Judiciary UP

◾️ Legal Frameworks Addressing Digital Arrests 👉 Recently, "digital arrest" is not an offence specifically recognised under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) or the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act); however, various provisions of both statutes come into play when such acts are committed. ▪️ Section 204 of BNS: Impersonating a Public Servant. Punishable with imprisonment of six months to three years, along with a fine. This provision directly addresses the core act of scammers posing as CBI, ED, or police officials. ▪️ Section 318 of BNS : Cheating. Punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine. Covers the fraudulent scheme of deceiving victims into transferring money under false pretences. ▪️ Section 336 / 336(3) of BNS: Forgery. Punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years and may incur a fine. Applicable to fabrication of fake arrest warrants, court orders, and official documents. ▪️ Section 308 of BNS: Extortion. Punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years and may incur a fine. The most directly applicable provision, covering coerced extraction of money through threats. ▪️ Section 66C of IT Act— Identity Theft. Punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to ₹1 lakh. Applicable when scammers fraudulently use stolen personal data to impersonate victims or institutions. ▪️ Section 66D of IT Act — Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources. Punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to ₹1 lakh. Directly applicable to impersonating government agencies through digital means. ▪️ BNSS and Lawful Arrest Procedure. The BNSS allows electronic service of summons under Section 63 only if encrypted, court-sealed, and digitally signed. No arrest notice may be served via WhatsApp or informal digital channels — a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

#Motivation ☘☘☘ ▪️Good Morning 🌻🌸🌺

🏆 Important Cases on Withdrawal of Prosecution ◾Abdul Wahab K v. State of Kerela and other (2018): 👉The Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has an important role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person. 👉He/she has to apply his/her own mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on the society in the event such permission is granted. ◾State of Kerela v. K Ajith and others (2021): The Court laid down before deciding whether to grant consent for withdrawal of prosecution the Court must be satisfied that: 👉The function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. 👉The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. 👉The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given. 👉The grant of consent subserves the administration of justice. 👉Permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to maintain. Join @JudiciaryUP

#BNSS ◾Withdrawal of Prosecution: Section 321 of CrPC provides for withdrawal of Prosecution. This provision can now be found under Section 360 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). ▪️Under Section 360 of BNSS following points are laid down: 👉A Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor can withdraw from prosecuting a case, but they need the Court's permission to do so. ▪️This withdrawal can be done any time before the final judgment, and it can be 👉For all charges against the accused 👉For specific charges only ▪️The effect of withdrawal depends on timing: 👉If withdrawn before charges are framed: The accused is discharged 👉If withdrawn after charges are framed: The accused is acquitted ▪️Special permission from Central Government is needed if the case involves: 👉Matters under Union government's power 👉Cases investigated under Central laws 👉Damage to Central Government property 👉Crimes by Central Government employees during official duty ▪️Two important safeguards: 👉In cases involving Central matters, the prosecutor must show the court written permission from Central Government. 👉 The court must hear the victim's side before allowing any withdrawal. Join @JudiciaryUP

◾Hate Speech and Hate Crime 👉 As per the 267th Law Commission Report (2017), hate speech refers to words or actions intended to stir hatred against groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. It includes visuals, signs, or speech meant to incite fear or violence. 👉Hate crimes are criminal acts (like physical assault or mob lynching) motivated by bias against a person’s identity, such as their color, national origin, or disability. ▪️Legal Remedies: 👉 Constitutional: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression, but is subject to "Reasonable Restrictions" under Article 19(2) for protecting public order and preventing the incitement of offences. ▪️Legal framework: 👉Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 196 (formerly IPC 153A) penalizes promoting enmity between groups, and Section 299 (formerly IPC 295A) punishes acts intended to outrage religious feelings. 👉Representation of the People Act, 1951: Specifically, Section 8 disqualifies candidates convicted of promoting communal disharmony. 👉Special Statutes: The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, target identity-based insults and the practice of untouchability. ▪️Key Judgements on Curbing Hate Speech: 👉 Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court directed police to register suo motu FIRs in hate speech cases without waiting for a formal complaint. 👉 Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018): The Court issued guidelines to curb mob lynching and recommended appointing district nodal officers. 👉 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The SC struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, ruling that vague restrictions on "annoyance" or "insult" violate Article 19(1)(a). 👉 Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014): The Court urged the Law Commission to define hate speech to avoid "judicial overreach" in its regulation. Join👉 @JudiciaryUP

#Motivation ☘️☘️☘️ ''Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out.” – Robert Collier Join 👉@JudiciaryUP

#JudiciaryUpdates 📍Bihar Civil Judge Exam 2026 👉 Extension of Application Form Date : 30/04/2026 📌 Note: All the conditions mentioned in the earlier advertisement shall remain effective during the application forms about to submit till the last date.

