunisation shall continue, and relevant data shall be periodically placed in the public domain in accordance with the observations in Jacob Puliyel.
iii. No separate court-appointed expert body is considered necessary in view of the existing mechanisms for scientific assessment of adverse events following immunisation.
iv. It is clarified that this judgment shall not preclude any person from pursuing such other remedies as may be available in law. Equally, the formulation of the no- fault framework shall not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the Union of India or any authority.
Rachana Gangu v Union of India
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Judgement Date: 10 March 2026
Citations: 2026 INSC 218
Bench: Vikram Nath J, Sandeep Mehta J
SENTENCING HUSBAND TO IMPRISONMENT FOR DEFAULTING THE PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE
ISSUE BEFORE HIGH COURT
Whether a Magistrate can sentence a maintenance defaulter to imprisonment exceeding 12 months under Section 125(3) CrPC, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Wife filed DV case in 2018; Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month to wife and ₹10,000/month to minor daughter from August 2018.
- Husband paid only ₹3,25,000 intermittently over nearly 4 years.
- On an application claiming 59 months' default (₹16 lakh arrears), the Magistrate issued arrest warrant and sentenced the husband to 47 months' simple imprisonment for 47 months' default.
- Husband challenged this by writ petition.
LAW LAID DOWN
Section 125(3) CrPC provides that for each month's maintenance unpaid, the Magistrate may impose imprisonment up to one month per month's default. The proviso bars issuance of a warrant unless the application is filed within one year of the amount falling due.
THE COURT HELD:
- The proviso limits the Magistrate's power — since a warrant cannot be issued for amounts due beyond one year, the maximum sentence in one application is 12 months.
- A single application can club a maximum of 12 months' defaults; for further defaults, separate successive applications must be filed, each within one year of the relevant defaults falling due.
- A sentence of 47 months in one application is wholly impermissible.
- Since DV proceedings are civil in nature and enforced through Section 125 CrPC machinery, the CrPC sentencing limits apply — the civil nature of DV proceedings does not expand the Magistrate's sentencing power beyond what CrPC permits.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
The impugned order sentencing the husband to 47 months was *quashed*. The husband was ordered released immediately. The wife was permitted to file *fresh applications* (each limited to 12 months' defaults) for recovery of arrears.
Vikram Ramesh Rughani v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, 26 Feb 2024)
ISSUE BEFORE HIGH COURT
Whether a Magistrate can sentence a maintenance defaulter to imprisonment exceeding 12 months under Section 125(3) CrPC, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- Wife filed DV case in 2018; Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000/month to wife and ₹10,000/month to minor daughter from August 2018.
- Husband paid only ₹3,25,000 intermittently over nearly 4 years.
- On an application claiming 59 months' default (₹16 lakh arrears), the Magistrate issued arrest warrant and sentenced the husband to 47 months' simple imprisonment for 47 months' default.
- Husband challenged this by writ petition.
LAW LAID DOWN
Section 125(3) CrPC provides that for each month's maintenance unpaid, the Magistrate may impose imprisonment up to one month per month's default. The proviso bars issuance of a warrant unless the application is filed within one year of the amount falling due.
THE COURT HELD:
- The proviso limits the Magistrate's power — since a warrant cannot be issued for amounts due beyond one year, the maximum sentence in one application is 12 months.
- A single application can club a maximum of 12 months' defaults; for further defaults, separate successive applications must be filed, each within one year of the relevant defaults falling due.
- A sentence of 47 months in one application is wholly impermissible.
- Since DV proceedings are civil in nature and enforced through Section 125 CrPC machinery, the CrPC sentencing limits apply — the civil nature of DV proceedings does not expand the Magistrate's sentencing power beyond what CrPC permits.
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
The impugned order sentencing the husband to 47 months was *quashed*. The husband was ordered released immediately. The wife was permitted to file *fresh applications* (each limited to 12 months' defaults) for recovery of arrears.
Vikram Ramesh Rughani v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, 26 Feb 2024)
Forwarded from The Akademy - IAS
FCRA - DETAILED ANALYSIS.pdf
517.9 KB
Forwarded from The Akademy - IAS
🇱🇧 LEBANON ABOLISHES DEATH PENALTY
■ Lebanon abolishes death penalty.
■ Lebanon becomes first and only country in the Middle East to formally abolish the death penalty.
■ The country replaced all existing death sentences with life imprisonment.
■ It has been maintaining a de facto moratorium on executions since 2004.
□ A de facto moratorium is a practical suspension or ban on an activity that is not officially or legally prohibited.
■ Around 144 nations—have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
■ Lebanon abolishes death penalty.
■ Lebanon becomes first and only country in the Middle East to formally abolish the death penalty.
■ The country replaced all existing death sentences with life imprisonment.
■ It has been maintaining a de facto moratorium on executions since 2004.
□ A de facto moratorium is a practical suspension or ban on an activity that is not officially or legally prohibited.
