Legally Sane

On 19/05/2022, A Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010 titled Bhudadev Karmaskar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., issued directions, through an order exercising powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, relating to the rehabilitation measures in respect of sex workers and other connected issues wherein pursuant to an order passed by the Supreme Court on 19.07.2011, a Panel was constituted. The terms of reference made to the panel are:  (1) Prevention of trafficking,  (2) Rehabilitation of sex workers who wish to leave sex work, and  (3) Conditions conducive for sex workers who wish to continue working as sex workers with dignity. In 2016, the panel made several recommendations with respect to the abovesaid references and thereafter Government of India informed the Court that the recommendations made by the panel were considered by the GoI and draft legislation was published incorporating the reco...

There is no prima facie irregularity in the judgment pronounced by the DJ, Mathura if the 1968 agreement is genuine and does not violate the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other relevant provisions of law, time being in force, and most importantly, after the said agreement, one Consent Decree (Compromise Decree) was also passed in 1974 which makes the agreement valid and binding unless otherwise decided by the Court of Justice. Further, the effect of this judgment does not render the Act of 1991 a nugatory rather it substantiates the validity of the said Act. In pursuance of learning this aspect, we need to understand the basics of the Act of 1991. It prohibits two things- Firstly, the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a DIFFERENT SECTION of the SAME RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION (it means the temple of one deity cannot be converted into the temple of another deity of same religious denomina...

In 1837, the First Law Commission under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted the first and original Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), which contained anti-sedition law under Section 113 of the draft law. In 1860, the final draft of the IPC was enacted with the anti-sedition law (Section 113) omitted from it, for reasons unknown but the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case of Kedar Nath Singh that perhaps the legislative body did not feel sure about its authority to enact such a provision in the Code. In 1870, British Raj in India feared the increasing Wahabi movements between 1863 and 1870 hence, on the suggestion of James Fitzjames Stephen, they inserted Sections 121A and 124A under the title of "exciting disaffection" in Chapter VI of the IPC to suppress the voices and acts of native Indians against the British Crown and its sovereignty. This law has been subjected to several amendments and even today it stands with ...