Growth of the Sakhi-One Stop Centers across India
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
This is the info related to Dowry Prohibition Act 2018 passed by Bangladesh Parliament. I have found the Bangla version of the Act here, but no English version yet available online.
The Original inaugural 1980 Dowry Prohibition Act is available here and it’s source is here.
Dowry Prohibition Act 2018
Published at 06:33 pm May 7th, 2018
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/law-rights/2018/05/07/263453
http://old.unb.com.bd/bangladesh-news/Filing-false-case-over-dowry-to-invite-punishment-Bill-cleared/70134
http://en.ntvbd.com/bangladesh/166937/Cabinet-approves-revised-dowry-law
Published at 05:40 pm June 25th, 2018
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/parliament/2018/06/25/bill-placed-with-provision-of-5-year-jail-time-for-false-dowry-case
http://www.bssnews.net/?p=41516
https://www.thedailystar.net/country/dowry-prohibition-bill-placed-parliament-1595206
http://en.rtvonline.com/bangladesh/1424/Imprisonment-fine-for-false-dowry-case
Published at 11:36 pm September 16th, 2018
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/parliament/2018/09/16/house-passes-dowry-prohibition-bill
http://unb.com.bd/category/bangladesh/js-passes-dowry-law/2253
http://www.newagebd.net/article/50779/js-passes-dowry-prohibition-bill-2018
https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2018/09/17/bangladesh-passes-law-with-five-year-jail-term-tk-50000-fine-for-false-dowry-charges
Published at 08:06 pm October 1st, 2018
President signs 11 bills into law
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/statecraft/2018/10/01/president-promulgates-digital-security-bill-2018-into-law
Ministry of Women and Children Affairs
https://mowca.gov.bd/
The Minister, Ms Meher Afroze Chumki
http://bdf2018.erd.gov.bd/speakers/h-e-ms-meher-afroze-chumki/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Meher+Afroz+Chumki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meher_Afroz_Chumki
Bangla Version of Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018
This is to chronicle the journey of the Section 125 CrPC through the years from its enactment.
This is to chronicle the journey of the Section 498A IPC through the years from its enactment.
This is to chronicle the journey of the PWDV Act 2005 through the years from its enactment.
Now obviously when an under-trial prisoner is granted the facility of interviews with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and a convicted prisoner is permitted to have interviews with his relatives and friends once in a week under Rule 550, it is difficult to understand how sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which restricts the interview only to one in a month in case of a detenu, can possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict and, as held by this Court in Sampath Prakash’s case (supra) restrictions placed on a detenu must “consistent with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal.” We would therefore unhesitatingly hold sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 in so far as it permits only one interview in a month to a detenu. We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of security and hence unreasonable. We would go so far as to say that even independently of Rules 550 and 559A, we would regard the present norm of two interviews in a week for prisoners as furnishing a criterion of what we would consider reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Citation: 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Indiakanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/
This is the case in which Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right as a part of Article 21, overruling M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi on 15 March 1954.
List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.
This is the overruled judgment. By Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) & Anr Vs Union Of India And Ors. (Right to Privacy – Aadhaar Case).
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 300, 1978 (2) ELT 287 SC, (1954) IMLJ 680 SC, 1954 1 SCR 1077
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70398131/
The index page is here.
Citation: 1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1515744/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Citation: 1996 AIR 786, 1996 SCC (1) 233
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1606330/
Original judgment is here.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 1160 access attempts in the last 7 days.
