Bhai, I agree, yeh constitutional law khaana bahut bada hai. Lekin maine ek plan banaya hai jisse aap sab kuch cover kar sakte hain. Start karein Part 3 se aur doosre days main Part 1 aur 2 cover karein. Aur dono parts ke key concepts ko ek

Bhai, Hume v. AG (1883) ka case ek landmark hai. Court ne apnaya ki Constitution ke Articles 63 aur 64 ka interpretation karna public duty hai. Iska matlab yeh hai ki President ko resign hona chahiye jab woh MP ho aur koi charge lag gaya ho

Tortious Interference mein kai myths hain jo hamein confuse kartay hain. Ek common myth hai ke tortious interference ka case sirf jab lagaya jaata hai jab koi aur vyakti apna vyavsaay badal deti hai. Lekin ye sahi nahi hai, tortious interfe

Hey, sabka support karte hain. Yeh Constitutional Law ko nahi manta hai, to uska sahi hoga. Lekin, agar hum yeh sochen ki Constitution humari swatantrata ke liye hai, toh kuchh nahi hai jo humne iske liye kiya nai hai. Humne koshish ki hai,

Yeh sawaal bahut zaroori hai. 'Right to Freedom of Speech' aadhaatmyik hai. Ye Article 19(1)(a) mein mention kiya hai. Iska matlab hai ki yeh sabhee shaamil hai, na ki kuch vibhaag ke liye hi. To aapka answer 'Aadhaatmyik' hi hona chahiye.

Bhai, I totally agree with your take on courtroom contracts. Ye toh har tarah ke case mein hua hai. Judges ko ispe koi samjhauta karna padhta hai. Lekin kuch majeed case mein to parties ke bich hi samjhauta hota hai, aur courtroom se bahar