#sanjay kishan kaul
Text
Visit to the Supreme Court of India
KCC Institute of Legal and Higher Education organized a visit to the Supreme Court of India for 1st and 2nd-year BBA LLB and BA LLB students. The purpose was to provide firsthand experience and exposure to the workings of India’s highest judicial institution, aiming to broaden their understanding of legal proceedings. The students were divided into seven groups to observe proceedings in different courts with varying bench compositions.
Notably, a Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud along with Associate Judges Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, was in the process of hearing petitions challenging the legality of the “Electoral bonds scheme,” a mechanism that facilitates anonymous donations to political parties. The other benches were presided over by Honourable Judges, Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Mr. Justice S. Sundresh Deppankar Das, Mr. Justice Suryakant Datta, Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Mr. Ujjal.
The visit aimed to complement theoretical knowledge with practical exposure, allowing students to interact with legal professionals, experience courtroom dynamics, and understand the application of laws in real cases. Interaction with members of the Bar Association provided practical insights into the legal profession, and students explored the Court's library and Museum to enrich their knowledge of legal history and resources. Overall, the visit intended to enhance students' legal education by immersing them in the real-world environment of the apex court.
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing petitions regarding legalization of same-sex marriage. The government is arguing that the concept of same sex marriage is against the so called "indian values" and won't be accepted by majority of the society.
But just because the society is narrow minded, is it right to deny gay couples their personal rights? Is it right to limit the personal rights of any human being based on colonial era views. It is high time we end the stigma around sexuality and accept the fact that gay people are indeed a part of society.
The petitioners are trying to seek recognition of same-sex marriage under various Acts, like the Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the Hindu Marriage Act.
They put forth the argument that marriage is a union between two people, not necessarily a man and a woman. They cited that the right to marry cannot be withheld from a section of people based on their sexual orientation.
The centre is arguing that gay couples cannot procreate, but straight couples who cannot proceate are allowed to marry. Women who are past the age of procreation are allowed to marry. How the fuck does procreation decide who can get married??
The Special Marriage Act, which was meant to help people seeking inter-faith marriage (another significant issue in India) requires couple to give a notice before their marriage. As argued, why should gay couple be required to announce their marriage if straight couples don't have to?
Excluding gay people from the basic societal and personal rights only contributes to increasing the stigma against homosexuality.
Providing marriage rights to gay couples does not harm or infringe the rights of straight couples. It just creates a India a more hospitable and welcoming place for the LGBTQ+ community instead of a place we seek to escape
We as a society have come a long way, and legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a step in the right direction.
I hope that the SC will take the right and informed decision.
Looking at the arguments and proceedings of the court, I really think that there is a fair chance that gay marriage is legalised.
As a proud bisexual Indian woman, I would be a more content member my country if the Judiciary takes such decisions to make lives of the LGBTQ+ community in India.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/same-sex-marriage-hearing-we-are-in-charge-dont-tell-us-how-to-conduct-our-proceedings-sc-tells-govt/article66750307.ece
Highlights
CJI- "There is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all… A man or a woman is not a definition of what their genitals are, it is far more complex."
Government argument- society may not accept that same-sex marriages ought to be on par with heterosexual marriages.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul- it is not mandatory that the whole society should accept something for the Court to recognise rights.
Advocate Rohtagi- "We want to enjoy the full panoply of rights available to our heterosexual brethren. We want to enjoy the unit of family. We want privacy and freedom to move freely. The government cannot treat us as lesser mortals and tell us to remain content just because homosexuality has been decriminalised”
30 notes
·
View notes
Link
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Kashmiri Pandits: Unveiling the Untold Truth of Displacement and Political Dynamics
0 notes
Text
Same-sex judgment compels queer Indians to remain in closet: Review petition in Supreme Court
A review petition was filed before the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the correctness of the apex court’s verdict that refused to recognize the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriages or have civil unions.
A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha had on October 17 ruled…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
"Bail granted to the acid attacker but with stringent conditions"
Naresh Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Crl. Appeal: 3329/2023
Allowed by the Supreme Court of India yesterday on 30.10.2023
The Bench Comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul J &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia J
Fact:
The victim had filed an FIR alleging that the appellant had forcibly dragged her to an area, and had subsequently #thrownacid on her when she retaliated.
