Aditya law Firm

  The Supreme Court in the matter of Archana v. State of West Bengal held that the power under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may be invoked after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. allowed an application filed by a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to call him again for examination. The Delhi High Court in the case of Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay v. The State held that Courts cannot be used as matrimonial facilitators for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail in sexual assault cases. The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, held that Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not affect the power of the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. The Kerala High Court in the...

Legal Updates In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) the Supreme Court, in its judgment held that the police must register an FIR in cases where there is an information disclosing a cognizable offence and where the police officer denies registering the FIR it amounts to dereliction of duty. A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the newspaper can be considered as a secondary source of evidence under the IEA. The bench was hearing appeals namely Kadira Jeevan v. State of Karnataka and B.S. Dinesh v. State of Karnataka. A person below the age of 18 years cannot be in a livein-relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal, observed the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of UP and 3 Others. National Green Tribunal (NGT) panel to probe illegal mining done by BJP MP Brij Bhushan Saran Singh in District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of Raja Ram Singh v. State of UP. Th...

Legal Updates  M. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962), the court stated that Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right. Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962) that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residuary personal rights and recognized the common law right to privacy T he Apex Court in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) stated that Right to Privacy is a fundamental Right. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), Supreme Court recognized that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) z The Supreme Court in this case considered the constitutionality of various neuroscientific investigative techniques including narcoanalysis, BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) or ‘brain mapping’, and polygraph tests. z The court opined that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amou...