𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄

What does the Centre’s new mining law say and why are states opposing it? 🔗 #explained_economics #express_explained #mining

What is Bengal’s controversial anti-Goonda Bill, why did it go for assent to the President? 🔗 #explained_law #express_explained #goondas_act #kolkata #suvendu_adhikari #west_bengal

What is ‘enemy state’ in UN Charter, which Japan wants removed 🔗 #explained_geopolitics #express_explained

'There Can't Be Part Acceptance & Part Rejection Of Prosecutrix's Statement' : Supreme Court Acquits Man In Rape Case https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/there-cant-be-part-acceptance-part-rejection-of-prosecutrixs-statement-supreme-court-acquits-man-in-rape-case-551857

In Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2026, the Supreme Court held that a victim’s appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate must be preferred before the Sessions Court and not the High Court. Relying on the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court ruled that such an appeal lies to the court to which an appeal against conviction by the same Magistrate would ordinarily lie under Section 415(3) BNSS, i.e., the Court of Session. The Court further clarified that the altered scheme for State appeals under Section 419 BNSS does not govern or enlarge the forum available to a victim, and upheld the High Court’s order rejecting the appeal as not maintainable while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Sessions Court within one month, to be heard on merits without the intervening delay being held against him. #BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s413-bnss-victims-appeal-against-acquittal-by-magistrate-lies-before-sessions-court-supreme-court-551787

'No Mens Rea', Act Appears Rash & Negligent: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Father Accused Of Applying Burning Wicks On 'Possessed' Daughter https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-bail-father-fir-burning-cotton-wicks-on-daughter-551859

🙂<-->🙃 WHEN SHALL MEANS MAY AND MAY MEANS SHALL? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand (2024) the Court observed:

SUBSTANCE OVER FORM ALWAYS

"There is no doubt that the word "may" ordinarily does not mean "must". Ordinarily, "may" will not be construed as "shall". But this is not an inflexible rule. The use of the word "may" in certain legislations can be construed as "shall", and the word "shall" can be construed as "may". It all depends on the nature of the power conferred by the relevant provision of the statute and the effect of the exercise of the power. The legislative intent also plays a role in the interpretation of such provisions. Even the context in which the word "may" has been used is also relevant." Now in the present case, how is the following phrase read as shall? Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory... WHY "MAY" IN S.25(4) READS AS "SHALL": SIX REASONS (i) S.25(3) creates a specific statutory right — the legislature expressly carved out an exception to conclusiveness; recognising a right to challenge the Government Analyst's report was a conscious legislative choice. (ii) S.25(4) is the mechanism to make that right effective — once S.25(3) is exercised, the sample goes to the Central Drugs Laboratory and its report becomes conclusive evidence; the provision is substantive, not merely procedural. (iii) Supreme Court treats this as a valuable statutory right — if the sample is not sent while still testable, the accused permanently loses independent analysis; delay attributable to the prosecution can be fatal to the prosecution. (iv) Treating "may" as purely discretionary defeats S.25(3) itself — the legislature cannot be taken to have created a right while simultaneously conferring unfettered discretion to refuse the mechanism for exercising it; that renders the protection in sub-section (3) largely illusory. (v) "May" must be read in context of the consequences of non-exercise — where S.25(3) is complied with and statutory conditions are satisfied, refusal to send the sample to CDL deprives the person of the very safeguard the legislature intended. (vi) Purposive construction, not mechanical substitution the principle is not that "may" invariably means "shall"; rather, in the specific statutory context of S.25(3) and (4), legislative intent, nature of the right, and consequences of non-exercise justify reading "may" as "shall" to give effect to the provision rather than render the right ineffective. #IOS@CurrentLegalGK

S 156(3) CrPC Order Is Pre-Cognizance Step, Sanction Under S 197 CrPC Not Required At That Stage: Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-1563-precognizance-step-sanction-section197-crpc-that-stage-551655

Completed Trial Cannot Be Remanded Merely For Procedural Lapse Without Proof Of Prejudice : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/completed-trial-cannot-be-remanded-merely-for-procedural-lapse-without-proof-of-prejudice-supreme-court-551753

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s413-bnss-victims-appeal-against-acquittal-by-magistrate-lies-before-sessions-court-supreme-court-551787

Article 324(5) of the Constitution states that the CEC can be removed from office only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.” This framing can also be found in Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act. The article further states that “any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner”.

Opposition seeks Gyanesh Kumar exit: How can a Chief Election Commissioner be removed? 🔗 #chief_election_commissioner #election_commission_of_india #express_explained

Magistrate Cannot Revert To Pre-Cognizance Stage And Invoke S.156(3) Cr.P.C. Once Inquiry Is Taken Up U/ S 202: Bombay High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/magistrate-cannot-revert-s1563-crpc-once-inquiry-s202-551536

Victim Can't Introduce Evidence At Trial Which Is Not Included In Chargesheet By Prosecution: Orissa High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-victim-introduce-evidence-trial-not-included-chargesheet-prosecution-551649

Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Child Custody Cases, Quashes False FIR Against Father https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-lays-down-safeguards-to-prevent-misuse-of-pocso-act-in-child-custody-cases-quashes-false-fir-against-father-551637