Supreme Court gave judgments on various subjects and questions of law. Here we bring on our blog the important judgments that are helpful for CLAT PG, AILET PG, Other LLM Exams and UGC NET.
Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors (2023)
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of All India Bar Examination and recognizes the the right of the Bar Council of India to prescribe such a condition for practice. The Court overruled the decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, in which it was held that no condition, other than those enumerated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could be imposed on a person wishing to practice law. The Court also held that the Advocates Act does not prohibit BCI from prescribing pre-enrolment exam and has to be left to the BCI to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post enrolment. The Court also accepted the suggestion of the amicus that the students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination. The Court further observed that the enrolment fee does not become oppressive and its BCI’s prerogative to ensure that the uniform fees are observed.
Sushil Raghav v. Union of India (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court has held that the National Green Tribunal has powers to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court under Section 25 of the NGT Act.
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)
The two judges’ bench of the Supreme Court has held that children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously and it is an essential attribute of the right to privacy. It also held that DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption u/s 112 of IEA.
Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court held that State should not be arbitrary in allowing premature release. The Court also held that the policy must be applied equally to all.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court has refused to entertain pleas to increase the age of marriage for women to 21 years. The Court held that this is a policy issue and Supreme Court cannot direct the Parliament to legislate nor does it legislate itself.
In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023)
Supreme Court gave the directions to avoid delay in the release of prisoners after getting bail:
- The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any other software which is being used by the Prison Department].
- If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.
- NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the Prison Department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.
- The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic condition of the accused, may take the help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of bail/surety.
- In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.
- If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.
- One of the reasons which delay the release of the accused/ convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
Supreme Court gave judgments on various subjects and questions of law. Here we bring on our blog the important judgments that are helpful for CLAT PG, AILET PG, Other LLM Exams and UGC NET.
Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors (2023)
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of All India Bar Examination and recognizes the the right of the Bar Council of India to prescribe such a condition for practice. The Court overruled the decision in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, in which it was held that no condition, other than those enumerated in Section 24 of the Advocates Act, could be imposed on a person wishing to practice law. The Court also held that the Advocates Act does not prohibit BCI from prescribing pre-enrolment exam and has to be left to the BCI to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post enrolment. The Court also accepted the suggestion of the amicus that the students who have cleared all examinations to be eligible to pursue the final semester of the final year course of law, on production of proof of the same, could be allowed to take the All India Bar Examination. The Court further observed that the enrolment fee does not become oppressive and its BCI’s prerogative to ensure that the uniform fees are observed.
Sushil Raghav v. Union of India (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court has held that the National Green Tribunal has powers to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court under Section 25 of the NGT Act.
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)
The two judges’ bench of the Supreme Court has held that children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously and it is an essential attribute of the right to privacy. It also held that DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption u/s 112 of IEA.
Rajkumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court held that State should not be arbitrary in allowing premature release. The Court also held that the policy must be applied equally to all.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2023)
The three judges bench of the Supreme Court has refused to entertain pleas to increase the age of marriage for women to 21 years. The Court held that this is a policy issue and Supreme Court cannot direct the Parliament to legislate nor does it legislate itself.
In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023)
Supreme Court gave the directions to avoid delay in the release of prisoners after getting bail:
You can access Jurisedge Recent Legal News Archives and our Jurisedge Blog for legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Share this:
Related