Maine kuch research kiya hai aur yeh lagta hai ki donon ko exist karna sambhav hai. Article 19(1)(a) free expression ki guarantee karta hai, jabki Fundamental Duty 51A sarvajanik aakroshit vishayon par saavdhan rahna ka badaad hai. Toh, yeh

"Yeh case kaadhi hain. Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ke anusaar, jahaan jodidaar ka marriage nahin ho sakta hai, tab custody ki fight me koi bhi ek parivaar ke adhikaar nahin hota. Live-in partner ke baad, agar unka

Yaaaar, changes ho gaye hain, na! IPC, BNS, and MH CET law mein amendments aane ke baad, yeh galat ya acchi baat hai, yeh decide hoga law students ke paas. Lekin ek cheez certain hai, hamaare kuch saalon ka maza khatm hone se pehle, hamaare

I disagree, tort law shouldn't be used for pure economic losses. In Donoghue v Stevenson, it was physical harm that mattered, not economic. Expanding liability this way can lead to a flood of frivolous claims. Take the case of Hedley Byrne

Yaar, I think you're spot on about this! Family law is indeed a complex web, especially in our country where joint families are still a norm. The emotions, the interests, the rights... everything's interconnected. Remember, every case is a

Mujhé lagta hai, Kesavanand Bharti ka case 1973 mein Supreme Court ka judicial review ka adhikar ko khatam nahin kiya tha, balki unhone Parliament ka Constitution (24th Amendment) ka Adhikaran banane ka kaam karna shuru kar diya tha. Iska m