1 Year Legal Current Affairs (May 2025 to May 2026) | ONE SHOT Marathon for LAW ENTRANCE

Hello and welcome to Legit. I hope my voice is audible to you. And good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon, good afternoon, great. So today we are going to cover everything. Okay? Whatever important legal affairs and all are there, we are going to cover that. For legal judgments, we have already made a separate video. If you have not watched it, you can go and watch it and all. So that is dealt with separately. Okay? The top landmark judgments that were there for 2025, all of those have been dealt with. You will find a separate video for that. And whatever like you know important cases are there, static-wise and all, we are going to cover that with the legal magazine in a separate video. Okay? Today we are going to focus purely on which legal affairs are important. The most important ones that were there. Okay? So we are going to look at the whole year: which ones are important, and along with that we are also going to understand what related provisions you need to keep in mind and which concepts you need to keep in mind. Okay? Yes, look, in this we are going to cover everything. Okay? We are going to cover it fully. So it will be like more than sufficient. Alright. So let us start. Okay? Because there is quite a bit of content. So let's not delay further.

So look, the first thing you will have to remember is that we are going to repeat some concepts a little more, and some concepts are a bit more important. So before moving on to like you know news and all, we are going to understand those concepts a little bit because they were quite in the highlight in 2025. Okay? In early 2025, meaning what does early 2025 mean? Like the period from May to July, okay? The period from May to July, these were quite prominent in it. Now in MU, we had seen that sometimes even from May it had been asked. That is why we are going to cover this as well. Now look, Article 227, all of you have read it in PT. Right? But the relevance of Article 227 is going to be seen the most by you. Just like we will discuss later on. We will discuss the controversy of Justice Yashwant and all. We will discuss like you know how the inquiry committee sits, what the procedure is, and all. So for this you will have to understand that what exactly is the power of the High Court under Article 227. So look, Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives two powers to the High Court. In that, the first power is that the High Court has jurisdictional, okay, the second power is administrative. Within the jurisdictional powers, the High Court has the power that if it sees that any subordinate court, meaning any district court, for example, has not made a correct decision. Right? It has given a wrong decision, then it can correct that. Right? That is, power to correct. Similarly, it can call. Like you know, it can tell it, like you know, that you provide the records to me. That is, the High Court has the power that like you know it can summon, saying, "How was this case proceeded? I need the record of it." So it can call for records, it can examine the proceedings, and it can also correct if there is any kind of defect. The second thing, meaning the High Court has another power under Article 227, that is the administrative power. Within the administrative power, what power does the High Court have? Obviously, what do people do in administration? They make rules. So similarly, the High Court can also prescribe general rules: how lawyers will conduct themselves? How cases will be handled? Similarly, it can call for returns and all. And under Article 227(3), okay? Under Article 227(3), what power does the High Court have? Under this, the High Court has the power that it can fix. Like, it can fix how much the court fee will be. The High Court can fix it. So this article becomes important in that sense. Okay? Article 227 and the scope of Article 227 you need to know. So what is in the scope? For example, look, we have three types of laws. One is civil law, after that comes criminal law, and then comes constitutional law. So this is constitutional law obviously, right, Article 227, but along with that, at the end of the day, you also file a writ. When you file a writ in the High Court, under which one will you file? You will file under Article 226, and you can also file a civil appeal, so the limitations in all these are different. If you are filing under Article 227, you will have to prove the grounds that are required for a writ, and the grounds you have to prove under this are not the same. First of all, look, you have to file a writ when you have no alternative remedy left. Only then your writ is entertained. Okay? Under Article 226. But under Article 227, when do you file? You file when you do not have an appeal option. When you feel that if I only appeal, my work will not be done, then you approach the High Court under Article 227, invoke it, saying that you exercise your jurisdiction here. That is why the High Court does not immediately reject the plea. Normally what happens? If, for example, you appeal a petition, saying, "I did not like this order, I see a problem in this order," then the court has the power, prima facie, that if it feels that okay, there is no solid point in it, it can reject it. But under Article 227, the High Court will look at it a bit more carefully. It will look at it more carefully than it does in an appeal. That is why it is a bit more beneficial. So people prefer it over an appeal. Okay? So appeal, writ, and Article 227 – the limitations of these three, the scope of these three is different, and you have to keep this in mind. There should be no confusion among these. Okay? Alright. So I hope there was no doubt in the first section and all.

The second one we have is Freedom of Speech and Film Certification. Now look, you know that freedom of speech is in which? It is given in Article 19 of the Constitution. Right? Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution talks about what? It talks about freedom of speech. And within that, there are reasonable restrictions. Where are reasonable restrictions given? They are given in Article 19(2). Now, under Article 19(2), you have eight restrictions. Right? Eight restrictions are given among them. Like which ones are there? Eight restrictions. For example, something related to security of the state. There is defamation, contempt of court, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality. Right? Or sovereignty and integrity of India. If something is threatening these or falls within this domain, then your speech can be restricted. But when we are restricting your speech, we have to keep certain things in mind. It is not that simply because there are restrictions under Article 19(2), that restriction is applied everywhere. If you have watched my video on judgments, which we discussed, I told you that in the Imran Pratapgahi case, okay, in the judgment that came in Imran Pratapgahi, the court explained about the doctrine of chilling effect. Okay, doctrine of chilling effect. Now, the doctrine of chilling effect can be directly asked in the examination: "In which case did the Supreme Court pronounce this?" So obviously, what should come to your mind? That it was said in Imran Pratapgiri. But Imran Pratapgiri did not only say that, like you know, "Yes, doctrine of chilling effect and all"; many things were said in it. For example, the Supreme Court, in the doctrine of chilling effect, first said that look, Article 19(1) is, meaning, superior to Article 19(2). What does this mean? That the restrictions provided – the eight restrictions given under Article 19(2) – do not mean that Article 19(1) is a lesser right. The right is big in itself. Okay? The restrictions are smaller than that. Secondly, they said that if there is a non-cognizable case and all, then a preliminary inquiry is important. The most important thing is that a preliminary inquiry means it is of 14 days, preliminary inquiry and all. So that means you cannot register an FIR like that. If a complaint is coming to you, the police are receiving a complaint, they have to see whether there is any solid evidence in the matter or not, or if someone just filed it for no reason. So here, Imran Pratapgiri was our comedian, and an FIR was registered against him, and the court reprimanded the police and said that we need the police to be trained properly. It spoke about the doctrine of chilling effect properly, and about Article 19 and Section 173 of BNSS, which talks about FIR, talks about preliminary inquiry, all these things were discussed. And in that same context, our topic of film certification also becomes very important.

Now, in film certification, what happened? Look, when any film, any movie comes, CBFC – you will know that it has a bold. Right? When a movie is released in theaters, it needs approval before that. So the Central Board of Film Certification, when it gives a certificate that "This is a movie of this grade," then according to that, people go to watch it. Now, what happened here? Under Section 5A. Okay? Under Section 5A of our Cinematograph Act, there is a right. Everyone has the right. Every film has the right that if you have made a film, you can exhibit it. Why do you make a movie? So that it can be exhibited in theaters. That is its purpose, right? But at the end of the day, if this is restricted, for example, if it is said that we are restricting this under Article 19(2) because it is going against decency or morality, then how will you challenge that? That is the whole point. So for that, the Supreme Court re-emphasized here that there is a test. Okay? The Supreme Court said that look, we already have a test for this. What do we see? Whenever we have to judge whether a film is like you know provocative or not, then for that we will see: Is there any reasonable person who is not overly sensitive and who possesses courage, would that person be incited after watching this movie? Would he be incited? And if the answer comes in the affirmative, that yes, he would be, then you can invoke Article 19(2). Apart from that, if you are invoking Article 19(2) anywhere else, then that means what will happen to Section 5A? It will be a violation of the Cinematograph Act, and that will defeat the whole purpose of our Central Board of Certification. Okay? So you will have to connect and keep all these things in mind because in the exam, interrelated content from any of these can appear. Okay? Alright. I hope there are no doubts.

The second thing that became important at this time, and it became important also because look, recently the elections in West Bengal were held, you must know and all. So again, because of the elections that happened in West Bengal, and of course what happened in 2025, due to that, NOTA was again discussed. Now, regarding NOTA, look, all of you know that NOTA came in which case? It came in PUCL vs. Union of India. Okay? NOTA came in PUCL vs. Union of India, yours. Right? Now, what does NOTA mean? None of the Above. That is, you are going to vote, but you do not like any candidate, or you do not consider any candidate worthy. So here, the court affirmed that look, NOTA's effect is nothing actually. That is, they said that look, NOTA is your right. No doubt about it. But NOTA's effect will be that, for example, let's imagine a situation. You went to vote in an election, and no candidate secured a majority. Let's say that 60% of voters chose NOTA. Then at that point in time, who will win? At that point in time, the one who got the second most votes. Right? The second most basically, the one who attained the majority, will win. Obviously. So NOTA does not have any kind of legal effect per se. Okay? It does not have any legal effect on the result. So you exercise NOTA as a right, but it has no effect. The Supreme Court has given full clarity on this. But NOTA is important to preserve for free and fair elections.

The second thing that becomes important for you related to elections and all is that look, who conducts the election? Obviously, the Election Commission of India conducts it under Article 324. Right? Now, when we are talking about free and fair elections, that means the secrecy of the ballot is very important. If the ballot is not secret, then again it becomes problematic. Okay? So secrecy of the ballot is very important. And in which case was it first said that there should be secrecy of the ballot? This was told in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India. Okay? S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India. In this, it was first discussed that if voting is happening and all, then the ballot should be secret, and if it is not, then that will be considered a violation of free and fair elections. Okay? Any doubts? Any doubt in these three things that we have discussed right now? We have only discussed preliminary stuff. Okay? Now we are going to move into May. But until now, any doubt? Okay.

