Q 1:- In which case did the Supreme Court rule that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA Act 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest?
ANS:- In the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest.
Q 2:- What does the Fifth Schedule empower the Governor to do, as discussed in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP?
Ans:- The Fifth Schedule empowers the Governor to direct that parliamentary or state laws either do not apply to Scheduled Areas or apply with certain exceptions and modifications, as discussed in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP.
Q 3:- In which case the Supreme Court recently directed the State or Legal Services Authorities to ensure that child victims of sexual offenses are provided with counseling by a trained child counselor or child psychologist?
Ans:- This direction was given by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gautam S/o. Mohanlal dated October 11, 2023.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/supreme-court-dlsa-to-ensure-that-child.html
Q 4:-In which case did the Supreme Court state that the state must provide 'support persons' for child victims of sexual offenses as per the POCSO Act, and that it cannot be left to parents' discretion?
Ans:- This directive was issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors Decided On: 18.08.2023.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/02/supreme-court-state-must-provide.html
Q 5:- In which case did the Supreme Court uphold the practice of designating senior advocates and affirm the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961?
Ans:- The Supreme Court's judgment upholding the practice of designating senior advocates was delivered in the case of Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India.
Q 6:- In which case did the Supreme Court refuse to grant legal recognition for queer marriages but instructed the Union of India to form a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions?
Ans:- The Supreme Court's decision on queer marriages and the formation of a committee was made in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India.Decided On: 17.10.2023.
Case Note: Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920)
https://www.lawweb.in/2023/12/case-note-supriyo-supriya-chakraborty.html
Important highlights of SC Judgment Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920)
Q 7:- Recently in the case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India, what issue did the Supreme Court address, and what directions did it pass?
Ans:- The case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India addressed the issue of workplace harassment and led to the issuance of directions related to the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.
Q 8:- In which case did the Supreme Court affirm that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry as per existing statutory laws or personal laws?
Ans:-The Supreme Court affirmed the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing laws in the case of Supriyo v. Union of India.
Q 9:- In which case did the Supreme Court issue a set of directions to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)?
Ans:- The Supreme Court issued directions in the case of Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Q 10:- In which case did the Supreme Court issue directions to the Union and State Governments to eradicate manual scavenging and increase compensation in cases of permanent disablement arising from sewer operations?
Ans:- The Supreme Court issued directions to end manual scavenging and increase compensation for permanent disablement in cases of sewer operations in the case of Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India.
Q 11:- Recently, the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if:
Ans:- The Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if the grounds were available during the filing of the first petition.
Bhisham Lal Verma V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7976 of 2023
Q 12:- Recently, in which case the Supreme Court directed the States and the Union to fill up vacancies in Information Commissions across the country to prevent the RTI Act from becoming a 'dead letter.?
Ans:- The Supreme Court today (October 30) expressed its dissatisfaction with the failure of States and the Union to fill up the vacancies of Information Commissions across the country. The court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to prepare a chart on the number of vacancies and number of appeals/complaints in all the commissions.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment