In . . . . . . . . , Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant observed "any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard (between rape victim and the accused) is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility."

In . . . . . . . . , Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant observed "any kind of liberal approach or thought of mediation in this regard (between rape victim and the accused) is thoroughly and completely sans legal permissibility." Correct Answer State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal

Related Questions

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The Sunni Waqf Board on Friday urged the Supreme Court not to allow the Centre or the Uttar Pradesh government to take partisan sides in the Ayodhya title suit. The UP government cannot go back on its neutrality, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan told a three-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra. Dhavan was alluding to the fact that the UP government had maintained its silence on the issue during the earlier state regimes. Which of the following can be logically inferred from the statement above?