Now look, let's move directly into June. Okay? Let's start ours. So look, I discussed the case of Mehnoor Fatima in the top landmark judgments. Now, the case of Mehnoor Fatima is very important. Okay? Because in this, a lot has been said related to property: what happens if the property is not registered? So in the case of Mehnoor Fatima, what happened was that there is a society, let's imagine a society. That society has a piece of land. They have bought it from someone. Okay? Let's say you live in a society, and that society has bought land from someone, and on that land the society is built. Now, what happens is that the government comes one day and says, "Hey, this is our land. We are taking it back." So here a problem arises. They say, "How can this be? This is our land. We have our registration paper too. We have all the evidence." So here, the question arises: simply because you have registered it, does that give you ownership? First question. The answer to that has already been given. The Supreme Court said that no, that is not the case. But along with that, they re-emphasized that if there is any property. Okay? It is immovable property. For example, two types of property exist. One is movable property. The second is immovable property. Movable property, like this pen. I can rotate it, move it. Immovable property, like your land, or any like you know tree attached to your land and all, or any building that you cannot instantly move. So whenever you transfer immovable property, generally it is done through a registered instrument, and unless and until its value is below ₹100, you have to register it. So for this, three sections become important for you. The first section that becomes important is Section 54 of TPA. Okay? Section 54 of TPA. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act says that if there is any property whose value is more than ₹100 and it is immovable property, then if you want to sell it, and through that sale you want to transfer valid ownership, like for example, A has to give a property to B, and that property is immovable and worth more than ₹100, then according to Section 54 of TPA, registration must be done. Similarly, our Section 17(1)(b), okay, Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – this says that if there is any property, regarding that, if you are making an assignment, meaning you are simply giving it to someone else for some time, or you are extinguishing your right regarding it, meaning you are saying that from now on I have no right, no concern with this property, or doing anything with that property, even by way of sale, then you will have to mandatorily get it registered. Okay? This is also stated in Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. And if you do not get it registered, then in Section 49, it is said that if you do not get it registered, you cannot present it as evidence. Okay? It is not permissible that if you did not register something that you should have registered, you are giving testimony of that thing in court. Okay? So you have to remember three sections: Section 49 of the Registration Act, Section 17(1)(b), and Section 54 of TPA. And which case? Mehnoor Fatima. Okay? Mehnoor Fatima vs. Visheshwara. So this is a very important case. Okay? Keep this in mind.

After that comes our AI, deepfakes, and personality rights. This is very important. Okay? For this, you do not need to remember the entire case name like you know, the Sadhguru case. But if you do remember it, then at least if it comes in the exam, you can handle it. Okay? So you can just remember it because it is a famous personality, you can remember it from that, right? Part three: current affairs. After that, look, comes our AI, deep personality rights. Now look, AI has grown a lot in everything. Right? You people might also be using AI, perhaps. So AI has become a day-to-day part of our life. And along with AI, its negative use has also come. Deepfakes have started being made, content and all. Right? Of famous personalities and all. So within Indian law, our intellectual property rights – every person has some personality rights. Like you have the right to your identity, your image, your voice. So if someone uses AI to make a deepfake of you, then it violates your personality rights. So in this, the famous case is the Sadhguru case. Okay? In the Sadhguru case, the Delhi High Court gave a judgment. Look, what happened in the Sadhguru case? Someone made a deepfake of Sadhguru, and then that went viral. So the court gave an interim order that look, you cannot make such deepfakes, and you cannot use AI to misuse someone's personality rights. So this is very important, and for this, the IT Rules have also been looked at. Okay? The IT Rules talk about this. Under the IT Act, what are the obligations of social media platforms? This has also become an important topic. Alright. So after that, come our family law cases. Many family law cases have happened. For example, see, there has been a case regarding the Uniform Civil Code.

What does one have? A personality right. For example, let's say there is any famous person, any famous actor, actress. Right? So they have their own personality right that you cannot use them in such content that causes their reputation to fall. Now, for example, let's say an actor always promotes healthy products. Now, without his consent, you start showing him in a deepfake, making it seem like he is promoting unhealthy products. Like, you know, doing things that he obviously wouldn't want to do. Meaning, it is harming his reputation. So, this would be considered a violation of his personality rights. Okay? So, our case happened related to this. So, here, two concepts came. One is, like, you know, injunction, and the second is dynamic injunction. Now, what is the difference between injunction and dynamic injunction? See, injunction is a civil remedy. Okay? If in tort, for example, there is sometimes nuisance and all. Okay? Someone is disturbing you repeatedly and all, then you can get an injunction from the court. Now, the court will say, "Don't do this." Right? Similarly, you can get an injunction under CPC as well, saying, "You will not sell the property." You won't do anything. Injunction means to order to refrain from doing something. But the problem with injunction is that you can only do that thing when the act is arising. But when we talk about the internet, when we talk about digital, like, you know, let's say cybercrime, then so many things are not static. Now, for example, if you say that this website is bad and I want an injunction against it, then that website is gone, but another website will come. For example, because websites can also be copied easily, right? So, websites can also be duplicated. So, if thousands of such websites come, and if you have to get court orders repeatedly, if you have to get injunctions repeatedly, then it will defeat the whole purpose. That's why we have the concept of dynamic injunction. Okay? So, dynamic injunction is quite in vogue. It was first discussed in the case of UTV Communications. Okay? UTV Communications, that case, was the first to discuss dynamic injunction. So, when we talk about IPR, dynamic injunction is a novel concept, and this Sadguru was considered to have a certain personality right. Therefore, a dynamic injunction was granted. Along with that, the Department of Information and Technology and all were told that it is your duty to stop such content whenever it appears or spreads and all. Okay? Related to this, like, we are going to see a little more, that now there is also a rule regarding AIs that if you are not removing the content within 3 hours, then for example, let's say this came in 2026, in March, I think, then a recent development has happened that if you are not taking down the content within 3 hours, then action can be taken against you, penal action can be taken. The government, the central government, has the power under Section 87 of the IT Rules, Information Technology Act, to say that take this down, and if you take it down within 3 hours, then the matter is over. If you don't, for example, if you haven't indicated that it is AI content, or you haven't indicated that it is taken from permanent metadata. Right? Or it is a deepfake and all. Then you can be penalized under Section 79. Okay? And the intermediary, meaning the website hosting it, will only be punished if there was a fault on its part. It's not like a blanket ban has been imposed. All right. After that, see, we have another important case, Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and all. So, see, what happened in Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar? This is related to narco test. Now, when we talk about narco test, in which article is it given? It is given in Article 20. Okay? And Article 21 is also related to this. How is it related? I will tell you now. See, in Article 20, there are three clauses. Clause 23 is important for you. Because 23 says that the right to, like, we all have the right against self-incrimination. Meaning, if you are arrested, then you cannot be pressured to confess yourself or to make statements that would make your situation more problematic or precarious for you. Right? So, this right is given to us in Article 23. Okay? There is a maxim for this as well. Okay? *Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare*. So, this maxim clearly states that no one will be forced to, like, no one who is an accused will be forced to, you know, provide incrimination against themselves and all. So, here, when we are talking about this maxim and Article 23, according to them, you cannot force any person. Now, see, there was a case, Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, in 2010. In this case, it was said that if you force a person to undergo, you know, brain mapping, or to give a narco test, or any polygraph test and all, then in all these tests, firstly, things are not 100% clear. It's not like it's 100% reliable, and also, you cannot force anyone because it would go against their privacy, Article 21, and also violate Article 23. And if you do so, it will not be admissible as evidence. Okay? It will not be admissible as evidence. Section 27 of the Indian Contract, like, the Indian Evidence Act, clearly states that if anything is taken without permission, or without, like, you know, following the rules, then it will not be admissible. Such evidence is not admissible. Okay? So, what happened in Amlesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar was that the judge had put a condition that I will give you bail, but you will have to undergo a narco test. So, here, the court said this clearly violates Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, because, well, you cannot force a narco test. If