LEXIS AND COMPANY

 CASE SUMMARY: I.C. GOLAKHNATH v. STATE OF PUNJAB BY SWATEE SHUKLA In this case, the seventeenth amendment of the constitution of India was challenged on the ground that it limited or restricted certain fundamental rights. The question before the apex court was thus whether parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution, and in particular, part III thereof, dealing with fundamental rights. This point had already been decided in two earlier cases. In S.P. Singh, the supreme court had unanimously held that parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution including part III dealing with fundamental rights In the second case, Sajjan Singh v. the state of Rajasthan, the same view was taken, but this time by a majority of 3:2. Since the court was not unanimous in the second case, the present case was referred to a specially constituted bench of 11 judges of the supreme court. Overruling the earlier decisions, 6 out of 11 judges held in this case that parliament

 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WITH THE HELP OF ILLUSTRATION S KARTHICK PRAKASH 20BLB1033 A group of public-spirited individuals also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel buses and trucks older than five years did not directly affect private individuals, the Odd-Even formula did, especially those who have to commute to work and also persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who rely on their personal means of transport to get by. The writ petition was based on allegations of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens – including Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. FACTS: The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a trouble to the well-being of the megacity's and area's occupants as well as the foliage and fauna. Delhi, the sixth-most populated megalopolis in the world, is one of the most heavily defiled metropolises in India, having for the c

  CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POWER OF COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN MOSTLY USED IN POLICE COMPLAINTS S KARTHICK PRAKASH C.NO:6374938343 E MAIL: prksh1704@gmail.com INTRODUCTION The structure of the case set up by the pleaders rests on the following four pillars The first pillar on which the pleaders have grounded their case is that the plaintiff had filed her complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (After now called'CrPC'). In discrepancy, Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate has progressed in the matter as if it was a complaint filed under Section 190 CrPC. The alternate pillar is that while acting under Section 156 (3) of CrPC, there was no power with the Chief Judicial Magistrate to record substantiation of the plaintiff and her substantiations, as similar, the substantiation so recorded, is without governance. The third pillar, which bears the maximum cargo of the case of the pleaders, is that without indeed taking cognizance of the offence, Ld. Chief Judicial

  OUTSOURCING Government is a distortion of the free market by definition. Its sheer existence is a distortion of free market economics: if you have a government, you must support it, which necessitates a robust tax system. Government = Taxation = Regulated Market, to put it simply. True free marketeers would push for the complete removal of government market control: let the market sort it out. There's a large list of additional characteristics that free market capitalists should be searching for that are essential components of a really free market economy, including: There is no immigration restriction or any type of border (free movement of labour); there is no financial regulation; and there is perfect information. Everyone must be aware of everything; else, there will be unintended distortions in the market) and perfect rationality. Until recently, outsourcing technology jobs meant engaging a third-party company to do particularly specialised or very technical duties that wer

  TORTURE, TERRORISM AND POLICE There is no point in stating that an individual's independence must give way to the state's security. In various instances mandated by various legislation, the right of preventative detention of persons in the interest of state security has been affirmed by the courts. In the national interest, the right to question detainees, suspects, or arrestees must take precedence over an individual's right to personal liberty. The Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (people's safety is supreme law) and salus republicae est suprema lex (state safety is supreme law) coexist and are not only important and relevant, but also at the heart of the doctrine that an individual's welfare must yield to the welfare of the state. There is no point in stating that an individual's independence must give way to the state's security. In various instances mandated by various legislation, the right of preventative detention of persons in the interes

                           Section 353 IPC  Introduction In a country like India, we constantly hear about crimes like violence, assault, discharge, and other similar offences; these kind of crimes are very frequent in our country and occur virtually every day. Similarly, public officials are frequently exposed to severe risks when carrying out their official tasks, and the law protects them in particular by imposing highly deterrent punishments on those who break the law. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with this issue, and this article explains it. Before understanding Section 353, it's important to understand what force and assault are, and how they prevent public workers from performing their duties. Force Force is defined under Section 349 of the IPC. It does not constitute an offence; rather, it clarifies the meaning of the term force. It indicates that whenever a person causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to another, that person is

  Doctrine of priority  Introduction                               The doctrine of priority is governed by Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 (TPA). In a case where the court's interests are in conflict, this doctrine aids the court in choosing which party's rights should take precedence over the other. The necessity for this notion emerges when a property transferor deals with the same property with two different people at the same time. As a result, this answers the court's difficulty to a considerable part.   Doctrine of priority   This doctrine is founded on Natural Justice Principles, which state that if rights are granted to two people at separate times, the person who has the advantage in time will also have the advantage in law. This principle, however, only applies in situations where the parties' competing equities are otherwise equal. The Section 48 priority theory is based on the legal adage, who prior est tempore potior est jure, which essen