All India Judiciary Exam Info

29/01/2025

Wishing you a brighter day ahead🌹😍

25/12/2024

Here are 10 important Supreme Court of India judgments, spanning various legal domains:

* Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment established the doctrine of "basic structure" of the Constitution, asserting that Parliament cannot alter or amend the fundamental features of the Constitution.

* Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), holding that the "procedure established by law" must be "just, fair, and reasonable."

* Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to immunize election disputes of the Prime Minister and the President from judicial review. The Supreme Court partially struck down the amendment.

* Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): This judgment reaffirmed the doctrine of basic structure and limited the amending powers of Parliament. It also upheld the supremacy of the Constitution.

* S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case dealt with the constitutional validity of President's Rule imposed by the Central government in various states. The court laid down guidelines for the imposition and duration of President's Rule.

* Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This judgment laid down guidelines for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at workplaces, pending the enactment of legislation. These guidelines later formed the basis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

* K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): This judgment declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

* Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): This judgment decriminalized consensual homosexual relations in India by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

* Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018): This judgment allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, a Hindu shrine that traditionally barred women of menstruating age.

* Ayodhya Land Dispute Case (2019): This judgment resolved the decades-long Ayodhya dispute, directing the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site and allotting an alternative five-acre plot to the Muslim side for the construction of a mosque.

On Oct 12, Supreme Court issued a notice to the Govt. of India on a plea seeking equal protection for transgender persons from sexual crimes.

25/12/2024

The Judiciary Channel is a platform dedicated to providing comprehensive information about the legal system. We offer insights into legal news, court proceedings, legal analyses, and expert opinions. Our aim is to enhance public understanding of the judiciary and promote transparency and accountability within the legal system.
We cover a wide range of legal topics, including:
* Constitutional law
* Criminal law
* Civil law
* Family law
* Business law
* International law
We also provide information on legal careers, law schools, and legal aid organizations.
Our mission is to be a trusted source of information about the legal system. We believe that everyone should have access to accurate and unbiased information about the law.
We are committed to providing our viewers with the highest quality content. We work with a team of experienced legal professionals to ensure that our content is accurate, informative, and engaging.
We hope that the Judiciary Channel will help you to better understand the legal system and your rights.

25/12/2024

Hi everyone! 🌟 You can support me by sending Stars - they help me earn money to keep making content you love.

Whenever you see the Stars icon, you can send me Stars!

30/07/2023

Title: The Selection of Supreme Court Justices in Recent Years: Trends and Controversies

Introduction:-
The process of selecting Supreme Court justices is a crucial aspect of any nation's legal system, as these appointments can have far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of laws. In recent years, the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court judges have been subject to heightened scrutiny, political polarization, and controversies. This article aims to explore the key trends and issues surrounding the selection of Supreme Court justices in recent times.

1. Political Polarization in Nominations-
One of the defining characteristics of the selection process in recent years is the increasing political polarization surrounding nominations. The nominations have become highly contentious, with each party striving to place justices on the bench who align closely with their ideological positions. This polarization often leads to protracted confirmation battles in the Senate, where nominees' qualifications and judicial philosophies are intensely debated.

2.The Merrick Garland Nomination-
A prominent example of political polarization in recent times was the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. Nominated by then-President Barack Obama to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, Garland's nomination was met with staunch opposition from Senate Republicans. They argued that a Supreme Court appointment should not be made in an election year, despite the constitutional duty of the president to nominate candidates for vacant seats. The nomination process stalled, and Garland was never confirmed.

3. Confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh-
Following the Merrick Garland controversy, the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court further exposed political divisions. Gorsuch, nominated by President Trump, was confirmed in 2017, while Kavanaugh's confirmation process in 2018 was marked by highly publicized sexual misconduct allegations and contentious hearings.

4. Amy Coney Barrett and the Rush to Confirm:-
In 2020, the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created another heated nomination battle. Despite the proximity to the presidential election, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy. Senate Republicans moved swiftly to confirm her, raising accusations of hypocrisy from Democrats who argued that the precedent set during the Merrick Garland nomination was not upheld.

5. Diverse Perspectives and Identity Representation:-
As the country's demographics evolve, there has been a growing emphasis on diversity and representation on the Supreme Court. Calls for justices who reflect a wide range of experiences, including gender, race, and background, have intensified. This emphasis aims to ensure a more well-rounded and inclusive perspective on the nation's most significant legal matters.

6. Calls for Reform:-
The contentious nomination processes in recent years have prompted calls for reforming the selection process for Supreme Court justices. Proposals include term limits for justices, expanding the number of justices, or creating a bipartisan commission to oversee the nomination process. These suggestions seek to depoliticize the Court's composition and alleviate some of the pressure and division surrounding nominations.

Conclusion:-
The selection of Supreme Court justices in recent years has been marked by political polarization, contentious confirmations, and debates about diversity and representation. As the nation's highest court continues to shape critical legal decisions, it is essential for the nomination process to uphold the principles of fairness, integrity, and impartiality, regardless of political affiliations. The ongoing discussions about reforming the nomination process indicate a recognition of the significance of the Court and the need for a balanced and unbiased judiciary.

30/07/2023

Title: Judicial Service Exam 2023: Gateway to the Bench and Understanding the Rules of the Supreme Court

Introduction:

The Judicial Service Examination (JSE) is a prestigious and highly competitive examination that serves as the primary recruitment process for aspiring judges
in various legal systems around the world. In this article, we will explore the significance of the Judicial Service Exam 2023 and provide an overview of the rules of the Supreme Court, which play a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape of the country.