the accused themselves wishes to undergo a narco test, then the accused can give it. The accused should have their own voluntary choice. But you cannot put it as a condition that you will get bail only if you undergo a narco test. Because that would defeat the whole point of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka. Okay? So, this case is very important. Okay? After that, we have the Ahmedabad Air India Crash Case. So, see, in Ahmedabad, you must remember, even though a year has passed, that incident was very big and all, that an air crash happened. Right? There was a hospital, a college, and all. The flight crashed right there. So, with this crash, many things came up, like, you know, regarding air safety and all. So, there are chances of questions being asked related to it. Okay? Now, when we talk about, like, you know, aircraft safety and all, which laws do we need to look at related to it? For example, see, there are two types of laws. One is road safety, meaning land safety, and the second is air safety. Regarding land safety, we already have good judgments. For example, let's say M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India. In that, the concept of absolute liability was given, or strict liability, which came in Rylands v. Fletcher. So, all these already, like, tell us well how to handle it. But when we talk about aircraft safety, what is the proper international instrument for it? So, for that, we have the instrument, the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention came in 1999. Now, see, you should not confuse it. One is the Montreal Protocol. This is the Montreal Convention. Okay? The Montreal Protocol deals with hydrofluorocarbons. We are talking about the Montreal, like, Convention, which came in 1999. Okay? So, this deals with a completely different subject matter. So, don't confuse it in the exam. Okay? Now, see, when we talk about the Montreal Convention, the Montreal Convention clearly states that, for example, if there is anything. Okay? As long as the damage caused by it is up to 175,000, 176,000. I will write it. Okay? Up to 176,000, if any damage has occurred. Okay? It can be dealt with under this. It can be dealt with under this. Now, along with that, India had not ratified it instantly. For example, India did not adopt it in 1999. But India has its own act. Okay? India has its own act, the Carriage Act and all, according to which India adopted the provisions of the convention, the things said in the convention, regarding safety and all, in Schedule III in 2009, implicitly. Okay? And this becomes very important and all. But if you are genuinely asked which law would apply in India in case of the crash that happened in Ahmedabad, then you have to keep in mind that absolute liability and tort law will still apply here. Okay? In our country, since this is entirely domestic, the victims were ground victims. Okay? Victims were ground victims. So, for them, the concept of tort and absolute liability will apply. But you have to remember that if asked internationally, which convention deals with this? What is the related act in India? Then you should consider the Carriage by Air Act. Okay? And what are the damages? There is a limit of up to 176,000. It has been put in Schedule III. It was adopted in 2009. You will have to keep all these things in mind. And for compensation, our guidelines have already come in Pranay Sethi. Okay? So, the Pranay Sethi judgment came from the Supreme Court, in which guidelines were already discussed about how they will get compensation. So, the damage that occurred, the losses that occurred, how many people lost their employment, all these factors are considered when compensation is awarded. Okay? So, let's keep this in mind. Any doubts? Any doubts so far about what we have discussed? Okay. After that, see, we have the case of Justice Yashwant Sharma. So, see, the case of Justice Yashwant Sharma was, like, you know, quite important. It also came into the limelight quite a bit. You must remember, right? You wouldn't have forgotten. So, questions can be asked related to this. Now, what questions will be asked related to this? Of course, questions will be asked related to, like, you know, what is the procedure? So, see, first of all, removing a Supreme Court judge is not easy. Removing a High Court judge is also not easy. Okay? But to remove judges, there is a very complex procedure. Just as there is a complex procedure to remove the President, similarly, there is a complex procedure to remove Supreme Court judges. Okay? So far, the situation is that no Supreme Court judge has been successfully impeached. Okay? Supreme Court judge, important point. Okay? There was an attempt once. Okay? Our Justice Ramaswamy, in 1993, an attempt was made to remove him by impeachment and all. But the ruling party abstained at the last moment, so he was also not impeached. But proceedings were initiated against him. Okay? Now, see, when we talk about impeachment here, there is a certain procedure. It's not like we will instantly go to Parliament. No, we first have our own in-house panel of judges. Okay? So, the in-house panel generally has three members. Those three judges sit and investigate themselves what the matter is and all. If they feel that misconduct has actually occurred. Actually, the judge against whom allegations are made is guilty, then they will say that you are retiring, and the convention generally is that if it is said, then the judge, to save their dignity, will generally retire. Right? Obviously, because an in-house panel has been formed, it means that the internal matter will be dealt with there. But let's say the judge says, "No, I will not resign. I will not retire." At that point in time, then, like, Parliament comes into play. Now, when we talk about Parliament, their role is in Article 124. Okay? You have to remember Article 124. Article 124. And Article 217, if you talk about High Court cases, then you have to remember them, because within them, the same things that are done here will be done. But in a certain manner. So, see, what will these people do? Now, they will introduce a motion. Now, how many people will introduce this motion? So, for example, if it is the Lok Sabha, there will be 100 people. If it is the Rajya Sabha, there will be at least 50 members. We have the Judges Inquiry Act. Okay? We have a special act. Section 3 of it clearly states that if a motion is to be introduced to impeach, then there should be either 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. According to Section 3. After that, the Chairman, meaning the Speaker, will then accept the motion under 3(2) and the investigation will proceed under 4(5). Now, the investigation is ongoing, and they also feel the same thing, that yes, but along with that, there will again be a committee of three members. Okay? Parliament will also have a committee of three members. This committee of three members, okay? This committee of three members of Parliament will include a Supreme Court judge, a High Court judge, and a distinguished jurist. Okay? A High Court judge, a Supreme Court judge, and a distinguished jurist. These three people will sit. It's not like Parliament will make the decision itself. And after that, they will provide their assistance. Then finally, the report will be concluded, and only then, when the President approves the impeachment motion, can a Supreme Court judge be successfully removed. And what is the problem even then? You need a special majority. A special majority is needed. So, it is very complex. It is very complex to remove a Supreme Court judge. That's why it hasn't happened yet. It was only tried once against Justice Ramaswamy in 1993. But it didn't happen because the majority party at that time abstained. Okay? Okay, I will remove injunction. See, when we talk about injunction, normally, understand what right you have. For example, let's say the concept of tort. In tort, what is your primary remedy? Compensation. Okay? You will get money. Second, you have injunction. Injunction is generally granted in cases of nuisance. Okay? In cases of nuisance. Now, for example, let's say your neighbor is playing loud music. It's 10 PM, and they are still playing it. Now, generally, you must know that there are noise regulations and all, that after 10 PM, there should be no disturbance. So, they are playing it. So, you have a problem. Now, see, imagine yourself. Would it be more preferable for you to go to court every time and complain and get ₹5, or would it be better to get a court order, because of which, like, the person causing the nuisance, the court will say, if you do this, then we will send you to jail directly, or you will have to pay a very big fine, meaning we are strictly forbidding you, we are strictly forbidding you from doing this act. So, obviously, it would be better for you to get an injunction. But dynamic injunction is a step beyond that. In dynamic injunction, automatically, if any new website comes and it contains infringing content, or it defames you, or violates your personality rights, then it will be automatically struck down. It will be automatically struck down. For example, on YouTube, have you ever seen some content being automatically struck down? Because it contains copyrighted content. So, you should understand dynamic injunction in the same way: it is dynamic. It is always evolving. It is always adapting. Okay? So, I hope that's clear. So, keep that in mind. Okay? Many questions can be asked regarding judges and all, like, there is a three-member inquiry committee, it will be set up in 48 hours, we deal with it in Articles 24 and 124. The CJI will appoint the committee. A judge can resign, and all. Okay? Keep that in mind. After that, see, we have the Bihar Voters List Revision and all. So, in Bihar, like, what happened was that elections were held, of course, and there were some controversies related to it. Especially regarding Aadhaar, there was a problem, and like, you know, there was a problem that 65 lakh, like, voters. Okay? Concerns were raised at least that, like, you know, that 65, like, voters were not being found. Their names were not being found. Meaning, in the voters list, it was not known where they went. So, this was very problematic that where did the names of 65 lakh voters go at the end of the electoral list when you are talking about it. So, regarding this, okay? 65 lakh voters' names struck off in the draft. Now, what did the Supreme Court say here? See, the Supreme Court said one thing. First of all, this matter concerns the Election Commission. The Election Commission will deal with it under which act? The Election Commission deals under the RPA. Okay? RPA 1950. RPA 1950 is the Representation of the People Act. Representation of the People.