Bail Granted by Apex Court to the alleged accused of #AcidAttack
1. The #ApexCourt #granted #bail to the alleged accused appellant who was in jail for more than a year and is charged for throwing acid on Govnt Servan posted as Lekhpal with the intention to kill her.
2. Bail was also given for the reason that out of 7 witnesses, 4 #vital #privatewitnesses were already #examined
3. However, Bail was given with terms and conditions and in case of any breach of the conditions given in bail or any other conditions imposed by the trial Court, the #trialcourt has the #rights to #cancel the bail granted to the appellant.
#Conditions of #Bail
1. The appellant will #notenter #Agra where the complainant resides till the Court proceedings conclude, #except attending to the #Courtproceedings.
2. The appellant shall not, in any manner, #come within the #vicinity of the #complainant.
Background
1. Bail application was earlier moved before Allahabad High Court #rejected it.
2. The Allahabad High Court in the impugned order rejecting bail had taken note of the #CCTVfootage collected during the investigation where the #accused was seen #chasing the #victim and even after some altercation, he continued to chase and threaten her and was also seen throwing certain liquid on her.
3. During the course of trial, the FIR dated September 7, 2021 was lodged for offences u/s 354A, 354D, 353, 283, 504, 506 IPC.
4. The accused allegedly made another attempt of acid attack on the victim for which charge-sheet was submitted under Section 326B, 354 and 506 IPC.
Submission of the Counsel of the Appellant
1. It was contended that appellant is in fact innocent and was falsely implicated in the case.
2. It was argued that in the injury report of the victim, no injury was found on her body.
3. Therefore, no offence under Section 326-B I.P.C. is made out against him.
4. Further that he is languishing in jail since September, 2022.
Earlier Allahabad High Court Rejected Bail Application
1. The Allahabad High Court in the order while rejecting the bail application had observed, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, severity of punishment and also considering the repeated offence of the applicant against the victim, who is a government servant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail”.
Seema Bhatnagar
1 note
·
View note
Text
Unlocking Love: Discover the Global Map of Same-Sex Marriage Freedom
The Supreme Court of India is set to announce its decision on the validity of same-sex marriage in the country. The judgment comes after a series of hearings by a five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narishma. These hearings lasted for a period of ten days, during which various pleas seeking…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
Supreme Court Issues Urgent Warning to Centre: Unprecedented Deadline Set to Clear Judiciary Appointment by October 9 | Don't Miss This Game-Changing News
The Supreme Court has set a deadline of October 9 for the Indian government to take action on 86 collegium recommendations for judgeship, 26 high court judge transfers, and the appointment of a chief justice. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed their disappointment that no progress had been made in the last seven months, despite the recommendations being pending for 10…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
"The Shocking SC Ruling: Corruption Probes Against Senior Officials Unleashed – Past Convictions Invalidated"
In a recent development, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has declared that a judgment from 2014, which invalidated a provision requiring the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain prior permission before investigating corruption cases against senior government officials, has retrospective effect. The five-judge Bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, ruled that Section 6A of…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
#legalnews#supremecourtupdate#latestlegalupdates#legalnewsupdatesindia#latestjudgmentssupremecourt#supremecourtnews#latestlegalnewsinindia#supremecourtnew#supremecourtjudgement#supremecourtupdatenews#highcourtupdates#indianlegalnews#supremecourtupdates
0 notes
Text
Abrogation of Article 370: Supreme Court to hear the petitions from August 2, 2023
Today, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud fixed August 2, 2023, as the starting date for hearing a batch of petitions against the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. CJI said that the petitions will be heard every day from 2nd August except Mondays and Fridays. Earlier on 3rd July 2023, a notice was issued by the Supreme Court stating that the five-judge Constitution bench for hearing matters related to dilution of Article 370 constitutes, CJI Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Surya Kant, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Article 370 strips the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special privileges or status and bifurcates Jammu & Kashmir into the Union territories of J&K and Ladakh.
