- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma Introduction The Supreme Court, in this case, quashed FIR filed under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC against a young man accused of rape on the basis of a false promise to marry. The Court held that a consensual sexual relationship with a married woman, even if based on a promise of marriage, cannot give rise to a prosecutable offence under Section 376 IPC, especially when such promise....
Read MoreA Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma Introduction This case concerns the interpretation of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), especially after the 2019 amendment, which prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner, convicted for such an offence against a 6-year-old child, approached the Supreme Court under a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking reduction of sentence on the grounds of “extraordinary circumstances.” Protection....
Read MoreBench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Introduction The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law that a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, especially when other reliefs based on distinct causes of action are maintainable. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of evaluating the entire plaint holistically and not dismissing it solely on the basis of one defective claim,....
Read MoreBench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan Introduction This case pertains to the scope of vicarious liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The primary issue was whether a complaint must specifically state the administrative role of a director to proceed under Section 141(1) NI Act. Section 138, NI Act – Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds. Section 141(1), NI Act –....
Read MoreBench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case reiterated that the "last seen together" theory, by itself, is not sufficient to convict an accused unless it is corroborated by other compelling evidence. The Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC due to major gaps in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. Section 302 IPC(Now Section 102 of BNS,2023): Punishment for murder Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act(Now Section 23....
Read MoreBench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice MM Sundresh Introduction: This case concerned the legality and fairness of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, particularly those regulating the appointment, qualification, selection, and tenure of Presidents and Members of the State and District Consumer Commissions. The Supreme Court examined whether the existing rules compromised judicial independence by providing excessive control to the Executive in the appointment process. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 Rojer Mathew v. South Indian....
Read MoreBench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on the powers of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), held that JJBs have no authority to review their own orders, and any such attempt is illegal and beyond their statutory jurisdiction. The Court also reiterated that documentary evidence such as school records prevail over medical opinion in determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 94(2), Juvenile....
Read MoreBench comprising of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant decision, reaffirmed the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, emphasizing that an investigating officer’s (IO's) testimony based solely on such statements is inadmissible. The Court criticized the High Court's reversal of acquittal by relying on the IO’s interpretation of Section 161 statements, holding it to be violative of Section 162 CrPC. Section 161 CrPC (Now Section 180 of BNSS,2023)–....
Read MoreBench: Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah Introduction The Supreme Court in this case overturned the conviction of nine individuals under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for a double murder allegedly committed during a property dispute. The Court emphasized that in-court identification by eyewitnesses is crucial, especially when the accused were previously known to the witnesses. The Court held that failure to identify the accused in court fatally undermines the prosecution's case.....
Read MoreBench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction The Supreme Court in this case addressed a significant legal question on the applicability of Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) in the context of government land allotments. The Court clarified that restrictive conditions imposed in such allotments especially when done for public interest are valid and not hit by Section 10, as such transfers are not typical inter vivos commercial transactions but are governed by administrative policies....
Read More