■ Around 144 nations—have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Forwarded from The Akademy - IAS
SC TRIMS LAW PRACTICE REQUIREMENT FOR JUDICIAL SERVICE ⚖️
■ The Supreme Court has upheld its May 2025 judgment mandating legal practice to apply for entry into judicial service, but shortened the required experience from three years to one. 📉
■ In a majority judgment of 2:1, it said successful applicants with a year’s legal practice under their belt would undergo a one-year intensive training at the State judicial academy concerned. This would be followed by a final year of law clerkship with senior judicial officers and High Court judges. 🎓
■ The judgment came in review petitions filed against the May 2025 verdict. 📝
■ The rule of one-year prior legal practice would come into force in earnest from April 1, 2027. 📅
■ The majority judgment said the scheme would run a course of five years, after which it would be reviewed on its efficacy. 🔄
■ Court observed that experience at the Bar is essential for students right out of college; steeped in academics, who should have a feel of the affairs of man and the travails of a litigant, before deciding their destinies. 🧑⚖️
■ The Supreme Court has upheld its May 2025 judgment mandating legal practice to apply for entry into judicial service, but shortened the required experience from three years to one. 📉
■ In a majority judgment of 2:1, it said successful applicants with a year’s legal practice under their belt would undergo a one-year intensive training at the State judicial academy concerned. This would be followed by a final year of law clerkship with senior judicial officers and High Court judges. 🎓
■ The judgment came in review petitions filed against the May 2025 verdict. 📝
■ The rule of one-year prior legal practice would come into force in earnest from April 1, 2027. 📅
■ The majority judgment said the scheme would run a course of five years, after which it would be reviewed on its efficacy. 🔄
■ Court observed that experience at the Bar is essential for students right out of college; steeped in academics, who should have a feel of the affairs of man and the travails of a litigant, before deciding their destinies. 🧑⚖️
Delhi High Court Notification No. 59 (dated 3 July 2026) updates the court’s rules on how long judicial records must be kept and when paper files can be destroyed after they are digitized.
Electronic records can replace paper (with exceptions)
Most court records, books, and papers may now be destroyed once they have been properly saved in electronic form. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, keeping a document digitally is treated as meeting any legal requirement to keep it for a set period.
These original documents still cannot be destroyed just because they have been scanned:
- Negotiable instruments (except cheques)
- Powers of attorney
- Trust documents
- Wills and other testamentary papers
- Contracts for sale or transfer of immovable property
- Originals of lease deeds, birth/death/marriage certificates, nikahnama, family settlement or compromise deeds, passports, driving licences, bank guarantees, demand drafts, share certificates, debentures, bonds, and any other papers the court specifically orders to be kept
Documents that the rules already require to be kept permanently must still be kept in physical form as well, even if a digital copy exists.
What must be kept forever (Part A of the judicial record)
In civil cases:
- Index
- Judgment
- Decree
- Unreturned original deeds of the types listed above
- One printed paper book (or, if none was printed, copies of the lower-court judgments and the memorandum of appeal)
In criminal cases:
- Index
- Judgment
- Returned warrants of commitment or execution
- Unreturned original deeds of the types listed above
- Same paper-book / lower-court judgment rule as in civil cases
The changes took effect on the date they were published in the Delhi Gazette (3 July 2026).
Electronic records can replace paper (with exceptions)
Most court records, books, and papers may now be destroyed once they have been properly saved in electronic form. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, keeping a document digitally is treated as meeting any legal requirement to keep it for a set period.
These original documents still cannot be destroyed just because they have been scanned:
- Negotiable instruments (except cheques)
- Powers of attorney
- Trust documents
- Wills and other testamentary papers
- Contracts for sale or transfer of immovable property
- Originals of lease deeds, birth/death/marriage certificates, nikahnama, family settlement or compromise deeds, passports, driving licences, bank guarantees, demand drafts, share certificates, debentures, bonds, and any other papers the court specifically orders to be kept
Documents that the rules already require to be kept permanently must still be kept in physical form as well, even if a digital copy exists.
What must be kept forever (Part A of the judicial record)
In civil cases:
- Index
- Judgment
- Decree
- Unreturned original deeds of the types listed above
- One printed paper book (or, if none was printed, copies of the lower-court judgments and the memorandum of appeal)
In criminal cases:
- Index
- Judgment
- Returned warrants of commitment or execution
- Unreturned original deeds of the types listed above
- Same paper-book / lower-court judgment rule as in civil cases
The changes took effect on the date they were published in the Delhi Gazette (3 July 2026).
God took form and a legend was born whose wise teachings will guide the humanity till eternity. May every child of this Great Bhaarat Bhumi become Krishna in character, intellect and commitment to Dharma.
Happy Krishna Janmashtmi to you.
Read Bhagvad Gita as a tribute to our dearest Krishna.
कृष्णाय वासुदेवाय
हरये परमात्मने
प्रणत: क्लेश नाशाय
गोविंदाय नमो नमः ।।
Happy Krishna Janmashtmi to you.
Read Bhagvad Gita as a tribute to our dearest Krishna.
कृष्णाय वासुदेवाय
हरये परमात्मने
प्रणत: क्लेश नाशाय
गोविंदाय नमो नमः ।।