During the proceedings, the need to file an additional affidavit was questioned by Justice SK Kaul. This was because, on July 10, an affidavit was filed by the Union Government related to the present status of J&K after the abrogation of its special status. Pointing to this, Justice Kaul stated that a rejoinder affidavit will be filed by the other side and the process will continue this way. In this context, the Solicitor General of India appeared for the Union Government, Tushar Mehta, mentioned that the affidavit does not provide appropriate information regarding the current situation of Jammu & Kashmir; therefore, there is no requirement of filing a rejoinder affidavit. CJI further said “The affidavit of the centre has no bearing on the constitutional question”
Click Here to Read Full Supreme Court Update
Read More: Supreme Court Latest Updates
Also Read: Legal Articles
Also Read: Legal News
0 notes
Text
Collegium Recommends Elevation Of Telangana, Kerala HC Chief Justices To Supreme Court
New Delhi: Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Chief Justice of Telangana High Court and Justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Chief Justice of Kerala High Court to the top court, news agency ANI reported. The Supreme Court collegium with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant took the decision in a meeting on Wednesday and the…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Link
Yeni Delhi'deki Hindistan Yüksek Mahkemesi'nden bir görünüm. — AFP/Dosya İki yılı aşkın bir aradan sonrasında, Hindistan Yüksek Mahkemesi Pazartesi günü nihayet anayasanın Hindistan Yasadışı İşgal Altındaki Jammu ve Keşmir'e hususi statü tanıyan 370. (IIOJK), 1947'de Hindistan'a katılımının anahtarıydı.Baş Yargıç Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud başkanlığındaki ve Yargıç Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Yargıç Sanjiv Khanna, Yargıç BR Gavai ve Yargıç Surya Kant'tan oluşan SC beş üyeli kurul davayı 11 Temmuz'da ele alacak. Hindistan hükümeti, 5 Ağustos 2019'da, bölgede benzeri görülmemiş sayıda Hint askerinin konuşlandırılmasıyla tartışmalı Himalaya vadisinde gerilim artarken, Anayasa'nın 370. Maddesini kaldırmak için aceleyle bir başkanlık kararnamesi çıkardı.Devrin Hindistan içişleri bakanı Amit Shah, daha ilkin Rajya Sabha'nın işgal altındaki Keşmir'e verilen hususi statüyü kaldıran ve eyaleti yasama organı ile Birlik Bölgesi meydana getiren 370.Pakistan'ın o zamanki başbakanı Yeni Delhi'ye tepki olarak, 370. Maddeyi yürürlükten kaldırma hareketini yasadışı ve bölgesel sulh ve güvenliği yok edecek bir hareket olarak nitelendirmişti.Hareket, ülkenin geri kalanından insanların tartışmalı bölgede mülk edinme ve orada kalıcı olarak yerleşme hakkına haiz olmalarına izin verdi; bu, Keşmirliler için kabul edilemezdi ve internasyonal yasaların, BM kararlarının ve Hindistan anayasasının açık bir ihlaliydi.Hindistan medyasının bildirdiğine gore, Hindistan hükümetinin Ağustos 2019'da 370. Maddeyi kaldırma kararının anayasal geçerliliğini sorgulayan 20'den fazla dilekçe sunuldu. Dilekçeler Shah Faesal ve ötekiler tarafınca sunuldu.Davacılar, kararın verilmesinde anayasal hükümlerin ihlal edildiğini ileri sürmüşlerdir.“Madde 370 davası iki yılı aşkın süredir Yargıtay'da derdest durumda. Hindistan medyasına gore, dava, Mart 2020'de beş yargıçlı bir heyetin dilekçeleri daha büyük bir heyete havale etmeyi reddetmesinden sonrasında gündeme gelmemişti.Jammu Keşmir Ulusal Konferansı Başkan Yardımcısı Omar Abdullah, Twitter'a, “Nihayet kürsü oluşturuldu. Şimdi ciddi bir halde süregelen duruşmaları dört gözle temenni ediyorum.”Jammu ve Keşmir Halkın Demokratik Partisi (JKPDP) Başkanı Mehbooba Mufti, SC'nin kararını memnuniyetle karşıladı ve adaletin sağlanıp Keşmir'deki insanlara teslim edilmesini umdu.Twitter hesabına şunları yazdı: "370. Maddeye ilişkin SC sonucu, hükmün yalnızca J&K kurucu meclisinin tavsiyesi üstüne feshedilebileceğini ileri sürdü."