Act 1950, within this, your entire election procedure is contained, how elections will be held, when nomination papers will be filed, everything is given within this, okay? RPA 1950 to 1951, there are two acts, and then there are the Conduct of Election Rules, Conduct of Election Rules 1960. Now, see what happened in this? What happened was, firstly, you see, voters' names were not being found. So, of course, that is already a concern. The second problem was that many people raised a concern whether Aadhaar, Aadhaar card, is a proof of citizenship or not. So, the Supreme Court has consistently stated in its judgments many times that, look, Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship. Aadhaar card is only a proof of residence. Okay? Aadhaar card is only a proof of residence. It's not a proof of citizenship. Because, you see, any person, if, let's say, is residing in India for 182 days, even if they are a foreign national, they can still acquire residence, meaning, like you, through Aadhaar, that is possible. That is why Aadhaar cannot be considered as, like, you know, a valid, meaning, like, you know, proof of citizenship. So, the Supreme Court said that you have to ensure transparency. The 2016 act, the Aadhaar Act, came in 2016, okay? So, according to that, they said that, look, why did you bring Aadhaar? So that you can identify properly, increase accessibility, and the benefits and subsidies that you want to give, right? To the population and all, so that you can reach them properly. So, if you don't maintain transparency, then we will put a stay on the Aadhaar exercise. Okay? So, regarding this, the Supreme Court said. So, what is the important thing you need to remember from this? Firstly, remember that this happened in Bihar, right? There was a voter controversy of 65 lakhs. Secondly, regarding the Aadhaar card, what I told you, you need to remember that. And all, okay? And of course, meaning, meaning, the Aadhaar exercise and all that is going on now, you would know that, you are dealing with it in current affairs. Then comes our Supreme Court Collegium and all. This is a small news. Not that important. This will be more like a one-liner, if anything. Okay? So, in this, Justice Nagarathna objected because, you see, there was an elevation of Justice Pancholi, whereas many other senior judges were ignored. So, many questions were raised on the Collegium system. So, when questions are raised on the Collegium system, what should come to your mind? So, obviously, when we talk about the Collegium, you have to remember four cases for the Collegium. First is S.P. Gupta. Okay? S.P. Gupta versus Union of India 1980, that will come to mind. Okay? Then the 1993 Advocates. Okay? Supreme Court Advocates and all, that case you need to keep in mind and all. Okay? In 1998, you need to remember the Re-Special Reference Case. And of course, in 2015, your NJAC judgment came, which struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment. Okay? So, you need to keep all these things in mind whenever the Collegium is being discussed. Okay? All these things should be remembered by you because now, you know, the strength of judges in the Supreme Court has been increased, and in 2026, it has been talked about that the Supreme Court will be completely restructured and all, and in that, the benches of the High Court will also be increased, regional benches, main benches, and all. So, in that context, this news becomes quite important, that which judge, and regarding Justice Pancholi, the controversy that happened, so this name becomes important for you. Okay? Any doubts? Any doubts so far? Okay, after that, you see, our September news comes and all. Okay? So, see, if we talk about September, the most important news that came was related to Waqf. And you know, if you had attempted the AMU paper or seen it, then a direct question was asked in AMU related to Waqf. They asked what important aspect of Waqf the Supreme Court had stayed. So, meaning, you cannot ignore this at least for Jamia. So, see, regarding Waqf, the controversy, meaning, of course, meaning, it's not like it started this year or last year. It has been a long time. But an important judgment came regarding this in September, in which the Supreme Court clarified two-three things. Now, see, the Waqf Act, ours, was first in 1913. Then in 1930, an amendment happened. After that, it came in 1954. Then again, in 1964, an amendment happened. Then in 1995, a final act came. And when was the last amendment? An amendment happened in 2013, before the latest amendment bill. Okay? So, these years are important, all of them. Okay? Yes. There is an act in 1954. 1930 and 1930 are just small acts. In this, that thing was just made retrospective, and nothing else was done. 1954. In 1964, an amendment was made to the 1954 act. The 1995 act replaced the 1954 act, and in 2013, an amendment came, the Waqf by User one. Okay? Waqf by User, there was some elaboration on that. It was first introduced in the 1995 act. Now, see, what is Waqf? Waqf, basically, it's a simple thing. It's a permanent dedication of a property for a charitable, pious, or religious purpose. Okay? You can understand Waqf as a kind of like an usufruct. Okay? For example, there is some land. Now, that land is not being given to you. But the fruits that grow on that land, and all, you can derive benefits from it. It is possible. Okay? The concept of Waqf is quite ancient, right? It's not like it's from now. From Baghdad, meaning, like, no, it started and all. There also, meaning, the origin was like this, that some servants were given some plates and all. Okay? So, if you want to see Waqf in detail, there is a video on our channel regarding that too, you can go and watch it. But for now, just understand this much, that there was a lot of controversy regarding Waqf, many questions, meaning, meaning, came into trouble. Now, there were two-three things in it. Firstly, it was that, see, any person who wants to dedicate Waqf, they have to practice Islam for 5 years. This was the first clause. The second was, they said that Waqf by User, meaning, meaning, any person who, like, you know, has not formally dedicated any property to Waqf, can automatically, still, meaning, meaning, create Waqf. So, that was the second. The third was, they made a rule that now the Waqf Tribunal will not deal with it. Now, the government will have the power. The government will be the executive head who will decide whether a property is Waqf or not. And lastly, they said that any, let's say, national monument, or any, you know, public place and all, cannot be declared as Waqf. Okay? Now, these are some, meaning, provisions I am telling. There are actually many provisions in it. Now, the Supreme Court said that, look, brother, firstly, they upheld the Waqf by User introduced in 1995. They, like, the government said that this will not happen now, so the Supreme Court upheld this provision. They said it's fine, no problem. If you are not formally dedicating a property, if you are not formally declaring that this property is Waqf, then it will not be Waqf. So, the Supreme Court said there is no objection to this. But they removed this rule that you have to practice for five years, even after converting to Islam. So, that rule, they removed it. They said this rule is arbitrary, you cannot bring it. Okay? After that, they put a stay on that rule, which was your, this rule, they put a stay on it. You can also say stay and all. And along with that, they said that, look, brother, at the end of the day, any national monument cannot be declared as Waqf. So, there is no problem with this. Because this is done for public welfare. So, there is no problem with this. But they again put a stay, and on what? They put it on, like, say, the executive has the power to declare Waqf. So, they said that the Waqf Tribunals, the Waqf Tribunals we have in 1995, they have full jurisdiction. That any dispute related to Waqf will be dealt with by them. So, you cannot take this away. You cannot snatch their power. Okay? So, they explained about this. So, they stayed two provisions and upheld two provisions, in a way. Okay? So, these are the important things for you. Okay? Important is the Waqf Amendment Act that has come. Do not spam. See, if there are any queries related to the university and all, you can write them in the comment box at the end of the video. Okay? We will address it. All right. Otherwise, if there are any doubts regarding the class, you can ask now. After that, you see, our RTE Act and Minority Institutions and all comes. Right to Education Act. Okay? RTE Act is the short form for what? Right to Education Act. Now, see, the Right to Education Act, ours, came from what? It came from the 86th Amendment. Right? It came from the 86th Amendment. You know. Article 21A was added. Right? Came from the 86th Amendment, Article 21A was added. Now, see, what was the problem happening in the RTE Act? That, for example, we said that okay, meaning, in the RTE Act, what was it? Section 12 of it says that any institution, other than a minority institution, will have to give 25% reservations. Okay? They said that any school, any institution, if it is an educational institution, other than a minority institution, then it will have to give 25% reservations to economically disadvantaged sections. Okay? This is the rule. Now, in this, Section 12(1)(c) specifically excludes minority institutions, and this was also upheld in many judgments. So, this very thing was challenged in our Anjuman Ishat. Okay? In Anjuman Ishat, in the Anjuman Ishad-e-Taslim Trust case, it was challenged. It was said that, firstly, we don't understand why minority institutions are being excluded. Okay? This was challenged in the Anjuman Ishad Taslim Trust case. Remember this case name, it's important. They said that, look, brother, any educational institution, if quality education is not being provided in it, then what is its purpose? Right? If you are opening an educational establishment, then you have to provide quality education. Now, you are not coming under the ambit of the Right to Education Act. So, meaning, you are outside, so how will we check your quality? So, at least the students, okay, should get teachers who have qualified a common test, okay, a common test they have qualified, as per the RTE Act, everyone under the RTE Act has to qualify the TET test, okay, Teacher Eligibility Test. If everyone has qualified this common test, then there will be no problem. Otherwise, in Pramati, this Pramati, our Pramati Cultural and Educational Trust case, in which for the first time the exception was talked about, that minority educational institutions are exempted because Article 30 was made the basis for it. So, they said that this should not be given, this should only be given when quality education is being provided. So, here, in this case, there has been some dilution. That in Section 12(1)(c), an exception was given under the Right to Education Act. It is no longer absolute. Okay? So, keep this in mind. After that, you see, our Ladakh Statehood and Sixth Schedule and all comes. So, see, from Ladakh, there have been many demands that they should get statehood. This is related to the Sixth Schedule. Now, see, according to the Sixth Schedule, okay? Autonomous districts have been created. Okay? Autonomous, autonomous districts have been created. In which states? In four states. One is Assam, then Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. Now, when the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act came in 2019, and when the bifurcation was done, then demands started in Ladakh that we should also get protection under the Sixth Schedule, and we should also have our own Autonomous District Council. So, they demanded that give us full statehood. Okay? And what is the basis for this? Article 244(2) and 275(1). Article 244(2) and 275(1), both these articles are important. Keep them in mind. Okay? Because they are already available in these four states, and you have also done it in Jammu and Kashmir. So, why can't you do it for us? Okay? That is the main question. You already know who the activists are there, right? Sonam Wangchuk, meaning, who is advocating for this. After that, we come to: see, this is a small news. Not a very important news, just small news. So, see, here the Supreme Court allowed green firecrackers this Diwali. Why did they allow them? What do green firecrackers contain? So, green firecrackers, compared to normal firecrackers, contain potassium nitrate. Generally, what is in firecrackers is barium. Okay? But what is in this? Potassium nitrate. So, that is why it has been allowed. Similarly, in Nishant versus Gujarat, they specified that whenever check bounce cases happen, for example, let's say you go to deposit a check. Now, you go to deposit a check. It's possible that the person who gave you the check, or the person who gave you the check, might dishonor it. Meaning, meaning, they escaped by deceiving you. It is possible, right? Many people do it. So, check bounce is called when you submit a check and you don't get money. Because that check, meaning, is not even there. There are no funds in their bank account, so how will the bank give you? So, in that particular situation, a penal liability is attracted. There is a certain procedure. So, first of all, you have to remember which section is this? So, it is Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Checks, our, all these promissory notes, all these come under negotiable instruments. Okay? They are called negotiable instruments. That is why their act is the Negotiable Instruments Act. So, under Section 138, your check comes, and if your check bounces, and you do not reply to the notice within 15 days, like, say, I went to submit a check, now that check bounced, so I will send you a notice saying, look, yours has bounced, now you are not replying to me, you have absconded, 15 days have passed, you have absconded, so at that point in time, then a liability can be attracted against you, that you were doing this to deceive me. Okay? So, we need to keep this in mind. And one more thing is that whenever a check bounces, it is a separate and distinct offense. As many times as it has bounced, that many times it will be a separate offense. Okay? It's not a single offense. It's not a continuous offense. It's each a separate and distinct offense. But what's good is that, see, it's compoundable. So, let's say, if your check bounces sometime in the future, then at least it's compoundable, provided you have good intentions. Okay? So, Section 147 and all, it is compoundable at any stage. Any doubts in this? Any doubts in September? All right. After that, you see, our October comes. Not much has happened in October. Okay? In October, meaning, there are two-three things that you just need to keep in mind. One is that, see, the Karnataka High Court said that lawyers, meaning, again emphasized, meaning, see, lawyers are not allowed to solicit. Meaning, they cannot promote themselves like other professions. It's not like they are, like, you know, creating ads saying, come to us, we provide the best services. Like, you know, they cannot do that. Because the profession of lawyers is, it's very professional, right? It's quite dignified. So, that is why you are not allowed advertising, and if you do so, it will be a violation, it will be a violation of Bar Council Rules 36. Okay? Rule 36 of the BCI will be violated if you do so. Similarly, I have already told you about green firecrackers and all. Okay? Otherwise, they said that, see, regarding the property of minors, they talked a little. So, relate this a bit to contracts. Who is a minor? A minor is any person below 18 years of age, according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act. Or any person below 21 years of age, according to the Guardians and Wards Act. That is our minor. Now, if, let's say, a minor's property is being sold, then the minor himself has no liability. But you know that if there is no liability of a minor in a contract, then contracts can still be made for minors if they are for their benefit. So, in this, it has been said that if a father sells the property of his minor son or minor daughter. Then the transfer of that property will be void. If the adult children reject it within 3 years. Okay? If, let's say, there is a minor. Okay? He becomes an adult after 2 years. He now has the option to reject this transfer within 3 years. If he doesn't, it will be approved. But if he rejects it, then this transfer will not happen. So, in these cases, in such types of cases, the transfer is conditional. It is not absolute. It's a conditional transfer. Compoundable means anything that can be settled. For example, let's say there are two people. Right? They are going to court. Now, normally what happens? In criminal cases, in criminal cases, it is not compoundable. Right? Meaning, you can't say. Okay, fine? You stole from me. I forgive you. Let it go. It doesn't happen like that. But in compoundable, what happens?

