Allahabad High Court refused DNA test plea, holding Section 112 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ensures legitimacy if spouses had access. Justice Nand Prabha Shukla stressed social parentage over biological proof.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a daughter born within four months of marriage is legally presumed to be legitimate and entitled to an equal share in her father’s property. The Court set aside a trial court decree, holding that conception before marriage does not defeat the presumption of legitimacy under law.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking substitution of a legal heir, holding that a Will cannot be treated as genuine when the only attesting witness admitted, “I do not know the contents of my chief affidavit” and “I do not know the contents of the will.” The Court emphasized that even the slightest doubt about an attestor’s credibility makes proving a Will extremely difficult.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a narco-analysis test cannot be conducted without an accused’s consent, reinforcing constitutional protections against self-incrimination. It emphasized that results from such tests cannot solely convict someone. The court criticized prior approvals for involuntary tests, asserting the need for safeguard measures if conducted voluntarily.
The Supreme Court of India acquitted six murder suspects, criticizing the “overzealous” police investigation and highlighting that a significant number of witnesses turned hostile, including the victim’s son. The court emphasized that convictions must rely on valid evidence, not on assumptions or inadmissible statements, leading to the reversal of the Karnataka High Court’s ruling.
New Delhi, Feb 24 – The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a child witness is a competent witness and their testimony cannot be rejected outright just because they are young. The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the Indian Evidence Act does not specify any minimum age for a witness. If a child is found capable of understanding and answering questions, their evidence is legally admissible.
BJP leader Suresh Nakhua requested more time to rectify a flawed affidavit in his defamation case against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee. Rathee sought the case’s dismissal, emphasizing Nakhua’s repeated errors. The court noted procedural issues and scheduled a hearing for February 2025, awaiting clarification on the affidavit’s compliance with new legal requirements.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court lauded the new criminal laws for reflecting Indian values, particularly the Hindu principle of repentance. She emphasized the shift from punishment to justice, citing the incorporation of community service for minor offenses. Sharma’s support for the laws stems from their alignment with Indian culture.
The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has expressed concerns to Union Home Minister Amit Shah about potential misuse of new criminal laws against journalists. They emphasize the need for additional safeguards and proposed a review of the laws to prevent frivolous prosecution. The Guild seeks protection of media freedom under the Indian Constitution and requests a meeting with Shah to address these issues.
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry opposes the proposed replacement of three criminal laws with new ones, expressing concerns about the difficulties they pose for various stakeholders in the justice system. They have urged the Bar Council of India to organize a meeting involving all State Bar Councils and Bar Associations to discuss the implications and potentially challenge the new laws in the Supreme Court.