JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

Happy Republic Day 🇮🇳 🕊✨️
Republic Day is not just a celebration. It is a reminder.
A reminder of the Constitution of India that gives us rights, duties, and the rule of law.
A reminder of our soldiers who stand at the borders so we can sleep peacefully.

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 0

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

Wishing you and your family a very Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous New Year.2026

1 month ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

Happy teacher’s day

5 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

💼 Procedure Under Section 138 – Cheque Dishonour Cases 📜⚖️

If a cheque gets dishonoured, here’s the step-by-step legal process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:

🔹 Step 1: Cheque Dishonoured → Presented within 3 months, returned unpaid.
🔹 Step 2: Legal Notice → Must be sent within 30 days, demanding payment in 15 days.
🔹 Step 3: Non-Payment → If no payment in 15 days, cause of action arises.
🔹 Step 4: File Complaint → Within 30 days after the 15-day period ends, in JMFC / Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
🔹 Step 5: Court Process → Cognizance, summons, and summary trial under CrPC.
🔹 Step 6: Judgment → Up to 2 years imprisonment, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both.

💡 As a lawyer, understanding Section 138 is crucial to handle cheque dishonour cases effectively.

5 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

Scaremongering Judicial Aspirants: Understanding the Background of the 3-Year Practice Rule

The recent Supreme Court judgment reinstating the 3-year practice rule for entry into the judiciary has stirred significant debate on social media. Judicial aspirants, some law faculty members, and coaching institutes have reacted as though the sky has fallen. But before jumping to conclusions, it's essential to understand the background of this rule.

Was this the Supreme Court's first attempt to introduce such a rule?
Absolutely not. The origin of this rule lies in the case "All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India". It was, in fact, the Judges’ Association that approached the Court seeking clarity on whether the 3-year practice requirement should be mandatory.

Before accepting the narratives floating around online, many of which are emotional, misleading, and devoid of factual backing, it is crucial to grasp the legal and historical context.

Prior to 2002, the 3-year practice requirement was already in place. However, based on the Shetty Commission’s 1996 recommendations, the Supreme Court allowed fresh law graduates to enter the judiciary directly in order to attract young talent. Unfortunately, the experience was unsatisfactory and did not serve the purpose.

8 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

The 52nd and present chief justice is Bhushan Gavai. Sworn in on 14 May, 2025

9 months ago | [YT] | 2

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

भारतीय संविधान के शिल्पकार, देश के प्रथम क़ानून मंत्री व हमारे आदर्श, भारत रत्न बाबासाहेब डॉ आंबेडकर, स्वतंत्रता, समानता, बंधुत्व और सामाजिक न्याय के लोकतांत्रिक सिद्धांतों के आजीवन समर्थक रहे।

उनकी 135वीं जयंती पर मैं उनके योगदान को सादर नमन करती हूँ।

जय भीम, जय संविधान!!

10 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

Wishing you a Holika Dahan filled with peace, prosperity, and positivity!

11 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

India won icc champion trophy 2025 🎉🎉🇮🇳

11 months ago | [YT] | 1

JUDICIARY LEGAL ERA

*Vijay V. State (2025 SC)*

(Very good Judgment on Sudden and Grave provocation)

1. S.105 IEA casts the burden on the accused to prove that his case falls under one of the General/Special Exceptions.
2. ⁠To invoke Exception-1 to S.300 IPC, three elements have to be proved: (i) there was a provocation which was both grave and sudden ; (ii) such provocation had deprived the accused of his power of self-control; and (iii) whilst the accused was so deprived of his power of self-control, he had caused the death of the victim.
3. ⁠Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word 'sudden' involves two elements. First, the provocation must be unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. Secondly, the interval between the provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation.
4. The main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not. A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be accepted by the court. The court has to apply an objective test for deciding whether the provocation was grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is this: "Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?" If the answer is in the affirmative, the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer is in the negative, the provocation is not grave. In this context, the expression 'reasonable man' means a normal or an average person. A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction. The reasonable man will vary from society to society. A Judge should not impose his personal standards in this matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the reasonable man or the normal man need not have the same standard of behaviour as the judge himself. The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors. An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses. So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation. On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes (read Courts) are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation.
5. The question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether a particular provocation was grave or not. So, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation, the court is generally prepared to assume that homicide was committed while the accused was deprived of the power of self-control. In some cases, it may be possible for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the murder with a cool head in spite of grave provocation. But such cases will be rare. So, when the accused has established grave and sudden provocation, the court will generally hold that he has discharged the burden that lay upon him under Exception 1 to S. 300 IPC.
6. What should be the approach of the court? The provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered or hypersensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness. The Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as accused would have behaved in the manner in which the accused behaved on receiving the same provocation. If it appears that the action of the accused was out of all proportion to the gravity or magnitude of the provocation offered, the case will not fall under the exception. The case can only fall under the exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged provocation is given, every normal person would behave or act in the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the accused was placed, acted.
7. In the words of Viscount Simon: "The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is negatived. Consequently, where the provocation inspires and actual intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm the doctrine that provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter seldom applies".

1 year ago | [YT] | 1