Yaaar, this is such a relevant topic! I've seen so many cases where a Facebook post led to public interest litigation. It's like, one second you're ranting about a traffic jam, next you're being summoned by the HC. Seriously though, it's a

Ye section toh bahut problematic hai. It's too broad and can be misused for harassing people just for speaking their mind on social media. Section 66D ki sahi nikaas nahi hai, usse sabhi ke liye hamaare digital freedom ko khatra banaya hai.

Arre, I strongly disagree. Holding ke concept ko samajhne ke liye, humein administrative decision ko isse aise hi define nahi karna chahiye. Holding ek jatil concept hai, jismein multiple factors ka dhyan dena padta hai. Ische liye, humein

Actually, there's no 'Evidence Act' sans the prefix 'Indian'. It's a simple case of terminology. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 is the one we commonly refer to. It's a central law that governs admissibility of evidence in all courts of Ind