0 notes
Link
A batch of petitions seeking the legalisation of same-sex marriage is currently being considered by the Supreme Court's five-judge Constitution Bench. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P S Narasimha, reserved its verdict on Thursday after hearing arguments from all sides over the course of ten days. The petitions relate to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with one petitioner highlighting the absence of a legal framework for members of the LGBTQIA+ community to marry the person of their choice. The Court has indicated that it will consider the matter under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, rather than personal laws. The petitioners have asserted their fundamental right to marry, while their lawyers have argued that provisions of the Special Marriage Act should be interpreted expansively to include the LGBTQIA+ community. The respondents have argued that the legalisation of same-sex marriage could lead to the legalisation of incestuous and polyamorous relationships, but the petitioners have denied this.
0 notes
Text
Statement to police during probe not evidence, can only be used to contradict witnesses: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that statements made to the police by witnesses cannot be treated as evidence during trial [Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan and ors].
In a judgment delivered on October 30, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that such statements have limited applicability in a court of law.
“No doubt statement given before police during…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
"Bail Plea Dismissed by the Apex Court to the convicts of Coimbatore Bomb blast"
It is the nature and magnitude of the offence that matters a lot for allowing or dismissing the bail. It hardly matters from past how many years the accused is in jail.
The Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country dismissed the bail pleas to the life convicts involved in the Coimbatore serial bomb blast case that continued from February 14, 1998 to February 17,1998.
A bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul J was hearing the application filed by some of the convicts seeking bail. While dismissing the bail plea, the bench said the appeals filed by the convicts challenging the Madras High Court verdict upholding their conviction and sentence be listed for the first week of February 2024.
Supreme Court on 04.10.2023 rejected the bail pleas of Coimbatore Bomb Blast Convicts. Coimbatore was rocked by a series of bomb blasts on February 14, 1998 and continued till February 17, 1998 in which 11 explosions took place leading to the death of 58 people and injuring more than 200.
The improvised explosive devices, with time delay mechanisms, had been placed in cars, two-wheelers, abandoned bags, push carts, tea cans and so on. Bombs planted in 24 places were either recovered or defused.
If you recall those who had planned the blasts were targeting the then Deputy Prime Minister and senior leader of the BJP. However, he escaped unhurt as his flight was a bit late in reaching Coimbatore.
One of the advocates appearing for the convicts, while pleading for bail, submitted that they have been awarded life imprisonment and are in custody from the last 25 years. The Bench asked “How many people died?”
When told about the number of people killed in the serial blasts, the court observed, “They have been convicted for something in which 58 people had died.” “#Bail is out question,”.
The court added they are unanimous on their view and they cannot get bail. The counsel for the #State of #Tamil Nadu stated that apart from killing so many people, what the convicts had done to the city is “#unforgivable”.
It would not be out of place to mention here that there are two concurrent findings — one by the trial court and the other by the high court — in the case which relates to an “atrocious incident”. In its verdict delivered in December 2009 on the appeals filed by those convicted by the trial court, the Madras High court had said February 14, 1998 was a day of “unimaginable terror and horror as bombs continuously exploded in the city of Coimbatore”.
“Look at what you have done. The nature of the crime is an important factor (in granting bail). The bail applications are dismissed,” the apex court said
Seema Bhatnagar
#supremecourtdismissedbailpleas#coimbatorebombblast#year1998#february14to17#conspiracytargettingseniorbjpleader#terrorattack#improvisedexplosivedevices#timedelaymechanism#58died#morethan200injured#criminalappeal#convictionorderofmadrashighcourt#bailplea#injailfrom25years
1 note
·
View note
Text
"Secrets Unveiled: Supreme Court's Grave Concern over Mysterious Delays in Judges' Appointments in High Courts"
The Supreme Court has expressed its concern over the delay in appointing judges in various High Courts. During a hearing on Tuesday, a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul commented that there has been no progress since the last plea was heard seven months ago. The court questioned the Centre about the non-clearance of names of judges recommended by the Collegium for appointment in the High…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
smute
'$MÛTË···¬{`🍓
cumplicespsd
cúmplices icons
ask-runaan-anything
Ask Runaan
coast-clothing-co
Coast Clothing Co.
