THE VERITY LIBERATE

 ~Preet. The Union government has informed the Supreme Court (SC) that state governments can now confer minority status to any religious or linguistic group, including Hindus. The Supreme Court had sought the Union government's answer in a petition seeking directives for the development of standards for recognising minorities at the state level. The term "minorities" appears in a few articles of the Constitution but is never defined.  The petition claimed that Hindus are a'minority' in six Indian states and three Union Territories yet were allegedly unable to benefit from minority-specific initiatives. Plea According to the 2011 census, Hindus have become a minority in Lakshadweep (2.5%), Mizoram (2.75%), Nagaland (8.75%), Meghalaya (11.53%), J&K (28.44%), Arunachal Pradesh (29%), Manipur (31.39%), and Punjab (38.40 percent ). In these states, they should be granted minority status in accordance with the concept established by the Supreme Court in its 2002 TMA

 ~Preet. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state legislature has the authority to levy taxes on lotteries run by other states within its jurisdiction. Previously, the Karnataka High Court ruled that substantial provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which prohibited internet gambling and skill-based gaming platforms, were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that lottery, gaming, and betting are taxed under the 2017 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The decision was made in response to appeals filed by the governments of Karnataka and Kerala against decisions of their respective High Courts to overturn laws enacted by their legislatures to tax lotteries organised and promoted by the states of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Manipur in Kerala, and Karnataka. The High Courts ruled that the two states' tax rules were unlawful and unconstitutional, and ordered Kerala and Karnataka to repay the money received as tax from lotteries

 ~Preet. A two-judge panel of the Supreme Court recently gave a divided ruling on whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. (POCSO). A police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the direction of a Magistrate, according to Section 155(2) CrPC. Section 23 of the POCSO addresses the offence of disclosing the identify of the victim of a sexual offence. One of the judges stated that disclosing the identity of a child who is a victim of sexual offences or who is in dispute with the law is a basic violation of the kid's right to dignity, as well as the right not to be embarrassed.  Child sexual abuse is a multifaceted issue that has a detrimental influence on children's physical safety, mental health, well-being, and behavioural characteristics. Child abuse and exploitation have been exacerbated by mobile and digital techn

 ~Preet. While hearing a criminal appeal against the Bihar government, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) recently chastised a counsel for submitting a'sealed cover report' to the court. Courts have regularly used sealed cover jurisprudence in recent years, for example, in the Rafale Fighter Jet Deal 2018, 2014, the BCCI Reforms Case, the Bhima Koregaon Case 2018, and so on.  It is a practise utilised by the Supreme Court and sometimes lesser courts of requesting or accepting material from government entities in sealed envelopes that only judges may open. While the theory of sealed cover is not defined by law, the Supreme Court draws its authority to apply it from Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules and Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. According to Rule 7 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, if the Chief Justice or court directs that certain information be kept under sealed cover or is of a confidential nature, no party will be permitted to access

The Supreme Court to inquire into the misuse of PMLA. ~Preet The Supreme Court is looking into charges that the government and the Enforcement Directorate have been abusing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA) (ED). Even "regular" crimes have drawn PMLA's attention, and assets of legitimate victims have been attached.  The PMLA was implemented in response to India's worldwide commitment to combat money laundering (including the Vienna Convention). Instead of being "cribbed, cabined, and confined," rights have been "cribbed, cabined, and confined."  The PMLA was enacted to combat the problem of money laundering, particularly as it related to the drugs trade. Currently, the offences included in the Act's schedule are far too broad, and in many cases have nothing to do with drugs or organised crime. Even the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), which is akin to the FIR, is treated as an "internal document" and is not

SC commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment, of a man accused of Rape and Murder of 7 year old. ~Preet On 9th of February 2022, the honourable Supreme Court of India, in a judgement related to rape and murder of a 7 year old, commuted the death sentence of the convict to a life imprisonment. This decision can act as an important precedent and a landmark judgment as the Three Judge Bench led by the honourable Justice A.M. Khanwilkar explicitly suggested that "the Judges must not be swayed in favour of the death penalty." The Author of the judgment, Honourable Justice Maheshwari, citing the progression in the concepts of penology ( Penology is a sub-component of criminology that deals with the philosophy and practice of various societies in their attempts to repress criminal activities, and satisfy public opinion via an appropriate treatment regime for persons convicted of criminal offences. ), held that, the prime motive of justice shall be "preservation of human life

"Take it all free": The illusions, the realities and  the concerns of Supreme Court. ~Preet From the very first day, this year has been painted in politics and has seen more rallies campaigns than  days. The reason being, assembly elections in 8 states, which are, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Goa, Manipur, Himachal Pradesh, Gujrat and Jammu & Kashmir.  The various political parties, to lure the voters are once again shooting unrealistic promises on en-masse, the shower of freebies promised by the parties certainly seems to be unrealistic, But this time, the Supreme Court is in a mood to take strict action against it. The Supreme Court on Tuesday called for a response from the federal government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the ongoing "tamasha" of a political party that promises or distributes "irrational gifts" using public funds. Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, judge A.S. Bopanna and Heema Kohli informed the Cente