Bare Act
⚖ For the Students of Law. Author: Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे) Website: legalcell.org
Показати більше📈 Аналітичний огляд Telegram-каналу Bare Act
Канал Bare Act (@thebareact) у мовному сегменті Англійська є активним учасником. На даний момент спільнота об'єднує 11 278 підписників, посідаючи 762 місце в категорії Юриспруденція та 34 150 місце у регіоні Індія.
📊 Показники аудиторії та динаміка
З моменту свого створення невідомо, проект продемонстрував стрімке зростання, зібравши аудиторію у 11 278 підписників.
За останніми даними від 24 вересня, 2026, канал демонструє стабільну активність. Хоча за останні 30 днів спостерігається зміна кількості учасників на 231, а за останні 24 години на 5, загальне охоплення залишається високим.
- Статус верифікації: Не верифікований
- Рівень залученості (ER): Середній показник залученості аудиторії становить 13.16%. Протягом перших 24 годин після публікації контент зазвичай збирає 2.66% реакцій від загальної кількості підписників.
- Охоплення публікацій: В середньому кожен допис отримує 1 484 переглядів. Протягом першої доби публікація в середньому набирає 300 переглядів.
- Реакції та взаємодія: Аудиторія активно підтримує контент: середня кількість реакцій на один пост – 0.
- Тематичні інтереси: Контент зосереджений навколо ключових тем, таких як apr-2026, judge, may-2026, marathi, उत्तरपत्रिका.
📝 Опис та контентна політика
Автор описує ресурс як майданчик для висловлення суб'єктивної думки:
“⚖ For the Students of Law.
Author: Sagar Badade (सागर बडदे)
Website: legalcell.org”
Завдяки високій частоті оновлень (останні дані отримано 25 вересня, 2026), канал підтримує актуальність та високий рівень охоплення публікацій. Аналітика показує, що аудиторія активно взаємодіє з контентом, що робить його важливою точкою впливу в категорії Юриспруденція.
Триває завантаження даних...
| Дата | Залучення підписників | Згадування | Канали | |
| 25 вересня | +1 | |||
| 24 вересня | +5 | |||
| 23 вересня | +11 | |||
| 22 вересня | +9 | |||
| 21 вересня | +8 | |||
| 20 вересня | +2 | |||
| 19 вересня | +6 | |||
| 18 вересня | +2 | |||
| 17 вересня | +11 | |||
| 16 вересня | +2 | |||
| 15 вересня | +7 | |||
| 14 вересня | +9 | |||
| 13 вересня | +13 | |||
| 12 вересня | +3 | |||
| 11 вересня | +19 | |||
| 10 вересня | +9 | |||
| 09 вересня | +13 | |||
| 08 вересня | +9 | |||
| 07 вересня | +9 | |||
| 06 вересня | +8 | |||
| 05 вересня | +4 | |||
| 04 вересня | +2 | |||
| 03 вересня | +13 | |||
| 02 вересня | +17 | |||
| 01 вересня | +12 |
| 2 | Answer | 813 |
| 3 | 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 | 791 |
| 4 | 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) | 1 253 |
| 5 | 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. | 1 248 |
| 6 | Answer | 1 257 |
| 7 | 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 | 1 218 |
| 8 | 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. | 1 912 |
| 9 | Answer | 1 819 |
| 10 | 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. | 1 681 |
| 11 | "Tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for any premises. | 2 334 |
| 12 | Answer | 2 236 |
| 13 | 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 | 1 896 |
| 14 | 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. | 2 477 |
| 15 | Answer | 2 470 |
| 16 | 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. | 2 190 |
| 17 | Act of a child under seven years of age is not an offence. | 2 452 |
| 18 | Answer | 2 413 |
| 19 | 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 | 2 136 |
| 20 | “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) | 2 032 |
