IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan J U D G M E N T Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI 1. The task at our hands is unpleasant. It concerns actions of a Judge of… Read More criminal contempt, committed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.12171219 OF 2017 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 26402642 of 2016] Ms. Eera Through… Read More interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”), and the primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in Section 2(d) that defines “child” to mean any person below the age of 18 years, should engulf and embrace, in its connotative expanse, the “mental age” of a person or the age determined by the prevalent science pertaining to psychiatry so that a mentally retarded person or an extremely intellectually challenged person who even has crossed the biological age of 18 years can be included within the holistic conception of the term “child”.