BA BBA LL.B LLB LL.M AIBE ADPO JUDICIARY ADVOCATES CLAT JLO APO UGC NET (CHANNEL)

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On Review Petitions Challenging Mandatory 3-Year Practice Rule For Entry-Level Judicial Officers https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/reserves-verdict-review-petitions-mandatory-3-year-practice-rule-entry-level-judicial-officers-1618831

Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Punjab CM, AAP Leaders On Chandigarh's Plea In 2020 Rioting Case https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/punjab-cm-aap-leaders-on-chandigarhs-plea-in-2020-rioting-case-1618822

Employer Withholding Employment Records Cannot Defeat Workman’s Claim Of 240 Days Service: Delhi High Court https://www.verdictum.in/delhi-high-court/amarjit-singh-v-aiims-2026dhc6053-aiims-awards-grants-lump-sum-compensation-240-days-service-1618792

Consumer Commission Orders Bank To Reimburse Money In Digital Arrest Cyber Fraud Case Citing Violation Of RBI Guidelines On 'Suspicious Transactions' https://www.verdictum.in/other-courts/consumer-commission-deficiency-service-digital-arrest-cyber-fraud-rbi-guidlines-1618763

Haryana ADA Mains Exam Date

गुरु पूर्णिमा की बधाई सबको जय श्री राम

*Hem Raj v. The State of HP (2026 SC)* *Interesting Case*-Must Read‼️ 1. In one trial for 2 offences, the court imposed 10 years imprisonment and ₹1.2Lakhs fine, in default of which 1 year imprisonment *for the first offence*, and also 10 years imprisonment and ₹1.2Lakhs fine, in default of which 1 year imprisonment *for the second offence*. Further, it was directed that both the *sentences shall run concurrently*. 2. *Question No.1:* whether separate punishments can be awarded for 2 separate offences arising out of the same transaction?- SC answered *Yes!* The conviction is possible for two offences which may be inclusive or interdependent (one offence being parasitic on or derivative from the another) arising out of same course of action or the transaction. However, since the offences committed for their kind and nature, would be distinct offences, would entail separate punishment. Therefore, even while imposing separate punishment for such different offences, it would be the *rule of wisdom* to be followed by the court that in such cases, the sentence is made to run concurrently. The punishment and sentence should not result in double jeopardy. One of the objects of concurrent running of the sentence is to avoid double punishment. This principle would readily apply when two separate punishments are awarded, and sentences are imposed for two offences relatable to one set of facts. It would call for applying concurrent sufferance of punishment. 3. *Question No.2:* when the sentence was ordered to run concurrently, *whether the fine would also be treated as concurrent?* or the convict should pay both the fines? SC held that u/S.53 IPC, both imprisonment and fine are treated as punishment. *Sentence includes both fine and imprisonment*. Hence, when sentence is directed to run concurrently, the convict cannot be made to pay fine twice. 4. In this case, the convict was held entitled to be released after total 11 years. Can you guess why?

Photo from tyagi__viķki

Breaking: Supreme Court Bars Coercive Action Against Students; To Appoint Independent SIT To Probe NEET Protest Violence https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/neet-protests-bars-coercive-action-against-students-will-consider-independent-probe-into-neet-protest-violence-1618661

Follow this link to join my aibe 22 WhatsApp group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/Cup0LdQkUS578Rkh0z7BJ8?s=sh&p=a&ilr=0&amv=2

“We are, therefore, unable to sustain Condition 28.15, which places an absolute and non-extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) BNSS regardless of what the investigation may yet reveal.”, the Court held. The Court also set aside the other condition mandating the presence of advocate throughout the interrogation, noting that it was against Section 38 of the BNSS. The condition restricting the interrogation only at Central Prison was modified as unworkable, and the SIT was given liberty to interrogate him at any designated police facility of choice. However, the Court retained the condition for videography of the interrogation, though it clarified that it need not be uniterrupted videography covering the transit of the accused. The SIT was also directed to ensure the safety and physical well-being of the accused during the custody period. Cause Title: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS SUDA SURESH VEERA VENKATA NAGA RAJU Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 722

Observing that police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not confined to the initial fifteen days of remand and may be sought in parts within the statutory period, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's condition prohibiting extension of the accused's police custody beyond the first fifteen days of remand. “Section 187(2) and (3) BNSS, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enlarges the window during which police custody, in the aggregate not exceeding fifteen days, may be sought by the investigating agency, such custody being available in parts, during the first forty or sixty days of the total permissible period of detention, rather than being confined to the first fifteen days of remand alone.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The case arises from the alleged custodial death of one-Gade Sai Krishna, who was apprehended by police personnel on May 6, 2026, and allegedly brought to Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada. According to the prosecution, the victim was never produced before a Magistrate and subsequently went missing. His body remains untraced. Following a complaint lodged by the victim's mother and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the respondent police officer was arrested on June 23, 2026, and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution sought 12 days' police custody to facilitate further investigation. While granting police custody, the Magistrate imposed 15 stringent conditions, including confining interrogation to the Central Prison, requiring continuous videography, permitting advocate presence during interrogation, and prescribing a non-extendable outer limit on police custody. The Andhra Pradesh High Court retained most of these safeguards with minor modifications. Police custody was allowed only for eight days. The State challenged these conditions before the Supreme Court, contending that they seriously hampered the investigation. The judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta acceded to the Appellant-State apprehension that the conditions imposed would create a hurdle in a custodial investigation of the Respondent. “We feel that the apprehension expressed by the investigating agency regarding the hurdles created in effective custodial investigation thereby frustrating the entire process is realistic and justified.”, the Court said. Addressing the condition restricting the period of custodial interrogation, the Court held that it was contrary to the mandate of Section 187(2) of the BNSS. The Court observed that, unlike the erstwhile Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., the new provision allows the investigating agency to seek the 15-day police custody in parts within the prescribed statutory period. This legislative change, the Court said, is intended to ensure that investigators can effectively seek custodial interrogation if fresh facts, discoveries, or disclosure statements leading to incriminating evidence emerge during the course of the investigation. Applying this principle to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed that the alleged offence had occurred nearly 160 kilometres away from the place where the accused was in custody. The Court noted that the investigation could yield fresh leads, discoveries and recoveries based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, making further custodial interrogation necessary to effectively carry the investigation forward. “…legislative change was intended precisely to meet situations, such as the present, where fresh facts, discoveries or leads may emerge during the course of investigation warranting further custodial interrogation, and an unduly rigid or premature foreclosure of that statutory window, whether by a Magistrate or by a court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, would run counter to the object of the provision.”, the Court observed.

