Legal Basta

  Prisoner’s Rights in India Constitution of India does not expressly provide the provisions related to the prisoners rights but in the case of [T.V. Vatheeswaran Vs State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (2) SCC 68], it was held that the Articles 14, 19 & 21 are available to the prisoners as well as freemen. Prison walls do not keep out fundamental rights. Following are the rights of prisoners which are implicitly provided under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India •    Right To Free Legal Aid; Though the Right to Legal Aid is not something explicitly defined by Constitution of India, the legal executives often display kindness towards detainees who cannot afford it or simply connect with the legal counsellor voluntarily. Free Legal Aid is included by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. Although it is the most significant and direct Article of the Constitution, which discus...

  RAPE   Over the last few decades, India has witnessed phenomenal growth, in Rape. From past one decade India is reporting more than 30,000 cases every year, reports as per NCRB data. On an average if we see 85 women are raped every day. In 2020, Rajasthan Reported 5,130 case highest among other states. Not only 2020 Rajasthan banged 1 st Position in 2019 with 5,997 cases in a year. In 2018, Madhya Pradesh reported 5,433 cases. Delhi, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala are mong highest rape cases reporting cities in India.   The Fourth most common crime; Rape in simple language is when a woman is forced to have sex with man. Although the definition of rape in itself is a matter of dispute. Why? If we go by the proper definition, it says that a rape is committed when a man penetrates his penis to an extent in to the woman’s vagina. It’s not vagina but any slightest penetration in anus, mouth or urethra of a women will amount to rape. So, we interpret tha...

  If a woman was wearing clothing that was sexually suggestive, a sexual harassment claim would not be upheld prima facie.   The Kerala Court noted that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing "sexually provocative dresses" while granting anticipatory bail to author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case Case Title: Civic Chandran@ C. V. Kuttan v. State of Kerala. The 74-year-old accused had sent the woman's photos with the bail request. "The images that the accused submitted with the bail application show that the de facto complainant is wearing outfits that are sexually suggestive. Therefore, Section 354A will not be a strong argument against the accused "In its order, the Kozhikode Sessions Court made a notation. The 74-year-old physically challenged accused's ability to forcibly place the de facto complainant in his lap and touch her breasts was also q...

Talaq-E-Hasan Benazeer Heena v. Union of India and Ors. WP(C) No. 348/2022 (PIL) The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a prima facie observation that the practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months, is "not so improper". The bench said, “This is not triple talaq in that sense.” A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundersh was hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim woman challenging the constitutionality of divorce through "Talaq E Hasan" on the ground that it is discriminatory against women. It added that women also have the option to end the marriage through a permitted Islamic practice called Khula. if husband and wife cannot live together, it can also grant the divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution. Section 2 of the Sharia Application Law,1937 talks about Talak-E-H...

  HOLD IN CAMERA TRIALS IN ALL SEXUAL HARRASMENT CASES CASE: XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh In 2013, JS Verma Committee which reformed the Rape Laws in India after the Nirbhaya Rape Case mentioned about the In Camera Trial for Women. WHY this in camera trial? Earlier women had to go through multiple trial given her statements to police officer and courts again and again. So as per Section 327 of the Code of criminal Procedure, in trial camera were only allowed for Rape cases. During this woman had to go through the trauma, societal shame and unwanted stigma. These where the reasons women were scared of reporting and never tried approaching the police or the court. To remove these barriers JS Verma Committee came up with in camera trials for Rape. On 12 th August 2022, bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala noted that legal proceedings tend to be more onerous for complainants for sexual assault as they are dealing with trauma and societal sham...

  CRUELTY TOWARDS ANIMALS. Animals, different in nature as compared to human being but take in same mental and physical pain similar as human being. Animals belongs to this earth same as the human, they only difference living species they care about their surroundings but we humans are so into our self that to satisfy our own needs we don’t care about the nature and the other existing species life on the mother earth. On one hand we consider/ believe cow as our mother but on but on the other hand we slaughter them for our own feeding. Humans love to pet animals specially dogs and other domestic animals but show cruelty against the street dogs. With this idea, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was introduced in 1960. This Act was passed to punish the persons indulged in cruelty against the animals, establishment of the Animal Welfare Board, and for the identification of the acts amounting to cruelty against the animals. According to the Section 2(a) of the Prevention of ...

JUDGEMENT ON FINGERPRINT METHOD: Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC On-line SC 2   TYPE: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2017 CORAM: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND KRISHNA MURARI JJ. AUTHOR: UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. DECIDED ON: JANUARY 05, 2021 FACTS: Six people were accused in the case and six of them were found guilty of dacoity and the murder of four people. Three of the condemned individuals were exonerated by the High Court, while the sentences handed down to the remaining defendants—life in prison for Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju and the death penalty for Hari Om—were upheld. The fingerprint analysis that matched the latent prints on the items in the deceased's home with exemplar prints of the appellants led to Sanjay and Saurabh's convictions. FINDINGS: The Supreme Court ruled that the procedure used to remove latent prints from the objects discovered in the deceased's home was not described in the fingerprint report, thereby rejecting t...