That it is you who can forgive. You can, like, you know, resolve things amongst yourselves. Meaning, things. You can say, "Okay, fine, I've changed my mind." Okay? "You give me some money, whatever you can give, I am withdrawing this case against you." So, compoundable means whatever can be settled. Okay?

Then comes November. So, look, in November, regarding the Nithari killings, quite an important thing came up. I have explained the judgment in detail regarding this. You can go and watch it again on the channel. It is in our top, like, landmark judgments of 2025. So, look, what happened in the Nithari killings was that Surendra Kohli, who was our main accused, regarding him, no evidence was found, no evidence was found, and he got acquittal. Look, after 20 years, meaning, look, the Supreme Court found out that he has already been acquitted in 12 cases, and after that, the 13th case is still ongoing, and after 20 years, he is getting acquittal. So, this raised quite complex questions, like, you know, regarding our criminal trials and all. But the main important thing for you from an examination point of view is what? So, you have to remember this. First of all, look, Surendra Kohli, with whom was his name related? Nithari killings. When is he getting acquittal? After 20 years. And here, the most important thing you will have to remember related to this is that any confession before the police. Okay? Confession before police is not, it's not admissible. You will have to keep this in mind. Okay? So, Section 23 to 25 of the IPC, sorry, becomes important for you. Okay? You don't have to go and look at the sections. You just need to remember their numbering. That's it.

The second important thing, which is the most important. Okay? Is what was discussed regarding tribal weddings. Now, in Hindu marriages, generally what happens, right? If you look at the Hindu Marriage Act, its Section 2(2), okay? Of the Hindu Marriage Act. Okay? Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it normally excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application. Meaning, whatever rules, whatever conditions apply to Hindus, okay? Then they will not apply to Scheduled Tribes. Because Section 2(2) of the Act expressly excludes it. But here, the Delhi High Court clarified that if, let's say, there is a couple, okay? And they have received an exemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act. And they, by their own will, follow the property, which is a Hindu rite, right? A Hindu ceremony and all, taking seven rounds. So, if they follow this ceremony by their own will and conduct their marriage according to, you know, all the ceremonies in a traditional Hindu wedding. Then, at that particular point in time, it will be considered that they have forgone the exemption that was given to them under Section 22 of the HMA. Meaning, they will now be liable. They will now be subjected to the provisions of the HMA. So, meaning, here it was said that what matters is under which rules you are getting your marriage conducted. Even though exemption has been granted to you, but if you are getting yourself married according to a traditional Hindu wedding, then the applicability can be on you too. Okay? So, this is what they said.

After that, the Kerala High Court talked about elephant tusks. So, in this, the Wildlife Protection Act becomes important for you. So, look, you cannot sell elephant tusks. Its commercialization is prohibited. Under which? Section 49, okay? Under Section 49 of the WLA, the Wildlife Protection Act. Okay? Your WPA, 1972, under this, it is prohibited. It is not allowed. Okay? And Schedule One of the Wildlife Protection Act contains what all things you cannot sell, like, you know. Prohibited, meaning, whatever things. So, here they said that, look, you cannot sell elephant tusks because hunting elephants is prohibited under the Wildlife Protection Act. So, these are, like, small things. And all. Mainly, you have to remember this. This is the most important. Okay? This is the most important judgment.

After that, look, we have December 2025 and January 2026. So, as I had told you, and all, we have also done their separate legal affairs. You can go and watch that later too. Okay? But it will be fine. We are covering everything. The important things. So, look, here the Bombay High Court said that if there is any civilian award, like, say, under Article 18 of the Constitution of India, what is said is that no person can be given titles anymore, like Raj Bahadur and that type, right? Everyone is equal. No one can be given such a title, and no one will accept a title from a foreign government either, unless it is an academic title. So, here it was said that, like, say, you know, you received Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, Bharat Ratna. That's great for you. But it doesn't mean that you start using those titles as a prefix or suffix when you are, you know, filing a petition. So, here there was a person. He filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, writing "Padma Shri Award." So, here they said that this is not permissible. Okay? You cannot use it as a suffix or prefix when filing the petition, thinking that the court will, you know, hear your matter first. You cannot use it like that. Okay?

After that, the Supreme Court has given quite good guidelines this time. Okay? Regarding child trafficking and all. They explained that there is a need to enforce the Palermo Protocol. Which protocol? Palermo Protocol. So, look, the Palermo Protocol came in 2000. This is short for UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. And in India, which provisions deal with this related to child protection? POCSO is one. Okay? Immoral Traffic Prevention Act is yours. Okay? Of 1956. It was also amended later in 1986. So, all these acts and protocols become important for you, at least by name. These are single-liners only. Detailed questions will not come on these, but they become important for single-liners.

After that, the most important thing is this new right under Article 21. So, under Article 21, the Supreme Court said it includes the right to menstrual health. In which judgment did it say? In Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. Union of India. Okay? In Dr. Jaya Thakur vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that the right to life, when you are talking about, and all, okay? Or personal liberty, it includes menstrual health, meaning you have to ensure for institutions, schools, colleges, universities, that proper, you know, like, napkins are available, proper, like, you know, whatever things should be there, they are all there. And if they are not, then it will be a violation of Article 21.

After that, the most important thing is the UGC regulations that have come. Now, UGC regulations have come in 2026, and there was a lot of controversy regarding this. Many things, like, you know, came up. Now, what was the problem? The problem arose because, look, UGC, in 2012, had given its guiding principle. Okay? So, UGC gave a guiding principle in 2012 that, like, say, any college, if at the time of admission, or let's say, at the time of selection, or counseling, at any stage, discrimination cannot happen with anyone on the grounds of sex, religion, caste, place of birth, etc., etc. Now, what was the problem with this? The problem was that they gave a guiding principle. Meaning, it was not binding. It was not binding. Now, the problem with this was that, look, in 2012, guiding principles came, but universities were not following them. Also, the timeline they gave was quite long. They gave a 60-day timeline. A 60-day monitoring timeline was given in 2012. So, considering all these things, UGC said that what is the point of giving guiding principles when you are not following them? So, they have now given new guidelines. According to those new guidelines, on which there has been a lot of controversy, what did they say? They said, first of all, this will be binding. First of all, this will be binding. Now, when they said this will be binding, questions were already raised about whether UGC even has the authority. Does UGC, which is a body, have the authority to create binding recommendations? That was the first question. Secondly, like, you know, they have expanded things. What did they say? This will include SC, ST, OBCs, women. You have to include all of them, persons with disabilities. Okay? You have to include all of them in the committee when you are talking about it. You have to take care of all of them. After that, they talked about grievance redressal, that there should be grievance redressal officers present there, right? In universities, etc., to handle affairs. They said that within 24 hours, if any complaint arises that, like, discrimination has happened against me, right? Then within 24 hours, you have to address it. And if you register within 24 hours, registration will happen. Within 15 days, there will be reporting regarding it. 15 days for reporting, and within seven days, you have to take action. Okay? Within seven days, you have to take action. So, meaning, they have given a very strict timeline compared to the previous time. And they said if anyone, any university, does not do this, then their degree, we will not consider it valid. If any graduate is graduating from that university, we will not consider their degree valid. And also, these provisions extend to online distance courses as well. It's not that it will only be available for those attending offline. It will also be available for online distance courses. Also, it will be applicable to students, faculty, non-teaching staff, teaching staff, everyone. Meaning, it is applicable. So, they have broadened it considerably, made it binding regulations, and set a strict timeline. So, considering all these things, many universities said, "How can this be done?" So, that's why there is an issue raised about this, and the Supreme Court has put a stay on it and said that we will see the matter now. So, there is no finality on this yet.

Then comes, look, there was a lot of controversy regarding the death penalty. Okay? So, look, regarding the death penalty, you have to remember two-three things. First of all, look, the death penalty is always debatable. Okay? The death penalty is always debatable in any jurisdiction. Wherever you go, it's always debatable whether it should exist or not. But in India, the method of execution of the death penalty is given where? So, it is given in Rule 856 of the Prison Rules. Okay? Rule 856 of the Prison Rules and Schedule Two of 474 BASS. In both of these, you will find the rule that if a death penalty is to be awarded in India, how will it be awarded? So, in India, it is by the method of hanging. But if you look at the same thing, like, for example, in the US, it is different there. There, they inject injections. That has also been challenged under the Eighth Amendment there. And if you look in the UK, then in the UK, the death penalty is completely banned. Okay? Okay? The death penalty is banned since 1965. So, regarding this, controversy has arisen that why are we still following hanging, and whether the death penalty should exist or not. So, you have to keep these provisions in mind. Yes. Yes, UGC is a statutory body and it's quasi too, and UGC's, yes, you are absolutely right, University Grants Commission. Any doubts so far? Any doubts in December, January, whatever we have discussed? Any doubts? Okay.

Now, look, we have two-three things that I need to emphasize a bit. Okay? We are not done yet. One more thing that happened, important, in January itself, was regarding reservations. Okay? Regarding reservations, in what? In the State Bar Council. So, look, in State Bar Councils, reservation has now been given to women. This is an important thing. In State Bar Councils, not Bar Councils. So, 30% reservation will be given. Through the 106th Amendment, they are already going to get it in Parliament, right? In 2029. Through this, 30% reservation will be given. Which article is involved? Article 15. 30% reservation will be direct. 20% and 10%. 20% will be direct reservation in elections. Meaning, for example, like, say, you are elected. Right? So, they will be directly elected in 20% seats. But the 10% seats, let's say, if there are 100 seats, then out of 100 seats, like, say, 20 seats are reserved, and 10 seats are remaining, and the rest are already filled, so they will be filled by co-option. What is co-option? Co-option simply means that, like, say, someone who is already a member, who is already part of the State Bar Council committee, will say, "Okay, I am thinking, I feel that this member should also be part of this committee, or this member should also be part of our Bar Council, even if they haven't filled their own nomination papers." So, they can also be brought in. Like, members are nominated in Rajya Sabha. Similarly, in 10 members, say, 10 members will be nominated. So, 10% will be co-opted here. 20% will be direct election. But overall, how much are they getting? They are getting 30% reservation. Okay?