*⚜️ ✨ चाणक्य नीति – जीवन जीतने का सूत्र ✨ ⚜️* 🧠 “जिसे अपने विचारों पर नियंत्रण है, उसके जीवन पर भी नियंत्रण होता है।” 🌿 *🔥 चाणक्य कहते हैं —* “दुनिया उसी की सुनती है, जो अपने कर्म से अपनी पहचान बनाता है।” ⚔️ 🌼 सफलता का रास्ता मेहनत से जाता है, और मंज़िल तक वही पहुँचता है जो हार नहीं मानता। *💭 याद रखो:* सही निर्णय + सही समय = असली विजय 💫 *📜 – चाणक्य का प्रेरक संदेश 🚩*

इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट के कड़े रुख के बाद बार काउंसिल ऑफ उत्तर प्रदेश ने राज्य के सभी बार एसोसिएशनों को पत्र जारी कर गंभीर आपराधिक मामलों का सामना कर रहे वकीलों की सूची 15 दिनों के भीतर मांगी है। काउंसिल के सचिव द्वारा 23 जुलाई 2026 को जारी इस अधिसूचना के तहत यदि कोई एसोसिएशन तय समय में सूची नहीं सौंपती है, तो बार काउंसिल से उसकी संबद्धता (Affiliation) निरस्त कर दी जाएगी। ## ⚖️ मामले से जुड़ी मुख्य बातें और कड़े निर्देश * दागी वकीलों पर कार्रवाई: जिन वकीलों के खिलाफ गंभीर आपराधिक मामलों में एफआईआर (FIR) दर्ज है, पुलिस चार्जशीट दाखिल कर चुकी है या कोर्ट में मामला पेंडिंग है, उन सभी का पूरा रिकॉर्ड तलब किया गया है। * हाईकोर्ट की अवमानना: निर्धारित अवधि (15 दिन) में सूची न भेजने को हाईकोर्ट के आदेश की अवमानना माना जाएगा। इसकी रिपोर्ट सीधे उच्च न्यायालय को सौंपी जाएगी। * प्रैक्टिस पर रोक: इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने 'मोहम्मद कफील बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य' मामले में स्पष्ट कहा है कि जघन्य अपराधों के आरोपी वकील अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई या ट्रायल पूरा होने तक कोर्ट में प्रैक्टिस नहीं कर सकेंगे। * चौंकाने वाले आंकड़े: जांच रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, यूपी के 5,14,439 पंजीकृत वकीलों में से 4,157 के खिलाफ करीब 5,056 आपराधिक मामले दर्ज हैं। इनमें 418 वकीलों पर 3 या उससे ज्यादा केस दर्ज हैं। * लखनऊ में सबसे बुरा हाल: राजधानी लखनऊ में 905 वकीलों पर 575 आपराधिक मुकदमे हैं, जिनमें से अकेले वजीरगंज थाने में ही 422 वकीलों के खिलाफ 236 केस दर्ज पाए गए हैं। ## 🔍 फर्जी डिग्रियों पर भी नाराजगी हाईकोर्ट ने उत्तर प्रदेश बार काउंसिल द्वारा पूर्व में सौंपी गई उस रिपोर्ट पर भी गहरा असंतोष जताया है, जिसमें 5 लाख से अधिक वकीलों में से सिर्फ 105 वकीलों को ही फर्जी डिग्री के आधार पर चिह्नित किया गया था। कोर्ट ने इसे प्रशासनिक रूप से अविश्वसनीय माना है। इस बड़े कानूनी और प्रशासनिक सुधार मामले पर इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट में अगली सुनवाई 20 अगस्त 2026 को तय की गई है।

Supreme Court Junks Review Plea Against Verdict On Loss Of SC Status Upon Religious Conversion https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/verdict-on-loss-of-sc-status-upon-religious-conversion-1618590

Continuous Harassment Due To Marriage Refusal: Chhattisgarh High Court Convicts Man For Abetting Suicide https://www.verdictum.in/chhattisgarh-high-court/state-of-chhattisgarh-v-mohd-seraj-continuous-harassment-marriage-refusal-suicide-1618544

Rajashthan APO