I. The Importance of Judicial Service Exam 2023:

The Judicial Service Exam 2023 is a critical event for law graduates and legal professionals who aspire to serve as judges. Conducted by the judiciary of each country, the exam is designed to assess the candidates' legal knowledge, analytical abilities, and aptitude for judicial roles. Only those who demonstrate exceptional merit, ethical standards, and a deep understanding of the law qualify for judicial positions.

The process typically includes multiple stages, such as a preliminary examination, main written examination, and an interview or viva voce. The selection process is rigorous and aims to identify candidates who possess the essential qualities to uphold justice, interpret the law impartially, and make decisions that impact the lives of individuals and society as a whole.

II. Eligibility Criteria for Judicial Service Exam 2023:

The eligibility criteria for the Judicial Service Exam 2023 may vary from one jurisdiction to another. However, common requirements include:

Educational Qualifications: Candidates must possess a law degree from a recognized university or institution.

Age Limit: The age limit for applicants is usually within a specified range, varying from region to region.

Work Experience: Some jurisdictions may require a minimum number of years of practice as a lawyer or advocate before applying for the exam.

Nationality and Domicile: Often, candidates must be citizens of the country or fulfill specific domicile requirements.

III. The Role of the Supreme Court and its Rules:

The Supreme Court represents the apex judicial body in a country's legal system. Its decisions are binding and have far-reaching implications for the interpretation and development of the law. To maintain fairness, efficiency, and consistency in its proceedings, the Supreme Court operates under a set of rules that govern its functioning.

Case Allocation: The Supreme Court has specific rules for case allocation among the judges. This process ensures an equitable distribution of cases and avoids the concentration of power in the hands of a few judges.

Collegium System: In some jurisdictions, including India, the appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court are decided by a collegium of senior judges. This system aims to maintain judicial independence and transparency in the selection process.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court often entertains Public Interest Litigations, which allow individuals or organizations to seek justice for issues affecting society at large. PILs have been instrumental in addressing various social and environmental concerns.

Judicial Review: The Supreme Court has the authority of judicial review, allowing it to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This power serves as a crucial check on the actions of the government and ensures the preservation of constitutional rights.

Precedents and Stare Decisis: The Supreme Court's decisions serve as legal precedents and establish binding principles for lower courts to follow. The doctrine of stare decisis ensures consistency in the interpretation and application of the law.

Conclusion:

The Judicial Service Exam 2023 is a gateway for dedicated legal professionals to enter the noble profession of judging. Through rigorous testing and a thorough evaluation process, the exam identifies individuals with the requisite knowledge, integrity, and commitment to upholding justice.

Additionally, understanding the rules of the Supreme Court is essential for legal practitioners and citizens alike, as it provides insights into how the highest court of the land operates and shapes the legal landscape of the country. As the legal system continues to evolve, these rules play a vital role in ensuring a fair and just society for all.

30/07/2023

In a suit for injunction, question of title does not arise or would arise only incidentally, therefore a subsequent suit for declaration of title would not be barred (SC-25/03/2008) ---
Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant,
a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

27/07/2023

# # EUTHANASIA AND RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY.

In 2002, Common Cause, a registered society had written to the Ministries of Law & Justice, Health & Family Welfare, and Company Affairs as well as State Governments, on the issue of the right to die with dignity.

In 2005, Common Cause approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, praying for the declaration that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. It also prayed the Court to issue directions to the Union Government to allow terminally ill patients to execute ‘living wills’ for appropriate action in the event that they are admitted to hospitals. As an alternative, Common Cause sought guidelines from the Court on this issue, and the appointment of an expert committee comprising lawyers, doctors, and social scientists to determine the aspect of executing living wills.

Common Cause argued that terminally ill persons or those suffering from chronic diseases must not be subjected to cruel treatments. Denying them the right to die in a dignified manner extends their suffering. It prayed the Court to secure the right to die with dignity by allowing such persons to make an informed choice through a living will.

On February 25th 2014, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising the then P. Sathasivan CJI, Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh JJ had referred the matter to a larger bench, to settle the issue in light of inconsistent opinions in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union Of India (2011) and Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996).

On March 9th 2018, a five-Judge Bench comprising Dipak Misra CJI, A K Sikri, A. M. Khanvilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan JJ held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. An individual’s right to execute advance medical directives is an assertion of the right to bodily integrity and self-determination and does not depend on any recognition or legislation by a State.

On March 8th 2018 the Supreme Court delivered two concurring opinions:

** Majority opinion authored by Dipak Misra CJI on behalf of
himself and AM Khanwilkar J.
** Concurring opinion authored by
DY Chandrachud J.

On July 19th, 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care filed a miscellaneous application requesting a 5-Judge Constitution Bench to modify some of the guidelines prescribed in the 2018 Judgment.

They claim that the procedure for terminally ill patients to exercise their right to die is extremely cumbersome and requires streamlining. The case is being heard by a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph.

27/07/2023

Evidence Act,1872, S.27-

Disclosure statement made by co-accused u/s 27 of the Act-not legal evidence qua non-maker accused. (2022(4) Criminal Court Cases 024 (Bombay).

Ex Parte divorce decree-

Setting aside-One 'R' was witness to the report of refusal of process server-'R submitted his affidavit that he never signed on the report- Wife not living at the given address- Ex parte decree set aside. (2023(2) Civil Cases 356 (Rajasthan)