RANJIT GIRI

February 13, 2018 Case name: Sampurna Behura v. Union of India & Ors. Date of Judgment: February 09, 2018 In a recent case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court extensively deliberated on the status of Child care institutions in India under the The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The Bench in the case took strong note of virtual non-implementation or tardy implementation of laws beneficial to children, particularly, The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015. The Supreme expressed its concern in the case by stating that: What can a citizen do if the State pays no attention to his or her fundamental or human or statutory right, nor takes serious interest in fulfilling its constitutional or statutory obligations? What if that citizen is a voiceless child or someone whose voice cannot be heard over the di...

February 13, 2018 The Supreme Court yesterday in a PIL made a scathing attack on convicts contesting election and heading political parties. The Supreme Court remarked that  a convicted person cannot contest election. Then how can he form political party and select candidate. A criminal deciding who the people should vote for by itself goes against the basic tenet of democracy. The Supreme Court in the case was  prima facie  of the opinion that a convicted person cannot head a political party. However, the Court in the case has sought final reply of the Center in the matter within two weeks. Here it would be relevant to mention that in December last year, the Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme had passed an order, whereby the Bench had issued notice to the Union of India regarding law relating to disqualification under the Representation of People Act, 1951 in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parli...

February 12, 2018 Case name: In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through LRs. & Others Date of Judgment: February 08, 2018 In this recent case, Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court analysed the correctness of its decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki[1]. In this case, the Supreme Court held that land acquisition would be deemed to have lapsed and would be covered under the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) entitling the land owners to higher compensation if compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has not been paid to the land owner. The core issue in the case arose with reference to the interpretation of Section 24 of 2013 Act and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. What does Section 24 of the 2013 Act say? The Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Development Authority ...

RANJIT GIRI: Daughters have Same Right as Sons-SC : Daughter’s Right in Property-SC says Daughters have Same Right as Sons ========================================================= Feb...

Daughter’s Right in Property-SC says Daughters have Same Right as Sons ========================================================= February 03, 2018 Case name: Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & ors Date of Judgment: February 01, 2018 In the instant case, Two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court settled two legal propositions governing rights of daughters on coparcenary property. Firstly, the Court held that the Amendment Act of 2005 is applicable to living daughters of living coparceners on the date on which the Act came into force. Secondly, in the case the Court has stated that daughter become coparcener by birth in the same manner as son. The two intrinsic issues raised in the case were: Whether, the appellants (daughters) of a coparcener could be denied their share on the ground that they were born prior to the enactment of the Act and, therefore, cannot be treated as coparceners? Whether, with the passing of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the ap...