Bare Act
Open in Telegram
⚖ For the Students of Law. Author: Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे) Website: legalcell.org
Show more📈 Analytical overview of Telegram channel Bare Act
Channel Bare Act (@thebareact) in the English language segment is an active participant. Currently, the community unites 11 278 subscribers, ranking 762 in the Law category and 34 150 in the India region.
📊 Audience metrics and dynamics
Since its creation on невідомо, the project has demonstrated rapid growth, gathering an audience of 11 278 subscribers.
According to the latest data from 24 September, 2026, the channel demonstrates stable activity. Although there has been a change in the number of participants by 231 over the last 30 days and by 5 over the last 24 hours, overall reach remains high.
- Verification status: Not verified
- Engagement rate (ER): The average audience engagement rate is 13.16%. Within the first 24 hours after publication, content typically collects 2.66% reactions from the total number of subscribers.
- Post reach: On average, each post receives 1 484 views. Within the first day, a publication typically gains 300 views.
- Reactions and interaction: The audience actively supports content: the average number of reactions per post is 0.
- Thematic interests: Content is focused on key topics such as apr-2026, judge, may-2026, marathi, उत्तरपत्रिका.
📝 Description and content policy
The author describes the resource as a platform for expressing subjective opinions:
“⚖ For the Students of Law.
Author: Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे)
Website: legalcell.org”
Thanks to the high frequency of updates (latest data received on 25 September, 2026), the channel maintains relevance and a high level of publication reach. Analytics show that the audience actively interacts with content, making it an important point of influence in the Law category.
11 278
Subscribers
+524 hours
+357 days
+23130 days
Posts Archive
11 278
Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 states that : ''Where the Controller is satisfied that the application or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof does not comply with the requirements of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, the Controller may refuse the application or may require the application, specification or the other documents, as the case may be, to be amended to his satisfaction before he proceeds with the application and refuse the application on failure to do so. ''
11 278
If the Controller is satisfied that the application, specification or other document filed does not comply with the requirements of the Patents Act, 1970, they may
A. Refuse the application
B. Require the application, specification or the other documents, as the case may be, to be amended to their satisfaction before proceeding with the application
C. Refuse the application on failure to amend the application, specification or other documents
D. All of the above
11 278
Repost from Legal Cell
गणपती बाप्पा मोरया! 🙏🏻
I am happy to launch the new version of our platform:
🌐 Website: https://LegalCell.org
Key Highlights:
📖 Guide: Chapter-wise Notes, Q&A, MCQs & Case-Law across 40+ Acts
⚖️ Case Law Digest: Monthly Issues from SC & HC Reportable Judgments across 300+ Acts
🎯 Monthly MCQ: Practice Questions across 90+ Acts
🏆 Exam Study-Guide: Judiciary & AIBE Preparation Guides.
🎁 Get Your 1-Day Free Trial Here:
👉 https://forms.gle/vJSZcJrGdAXjthT76
🔓 Explore Paid Plans: https://www.legalcell.org/p/join.html
— Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे)
11 278
The plaintiff shall make the person with whom the adultery is alleged to have been committed a co-defendant, unless the Court shall otherwise order.
11 278
Who is required to be made a co-defendant in a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936?
A) The person with whom the adultery is alleged to have been committed
B) The person who witnessed or facilitated the adultery
C) The person who informed or complained about the adultery
D) No one is required to be made a co-defendant
11 278
Section 44 says that when the consideration for which a person signed a bill consisted of money, and was originally absent in part or has subsequently failed in part, the sum which a holder standing in immediate relation with such signer is entitled to receive from him is proportionally reduced.
11 278
According to Section 44 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, what recourse does a holder have if the consideration for a bill of exchange consisted of money and has partially failed?
A. The holder can recover the full amount of the bill.
B. The holder can recover only the amount for which there was valid consideration.
C. The holder can recover the full amount, but is liable to reimburse the excess to the signer.
D. The holder has no recourse.
11 278
"Tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises.
11 278
Person in occupation of premises is tenant if
(1) he is only permitted to use that property
(2) he is put in exclusive possession of it and pays rent
(3) such person had lived for few days with the deceased original tenant as his friend
(4) all are correct
11 278
Section 29(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 explicitly states that nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
11 278
Under Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, what is the impact on Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
A. It reinforces the applicability of Section 25.
B. It weakens the applicability of Section 25.
C. It does not affect Section 25.
D. It repeals Section 25.
11 278
Under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under the age of.
a) 14 years
b) 7 years
c) 18 years
d) 21 years
11 278
Repost from Legal Cell
“Who is the BCI to come between the students and me? The Bar Council of India has no business to order such inquiries against students” CJI Kant (Mihira Sood v. BCI, 14-Aug-2026, diary No. 49499/2026)
As the eve of India's Independence Day arrives, we prepare to celebrate our national freedom. Yet, as we stand on the threshold of August 15, we must pause and ask: are we truly free?
True freedom is not merely about hoisting a flag, but the liberty of thought, speech, and expression without fear.
A recent and unprecedented conflict unfolded at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad. Students there peacefully protested against the participation of Chief Justice of India, Suryakant, as the chief guest for their convocation.
The final-year students expressed deep concern that the Supreme Court had refused the urgent listing of a petition regarding violent police action against students.
To them, receiving degrees from a dignitary whose public conduct appeared to overlook state violence felt like a betrayal of the constitutional values taught at NALSAR.
In response, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra issued a startling circular on August 13.
This circular threatened to completely block the professional enrollment of the entire graduating batch of 2026 as advocates.
The BCI also directed the university's Vice Chancellor to submit a report within three days to identify the lead student protesters.
This was a direct assault on the students' fundamental right to livelihood and their freedom to practice a profession.
Now look at this, the Preamble and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantee every citizen the right to freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful protest.
An important thing to note here is the historic tolerance of the judiciary itself. In October 2025, a shoe was thrown at the then Chief Justice B. R. Gavai in open court.
Yet, Chief Justice Gavai magnanimously dismissed the shocking incident as a "forgotten chapter," choosing not to file any criminal complaint.
Contrast this with BCI's aggressive overreach, which the Supreme Court itself had to halt on August 14.
A Supreme Court bench, including Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice Jayamala Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, questioned BCI's jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice himself observed that even if the students were wrong, they had the right to protest, declaring it a matter between him and the students.
The court ordered that no action be taken against any student or teacher, forcing BCI to withdraw its controversial threat.
The result of this is a powerful reminder that our democracy remains alive not because of silent compliance, but because of the courage of our youth. When students studying the Constitution stand up to protect its spirit, they prove they are not a "burden" but the true custodians of our future.
As we celebrate our independence, let us remember that the true strength of our Constitution lies not merely in its written words, but in the courageous hearts of those who dare to defend it.
-- Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे)