◾️ Bihar APO and Judiciary Vacancy 2026 Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

SUMMARY OF UNION BUDGET 2026-27

◾️ Supreme Court Stays UGC’s 2026 Equity Regulations (Interim Order) Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

◾️ Supreme Court Stays UGC's 2026 Regulations 👉 The Supreme Court (SC) has issued an interim stay on the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, citing concerns of potential division of society and undermining campus unity. ▪️ Judicial Intervention: Since the 2012 Regulations had been repealed, the Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, directed that the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 would continue to apply until further orders. ▪️ Background & Context: The 2026 Regulations were formulated in response to the ongoing case Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India (2019), which seeks to establish a mechanism to end caste-based discrimination on campuses. ▪️ Key Legal & Definitional Challenges to 2026 Regulations: The petitions specifically challenged Section 3(1)(c), which exclusively defines discrimination against SC, ST, and OBC members, thereby excluding the general category. 👉 The bench questioned the necessity of this narrow provision, as Section 3(1)(e) already provides a broader, inclusive definition of discrimination based on religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or disability. 👉 The SC raised questions on whether the UGC 2026 Regulations adequately cover harassment on regional lines, intra-caste harassment by economically privileged individuals, and incidents of ragging. Moreover, the Regulations contain no mechanism to penalize false complaints. ▪️ Core Judicial Concerns: The SC invoked the "principle of no-regression" from environmental and social justice law, questioning why the 2026 rules were less inclusive than the 2012 version. 🔻 The bench examined the regulation through the lens of Article 15(4) that enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs. Join👉 @JudiciaryUP

#Motivation ☘☘☘ सफलता से प्रेम मत करो। उन आदतों से प्रेम करो जो सफलता लेकर आती हैं। Good Morning 🌞🌺🌸

◾️ The Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2026

#JudiciaryUpdates 📍Uttar Pradesh APO Exam 2026 👉 Exam Schedule: 22/03/2026 Join @JudiciaryUP

◾️ PCS J

#BNSS ◾️Section 175 BNSS – Police Officer’s Power to Investigate ▪️Cognizable Case: 👉 The officer in charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable offence without prior permission of a Magistrate. 👉 Such investigation can be conducted for offences which a court having jurisdiction over the local area can inquire into or try. 👉 Superintendent of Police (SP) may, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, direct that the investigation be conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). ▪️Validity of investigation protected: 👉 No proceedings of a police officer shall be questioned merely on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate the case. ▪️A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 BNSS may order investigation: 🔻 After considering an application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4), and 🔻 After making such inquiry as deemed necessary and considering the police officer’s submission. 👉 In cases involving a complaint against a public servant arising during discharge of official duties, the Magistrate may order investigation only after: 🔻 Receiving a report from the superior officer of the public servant, and 🔻 Considering the version/explanation of the public servant regarding the incident. ▪️ Key Change: 👉 Section 175 BNSS replaces Section 156 of the CrPC, introducing additional safeguards, particularly in cases involving public servants. Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

◾️ Delhi APP Vacancies 2026 Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

◾️ The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan in the case of XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2025) issued comprehensive guidelines to Magistrates on Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), clarifying when and how to seek superior officer reports before ordering investigation against public servants. Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP

#Motivation 🍀🍀🍀 आपका भविष्य आपके सपनों से नहीं, बल्कि आपके अनुशासन से आकार लेता है। Good Morning 🌻🌺🌸

◾️ The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Sri Mukund Maheswar & Anr. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2026) held that the Registry cannot question a petitioner's decision to implead particular parties as respondents, emphasizing that such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. Join 👉 @JudiciaryUP