After that, look, we have the Right to Disconnect Bill. So, the Right to Disconnect Bill is again very important. The Right to Disconnect Bill, who introduced it? So, Supriya Sule introduced it. Okay? This is a Private Member's Bill. Who introduced it? Supriya Sule introduced it, in which two sections are important for you. First is your Section Seven. Section Seven. Second is your important Section Eleven. Section Seven talks about the right to disconnect. Meaning, like, say, you are working. You don't want to work all the time, right? You expect, right, that in your daily life, if you are working, you should get a chance to relax. But many times, you must have seen that either your parents, or, like, your relatives, say, sometimes you see that even after coming from work, they remain stressed. Why do they remain stressed? Because even at that time, they are getting calls from the workplace. So, this bill has been brought for them, that when you are outside of work, like, after 9 to 5, when you have finished your job, after that 5 PM, as soon as the clock strikes, after that, you should not talk about work, there should be no pressure on you related to work. So, that is the right to disconnect. And if, like, say, you don't pick up the phone, then no penal action can be taken against you. No untoward action can be taken against you by the employer, like, "Oh, this person doesn't pick up the phone, so I won't give them a promotion, or I will fire them." So, such actions cannot be taken. Okay? This is the right to disconnect, which is given in Section Seven. Section Eleven talks about that if, like, say, you still respond to messages of your own will, pick up calls, talk, then what is that? That is overtime. Right? You are working beyond your time, right? So, it is overtime, so you should get paid for overtime. Okay? You will get paid for overtime. But again, what is the important thing? This is a Private Member's Bill. So, whatever is here, it really depends whether it will pass or not. But this is a good act. Okay? It's a good bill.

After that, yours is the last thing that happened in January, which is related to the Aravalli Hills. So, look, regarding the Aravalli Hills and all, quite a lot of things, like, you know, problematic things arose related to the environment. Now, when I am talking about the environment, what do I mean? Look, Aravalli Hills and Aravalli Ranges. Two important concepts. There are hills, then there are ranges. Okay? Hill means, like, say, some terrain. Let's say this is a terrain. Okay? Let's say this is a terrain. So, its 100-meter area. Okay? Its 100 square meters comes under hill. But its 500 meters, okay? 500 meters comes under ranges. So, ranges are obviously broader than hills. That's the first thing to keep in mind. Now, what happened was that, look, in Aravalli, there are protected forests, right? Protected forests, obviously. So, they said that, look, beyond 100 meters, you can do mining. Within 100 meters, you cannot do mining. But exceptions were also given. What exception was given? The exception was given that, like, say, if there is atomic energy, or any minerals, like, you know, related to that, or any strategic minerals that fall under the First Schedule, or anything that falls under the Seventh Schedule of the MMDR Act (Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act). Okay? Seventh Schedule of the MMDR Act. So, if anyone fulfills all those conditions, or fulfills even one of those conditions, then you can do mining even within the 100-meter zone, the eco-sensitive zone, wetlands. So, this was heavily criticized that, look, 100 meters is already so small, and you are allowing exceptions within 100 meters, and then allowing mining. So, this will cause a lot of damage, harm, like, you know, to the Aravalli Hills. So, that's why the Supreme Court has put a stay on it, and they said that we will wait. So, the Indian Council of Forestry Report, meaning, the Indian Council of Forestry, will give its report, after which a full decision will be taken on this. Okay? So, keep this in mind that 100 meters is a buffer zone, and what are the important things that I told you. So, there is the Seventh Schedule of the MMDR Act. Okay? The First Schedule, yours. Keep all these in mind, or any strategic minerals or atomic energy related.

After that comes, look, February. A lot happened in February too. First of all, let's talk about, like, small things, like the Delhi Excise Policy case and all. So, look, here Mr. Arvind Kejriwal has been, like, released by the Rouse Avenue Court.

It was done. He said, "Look, there is no evidence against them at all. You have arrested so many people, but at the end of the day, you have no story. You simply have not provided any proof of evidence." So here, two important concepts become important for you. First, you must understand: what is the difference between arrest and discharge? Or between acquittal and discharge? There is a distinction. Acquittal means, for example, the entire trial was conducted, and after that, the court said that you are innocent. That is, what happened to you? You were acquitted. Right? But what happens in discharge? In discharge, it happens that, for instance, suppose there is no evidence against you. There is no material against you for a trial to take place. There is not even that much material. So the same thing happened here. Here, Arvind Kejriwal and the 23 accused have been discharged. Okay? Where is the power to discharge given to us? It is given in Section 250 of the BNSS. Okay? Section 250 of the BNSS has the power to discharge. So here, the Rouse Avenue Court has discharged them. It has not acquitted them. Now this has been appealed to the High Court, of course. Okay? ED will do whatever – we will tell you about the matter later.

After that, look, your next point comes: the Supreme Court gave some clarity regarding a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Look, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a matter. It was quite a sensitive matter. What happened in that matter? The pajama string case – like you know, it must have appeared in a newspaper, you might have read it and all. So in that, the question arose: whether loosening of pajama strings would be counted as outraging the modesty or whether it would be counted as an attempt to rape. So the opinion of the Allahabad High Court was that it will be counted as an attempt to rape. Okay? Which is given in Section 70 of the BNS. So the Supreme Court said, "No, when we talk about attempt, we have to show more than preparation." Right? There are stages of a crime. The first is intent, then preparation, then attempt, then commission. Now, in the loosening of pajama strings, which essentials are being fulfilled? Outraging modesty is being fulfilled under Section 74 of the BNS. The attempt is not being fulfilled. So, we – okay – meaning we will not give an answer merely persuaded by emotional sentiments; here the technical answer will remain that it will not be an attempt to rape; it will be counted as outraging modesty. So the Supreme Court has given clarity on this.

Now after that comes your triple talaq – talaq-e-hasan. Look, controversy has now arisen on this. For example, in the Shayara Bano case, you might know – okay – in the Shayara Bano case, there was a bench of five judges and a majority of 3:2 came. So what did they say? That from now on, talaq-e-biddat – right? – talaq-e-biddat – it will no longer be constitutional because it violates a woman's right. You cannot give triple talaq by saying it three times and seeing it on WhatsApp – like, you know, you cannot give talaq. So the Supreme Court had already said this in Shayara Bano. Now here, Benazir Heena – she is a journalist of ours. Okay? So she has raised a question that, look – meaning – let me explain, there are different ways. Okay? Of divorces. For example, there is talaq, talaq-e-biddat – now this has already been struck down in Shayara Bano. Okay? Then there is your talaq-e-hasan, talaq-e-ahsan, khula, mubarak. Khula is the wife's right. Only the wife can exercise it. In mubarak, both do it by mutual consent. Okay? Ahsan means it is considered the best, the most approved. Its meaning is that the person pronounces it once. Then when three months of iddat pass, okay? Then after that, the divorce becomes successful. And in talaq-e-biddat, you can say it anytime, continuous talaq – talaq, talaq, and all. Okay? But talaq-e-hasan – it is different. In talaq-e-hasan, what happens? In that, you have to say talaq three times again, but with a gap. For example, you said – let's say – in January, meaning on the first of January, you said talaq. Then on the first of February, you said talaq. Then on the first of March, you said talaq. So this becomes your talaq-e-hasan. During this period of time, you have to ensure – meaning the period of purity (tahr) and all – okay? So you have to ensure that you are not cohabiting with your wife. Okay? Because if you are cohabiting or re-establishing relations, then the timeline will restart again. So, this thing was challenged by Benazir Heena. She said that here, the right is unilateral. It is only with the husband. The wife has no right in this. So again, it is like – meaning – what difference remains? In talaq-e-biddat also, you struck it down on the same ground, that the wife's right is being violated. Here also the wife's right is being violated. So this too should be struck down. But the Supreme Court has currently stayed the matter. The Supreme Court has not given a final decision on this yet. Okay? But this is the name of the important case. What the issue is – that is important.

After that, I have already told you a little bit regarding AI deepfakes. So look, regarding AI deepfakes, first thing – let me tell you, look, deepfakes have increased a lot. In the Sadhguru case, we already saw that they violate personality rights. Now the Central Government has the power under Section 87 to make rules that any AI content – you have to signify that it is AI content. If you are genuinely making someone believe that this is very well made or there should be a permanent meta-base with you – meaning transparency should be there from where you took it – and you have to take it down within 3 hours if you are told that you need to take down this content. If you do it, then it's good. If you don't, then you can receive punishment under Section 79. Okay? The intermediary will get punishment.

Then – restaurant service charge illegal. This is a very small thing. Not many questions will come from this and all. In this, the Delhi High Court simply said that look, restaurant charge – you have to inform. For example, suppose you go to a restaurant to eat food, then you cannot do that – you know – when they are giving you the bill, they didn't tell you that we have added a service charge. They have to tell you. Because service charge is optional, right? It's like a tip. Just as you give a tip voluntarily, it's like that. So if you include it mandatorily without informing, then that is very problematic and that is an unfair trade practice. Okay? That is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

The rest – Kerala has been renamed to Keralam. You must already know this is a part of current affairs. Right? So under which article has this been done? It has been done under Article 3. Because under Article 3, there is power – like, you know – if suppose the state assembly passes a resolution, then the Ministry of Home Affairs – meaning – looks at it, reads it, understands it, then the matter goes to the President, and only then – and after that, it is also seen how much money will be required, right? Because, look, brother, if you change anything – meaning change the entire name – then a lot of money will have to be spent, changing each and every signboard. So a lot of things are taken into consideration. It is not such a simple matter. But what is the important thing? Kerala has now been made Keralam under Article 3. Okay? There is also a detailed video on this on our channel. You can go and watch it. In that, you will get clearly – meaning, you know – the whole process of what is done to change the name of any state. Any doubts? Any doubt so far? Any doubt? Okay.

Now after that, look, we come to March's current affairs – meaning legal current affairs. In March, the most important thing happened – the Harish Rana case, you must know. Right? The Harish Rana case happened. Gujarat passed the UCC. There was talk regarding the Transgender Amendment Bills – so quite significant things happened in March. So look, first thing – let's start a bit with Harish Rana. Right? So look, in India, there are two concepts. If you go and look at Article 21 – what do we have? In that, the right to life – the question that is always a reason regarding right to life is: does right to life include right to die? This question has arisen many times – that if Article 21 gives me the right to life, does it also mean I have a right to die? So regarding this, the first time the question arose was in Maruti Dubal. It arose in Maruti Dubal vs State of Maharashtra. They said, "Yes, absolutely." Here, there was a police officer. Okay? And he was very severely injured. So living each day became difficult for him. So here, they said that you have a right to die.

After that, the Supreme Court – in P. Rathinam vs State of Punjab – P. Rathinam vs Union of India – like, you know – they say that yes, absolutely. And when they say that right to life includes right to die, after that the problem starts. Because then, in Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab – then comes your judgment in Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab. So in Gian Kaur vs – meaning – let me write it down. Okay, I'll write all the cases. Maruti Dubal vs State of Maharashtra. After that, your case is P. Rathinam. Then is Gian Kaur. Okay? And after that, your next one will be Aruna Shanbaug. So in Gian Kaur, it was then said: if I have a right to life, and if I have a right to die, then Section 306 IPC, which talks about abetment – okay? – that if you are abetting any person to commit suicide, it is a punishable offence. Right? So if I have a right to life and right to life includes right to die, then if I am encouraging someone – "Brother, die, die" – then it would mean that I am encouraging him to exercise his right. Right? This logic is actually given. So the Supreme Court felt, "This is very problematic, man. What have we said?" So they say, "No, no, no – right to life does not include right to die." Okay? But you have the right to a dignified death. You have the right to a dignified death, but right to life does not include right to die. So in Gian Kaur, that thing was reversed.

Then, in the Aruna Shanbaug case, what happens? A nurse – meaning – who was sexually assaulted, she goes into a vegetative state. And when she goes into a vegetative state, many questions arise: should life support be withdrawn or not? Whether there is a right to passive euthanasia or not? So the Supreme Court recognizes that yes, there is a right to passive euthanasia and gives some guidelines. They say that if such a case ever occurs, the High Court will deal with it. But they still do not say, "Yes, grant passive euthanasia." Okay? They do not grant it. They only recognize it.

Then comes Common Cause vs Union of India in 2018. In Common Cause vs Union of India 2018, the concept of advance directive and living will is recognized. In that, it is said that if you feel you are going to be in a situation where you cannot speak for yourself or you cannot give consent about what should be done with you, then for those particular situations, what should you do? You can make a living directive or advance directive – a living will. Right? You do the same, don't you? Why do you make a will? Because you know that if death ever comes, then at the end of the day, it will be known how to distribute my property. Similarly, regarding medical conditions – how you should be treated. If you are in a vegetative state for so many years, should life support be withdrawn or not? For all these scenarios, you can make an advance directive or a living will. This living will or advance directive must be made in the presence of witnesses and must be attested, and its authenticity is important – you have to verify it.

But look, in Common Cause vs Union of India, the rules were quite strict. Because they said, look, attestation – meaning – for that, you have to go to a judicial magistrate. Things were quite strict. Later, in 2020, they relaxed it. They said, "Okay, fine, a gazetted officer can also do it, a notified officer can also do it." Now the rule has become that look, if anyone needs euthanasia – passive euthanasia, of course – then first there will be a primary medical board, second a secondary medical board, and there will be a treating practitioner. The treating practitioner will see if there is a living will or not. If there is a living will, then the primary medical board that is constituted – in that, one will be the doctor who is treating you (a registered medical practitioner), and two – meaning – competent doctors who have good experience. And these people will give a report within 48 hours. After that, a secondary medical board will sit; it will also give a report within 48 hours. But who will appoint this? The Chief Medical Officer will appoint. And when both these boards say together that yes, it should be done, then the matter will go to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Okay? Who will this matter go to? Sorry – it will go to your Judicial Magistrate First Class. And he will consider whether it should be granted or not, and after that, finally, withdrawal will take place. But for whom was this rule limited? This rule was for a person who is on a ventilator, in a vegetative state.

Now the Harish Rana case – it was quite complex. Harish Rana was not on a ventilator for 13 years. He was on a tracheostomy feeding tube. Okay? So he had tubes for breathing. He had feeding tubes for eating. Nutrition was being provided – clinically assisted nutrition. So he was not on a ventilator. So the question arose: are they covered by the scope or not? Regarding passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court first said they are not covered. His parents went to the Delhi High Court in 2024 and also to the Supreme Court again. So the Supreme Court, for the first time, reconsidered it when his condition started deteriorating significantly – that we cannot apply strict rules. We have to see the sensitivity of the matter. So here, the Supreme Court for the first time applied the things that were discussed in Aruna Shanbaug and Common Cause. Okay? And for the first time, this case became one in which passive euthanasia was granted. Okay? And in this, one more thing was said – the Supreme Court actually said two things. First, they said that the government should create a scheme so that if any person – meaning parents etc. – they do not have to withdraw out of compulsion. And second, they said that the 30-day reconsideration period – we are revoking it. We are revoking it. Okay? So this becomes important for you because many things have been discussed in it – passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, and all. Active euthanasia is obviously not allowed. It is not allowed in India. It is allowed in some countries. It is not allowed in India. In the Netherlands, for example, it is allowed. So active euthanasia is still illegal. That is obvious, and it will be dealt with under murder or culpable homicide under Section 100 or 101 of the BNS. Okay, so keep this in mind. Don’t worry – the question practice – meaning – whatever we are discussing will be combined. Okay? So this will all be integrated into you. Okay?

After that, look, we have the Supreme Court's conversion case: Chinta Anand vs State of Andhra Pradesh. Okay – Chinta Anand vs State of Andhra Pradesh. Now in this, look, what did the Supreme Court say? In this, the Supreme Court said that the caste – like SC/ST – the caste – it only remains as long as you are a Hindu. The moment you convert – for example, a person is a Hindu. Now in Hindus, look, who all come? In Hindus, of course, the person who practices Hinduism will come. Buddhists also come, and your – like, you know – Sikhs also come. So you have to keep in mind that in Hindus – meaning – we are including Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists – all three are included. Now here, it was said that look, casteism is very unique and very specific to Hinduism only. So that is why you cannot, on your own, say that I am converting and I still want the benefits. Because when you are converting, it is implied that you will no longer have that problem. So that is why they said in the Chinta Anand case – there was a person who had converted to Christianity – meaning – he had converted to Christianity, and he was saying that I am an SC. So here, the Supreme Court said, "That won't work. Now you have become a Christian. In Christianity, there is no such problem of casteism. So you cannot claim reservation. You cannot claim the benefits that are granted to SCs." Okay?

After that, there is Gujarat UCC. Okay? After that, there is Gujarat UCC. Also, keep one more thing in mind. Look, I am talking about SCs – Scheduled Castes. I am not talking about Scheduled Tribes. The matter of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes is different. With Scheduled Castes, you remain one only as long as you are a Hindu. Scheduled Tribes – that is a completely independent thing. It is not at all affected by religion. So do not forget this. Okay?

After that, look, Gujarat has become the second state to pass the UCC. Okay? Gujarat has become the second state to pass UCC. Along with that, in Gujarat, another thing has happened – they have now talked about registration: that you have to register marriage within 60 days, and they have also talked about living relationships, with a timeline of 30 days. So that means that now –

He has said that parental consent is essential. Parental consent is important. If you are in a living relationship and you want to get married, let's say, then you will have to take parental consent, and you will have to give it to the marriage officer, who will be there when you go to the marriage officer, that yes, we have parental consent. So this has been criticized; of course, you know, so whatever updates happen on this, meaning now, updates like these will not come in Jamia, but whatever update happens, we will make a video on that.

After that comes your most landmark, meaning March's, after Harish Rana, that is the Transgender Amendment Bill. The Transgender Amendment Bill has had many changes. First of all, look, you have to remember in which case for the first time, you know, meaning their rights were discussed. So that was your NALSA, NALSA vs. Union of India. In that, the right to self-determination was discussed. Now look, the right to self-determination meant that if a person wants to identify themselves, that they are belonging to a specific, meaning you know, then they can belong; they can choose their own identity. LGBTQ+, right? They have the right, that is the right to self-determination, para 74. Now here, what was the problem in this bill? That they did not give that right, meaning they have not given it. They have said it is, they have made it very, you know, statutory dependent, meaning that there has been too much involvement of the statute, too much involvement of the administration. The distinction that was between intersex and transgender is no longer there, okay. The distinction that was between intersex and transgender in the 2019 Act, you will not find in the 2026 Act. So that is why it has become merged. So that is a bit confusing; it has been criticized for this. Secondly, medical certification has been made mandatory. Okay? Medical certification has been made mandatory. That means the process has become a bit clinicalized. Along with this, they have done double-tier screening. Like earlier, what used to happen? Suppose they just had to go and, like you know, meaning get their registration done. That's it. Now, they don't just have to go to the DM. Now they will have to first take approval from the Chief Medical Officer, right? The Chief Medical Officers, they will have to pass their test first. Then they have to go to the DM. So in a way, it has become a double process, right? Double stages have come. After that, when is name change allowed? Now you can change the name, but only if it falls within the statutory definition. So if in the statute, like this Act of yours, the bill of 2026, in the categories given, the names given, if this falls within that, within that category, within that bracket, then you can change. You cannot change outside of that. Similarly, state oversight has been increased. And another thing is stricter criminal provisions. So look, many things have been you know, said, that if you do this, you can be punished and all. But one clause among these is the most important, and that is forced transgender identity. In this, it has been said that if any person is being converted against their will, against their will, okay? They are being converted. They are being encouraged, okay? For sex reassignment. So there, the person who is encouraging that person can be penalized. He can be punished. Now the problem is that the way it has been framed in the wording, there is a lot of ambiguity, and because of that ambiguity, it seems that if a person is genuinely helping, he could also be penalized. So this is a bit ambiguous. So because of this, like you know, discussion is going on about how to resolve this.

After that, look, your April current affairs and all come. So in April, the most important one, one is this Punjab Anti-Sacrilege Law Amendment, and the second is the Constitution Amendment Bill 2026. This one is a bit important just conceptually. Otherwise, these two are more important for you. Okay? So look, first let's talk about this, about Punjab. So look, here it was about the desecration of Guru Granth Sahib. Okay? Desecration of Guru Granth Sahib. Now you might know that Guru Granth Sahib is considered the holiest for Sikhs. Right? So here they made their own law. They made a special law in 2025 that if, suppose, you desecrate Guru Granth Sahib or any other holy religious books, meaning you are not dealing with them properly, you are, like you know, obviously harming their honor, harming their reputation, committing sacrilege, then you can be punished. Now what was the problem? This was challenged on Article 25, because if we look at India, there is already central legislation, the National Honours Act. What does India already have? The National Honours Act. Within that, the central government has the power that if any thing is very important, very much, meaning you know, the masses, like you know, the country, meaning the citizens, have an attachment to it, then they can say that if anyone treats it wrongly, this will be considered a punishable offense. So here, when the field is already occupied, when the center is already occupying the field, when the center has already made its law, the national law already exists, then how are you making a state law on this? What authority, right? So a question was raised regarding that.

After that comes the Constitution Amendment Bill. Now, in the Constitution Amendment Bill, look, what happened? I already told you that a lot of, you know, restructuring is happening, reforms are happening and all. So look, judicial appointments and diversity, Article 124, this is discussed. Now look, normally what happens? Normally it happens that judges, like you know, sometimes hold their benches in different regions here. But now the matter is different. Now here they have said that from now on, what will happen is that there will be proper permanent regional benches. Like, suppose four directions: East, West, North, South, and all. So, there will be four regional benches. Okay? And these will be permanent, and there they will sit, and all matters will be disposed of quickly. Okay? So to dispose of matters quickly, they have brought the concept of regional benches. Along with this, they have also said that now we are increasing the age from 62 to 65. Okay? So whatever benches are there in the High Court, whatever judges are there in the High Court, we are increasing their age. From 62 to 65. So this is going to be very beneficial. You know, right? Because it is obvious that if experienced judges sit, they will get 3 more years, then there will be very good, like, disposal of cases. So they have also made reforms in the High Court. Along with this, they have said caste census reforms. So they have removed the census. The census that was in the Union List, now they have put it in the Concurrent List. So what is the effect of this? Now both the state and the union can collaborate. Both can cooperate and work well. So this is very, you know, progressive. Okay? A lot of discussion is happening about this bill. So you will have to connect this when we were talking about Justice Yashwant Sharma. You will have to connect it with that. Okay? All these things.

And finally, quashing FIR on settlement. In this, which one becomes important for you? Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS. In this, inherent powers are discussed, that if the High Court feels that anything is important for achieving justice or preventing abuse of court, then it can quash even in criminal matters. Normally what happens? You don't quash criminal cases. Right? Criminal cases are matters of the state. If someone committed theft, then that theft was committed, so the thief will be punished. It doesn't matter if you say forgive the thief. He will be punished. Because he committed a crime against the entire society. But here it has been said, look, the High Court has special powers to quash. Meaning it can dismiss it. It can say that it doesn't matter. So here it has been said that generally serious cases like rape cannot be quashed. But here it was done even then. Why was it done? Because here it was a consensual relationship, an adolescent relationship. Okay? So you will have to connect this with the Romeo Juliet law that the Supreme Court has recently discussed, that a Romeo Juliet law should be made to protect adolescent relationships, as long as the gap between the adolescents is only two years. Okay? So you will have to connect this thing with that.

Then comes the last, your May. Okay? Your last May comes with the developments that happened in 2026. So look, the first one is the National Honours Act Amendment 1971. Okay? The most important is the National Honours Act for you. Now what has happened in this? Look, there has been an amendment in Section Three. In your fundamental duties, if you go, you will find it in Article 51A. So Article 51A clause (a) talks about that you have to respect the national anthem, the constitution, right? It talks about all these. But the national song is not included in that. Vande Mataram is not included. Now it has been added through an amendment. It has been added that now mandatory singing of all six stanzas at official events. So generally it lasts for 3 minutes 10 seconds, 190 seconds. So now it has been said that you will have to sing this mandatorily. Vande Mataram. Okay? And if you do not do it, it means you are violating the National Honours Act. Okay? So insult and obstruction during the singing is a new penal offense and all. And you will have to connect this with Article 51A, which talks about fundamental duties. Okay? Because the national song was not included in it earlier. Again, another important case related to this that can be asked in the examination. Which one is that? Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala. Okay? Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala. So in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, it was discussed that if students who practice Jehovah's Witnesses, and if they are not singing but they stand up during the national anthem, they are silent and they are showing respect, then that is enough. It is not necessary to sing. This was said in Bijoe Emmanuel. So keep this in mind. Okay? Don't forget.

After that comes acid attack victims, okay? The definition has been expanded now. In the case of Shahin Malik. Okay? The name of the case is Shahin Malik. Remember this well. Shahin Malik. This has been expanded. So look, we have here, right of persons with disabilities, meaning persons with disabilities have been given certain rights in the 2016 Act. In that, until now, what was the case? That if acid is thrown on any person, right? Acid attacks are becoming quite common nowadays. So if acid is thrown on someone, they are getting protection. They are getting protection. But what was the problem? Look, people don't just throw acid. People can also make others drink acid. Forcible ingestion of acids. Shouldn't those particular cases get protection? They should, right? At the end of the day, harm is happening there too. So that is why the Supreme Court said, look brother, there is no legislation for this yet. So we, on our part, under Article 142, which gives us the power to do complete justice, what are we doing? We are expanding the definition. Okay? So they said it will now also include forcible acid ingestion victims, those who were forced to drink acid. Okay? Those who have done such acts in coercion. So they have included this. This is a deemed amendment. Okay? It is. This is not judicial legislation. The court has simply pronounced this thing. Okay?

After that is your MTP Act. The MTP Act has become very important for you. Okay? Sir, please one shot current affairs also. Okay. Okay, we will see. After that, look, the MTP Act has become important for you. What is the MTP Act? Medical Termination of Pregnancy. Okay? Medical Termination of Pregnancy, 1971. Now if we talk about this, the MTP Act, look, in India the process is very simple. Understand it with a table. If it is up to 20 weeks, suppose a woman is pregnant and wants to abort, then up to 20 weeks, you need one RMP's consent, okay? One registered medical practitioner is required. If it is between 20 to 24 weeks, then here two RMPs will come in, okay? And if it is beyond 24 weeks, if it is beyond 24, then we generally need a medical board. But this particular requirement given, that at so many stages you need consent or their approval, this requirement is waived off in serious kinds of cases. Cases in which, meaning like you know, extreme fetal abnormality, or like you know, very serious cases such as rape victims. So here they said that this requirement will not apply for them, because they need it, brother, they need it. There we will be a bit sensitive. So the Supreme Court emphasized this sensitive approach regarding this thing. Okay? So you have to remember this. What is the timeline of these stages? Okay?

Then after that, the CEC Appointment Act 2023 has been challenged now. Okay? The CEC Appointment Act, such a case came? You don't need to remember this case. That's why I haven't written the case. You don't need to remember the case. You just need to remember the things in it, okay? The things in it, you just need to remember. The cases you need to remember, I have already told you. Now look, the CEC Appointment Act is important for you. This has been challenged. Now what is the CEC Appointment Act? Chief Election Commissioner – in 2023, a case happened. In 2023, a case happened, Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India. Okay? So in Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India, what happened? Earlier, what was it? Let me tell you first. A simple process: the President used to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner on the advice of the Council of Ministers. So that is, it was challenged in Anoop Baranwal. So in Anoop Baranwal, the CJI said, okay, fine, from now on what will happen? That there will be the PM, there will be the CJI. Okay? The PM, the CJI, and after that the Leader of the Opposition. The three of us together will select. Now after that, what happened? The CEC Appointment Act was passed in 2023, in which they removed the CJI from the panel. They said that there will be the PM, there will be a Cabinet Minister, and there will be the Leader of the Opposition here, and these three together will appoint the Chief Election Commissioner. So this, like you know, whether it threatens the independence of the Election Commission or not, a question arose, and this thing has been challenged now. Okay?

Other than that, look, in international affairs, there are not many that are so important for you, because look, however many are important, all of them would have been covered by you already in current affairs. But some are important, so let's look at them a bit. One is about land and maritime delimitation that has been discussed recently. For example, what has happened recently? If we talk about delimitation, look, France and Spain – France and Spain are two countries. What happened between them? In 1900, literally, how long ago? 126 years ago. So in 1900, there was an agreement regarding which they divided the lands. Okay? Between France and Spain. There is an agreement between them from 1900. What were these two? At that time, they were colonial powers. Like in India, there was colonial rule. Right? The British were there, so they were there too. Meaning France had a lot of rule in Africa. So what was between France and Spain? There was a division that this much part will be yours, this much part will be ours. They had drawn the border. Now when independence came, when these colonies finally left, their own countries went away, and when the countries they had colonized got independence, disputes started regarding boundaries. So here the ICJ has given a final decision. Between our Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, okay? Between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, they have given a final decision. They said that whatever boundary lines were drawn between France and Spain, meaning your colonial masters at that time, ah, the colonial countries, those same boundary lines will continue even now, and no change can be made. It is no longer possible to change it. So you have to accept the same thing. Okay?

After that comes the ICJ advisory on climate change. So they have said that look, a lot is being said about climate change. Climate change is happening everywhere. Right? You yourself must be experiencing how much the heat is increasing nowadays. So they said that it is very possible that when ice caps melt, some, meaning you know, island nations, like the Seychelles, for example, you know, whatever island nations there are, they may submerge a bit. Right? Some of their land, because it is very close to the sea, will get submerged. It will drown. So in that particular situation, it will still continue to remain a state. It is not that if they drown, then they are no longer a state. It will still continue to remain a state for legal purposes. This is what the ICJ has said.

The last important thing is that between India and the EO, the Mother of All Deals happened. Okay? So you must have already dealt with this in current affairs. So I don't want to go into depth here and all. Okay? So with this, your legal current affairs for the entire year and all, I think are sufficiently covered so that at least you, meaning, will not face problems in the exam. This is a brief summary of which cases are important. Okay? Whatever cases are important for you, like Amlesh Kumar, Sadhguru, Common Cause, Chinta Anand, Hamsa Nandini and all. So I have just written them down and all. Okay? There you can see them with clauses, with provisions and all. Okay? So I hope that you were able to understand everything and all. And if you have any problem, you can tell me in the comments. Apart from that, for those who are preparing for 2027, I want to tell that our Conquer batch has been launched. Okay? So it will start from the 15th of next month, June 15th. You can look at the details regarding that. A full video is already made regarding that. Okay? In that, comprehensive preparation will be done for you for Jamia, AMU, MACT, CVT, or for any, like you know, LLB if you are preparing. Okay? Thank you. Okay.