Channel
@indian_law
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
1,770subscribers
-23 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001205236136 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @indian_law |
| Created | Between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2021 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 19 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 12 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 2 times, most recently 19 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/indian_law |
Other / unclassifiable — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 16 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 71% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Sept 2026, 07:59 | 1,770 | +1 |
| 10 Sept 2026, 10:37 | 1,769 | -6 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 12:35 | 1,775 | +1 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 10:32 | 1,774 | -1 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 04:48 | 1,775 | -5 |
| 23 Aug 2026, 11:38 | 1,780 | -3 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 14:33 | 1,783 | -4 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 17:34 | 1,787 | +1 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 13:17 | 1,786 | -5 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 16:37 | 1,791 | -2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 17:46 | 1,793 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 17:37 | 1,793 | first reading |
21 posts held, back to 18 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 2 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 21 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Under Section 43, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts, whose opinions are relevant?
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
The right of the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular well is an example of a "general right" within the meaning of which section?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
According to the Explanation in Section 42, the expression "general custom or right" includes:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right under Section 42, whose opinions are relevant?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under Section 41(2), when the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, whose opinion is a relevant fact?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Based on the illustration in Section 41, if B is a merchant and C is his clerk whose duty is to examine correspondence, is C's opinion on the handwriting of A (a regular correspondent) relevant?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under Section 41(1), when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, whose opinion is a relevant fact?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
To determine if an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain sea-wall, the fact that other similarly situated harbours began to be obstructed at the same time is relevant. This is an illustration of:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under Section 40, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
As per the illustrations in Section 39, if the question is whether the death of A was caused by poison, the opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by that poison are:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under the Explanation to Section 39, an Examiner of Electronic Evidence referred to in section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, shall be considered a(n):
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
If the Court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to information transmitted or stored in any computer resource, whose opinion is a relevant fact under Section 39(2)?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Showing the 12 most recent of 21 posts we hold for @indian_law. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
The 6 most recent of 19 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
Under Section 43, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts, whose opinions are relevant?
Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
The right of the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular well is an example of a "general right" within the meaning of which section?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
According to the Explanation in Section 42, the expression "general custom or right" includes:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right under Section 42, whose opinions are relevant?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Under Section 41(2), when the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, whose opinion is a relevant fact?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Based on the illustration in Section 41, if B is a merchant and C is his clerk whose duty is to examine correspondence, is C's opinion on the handwriting of A (a regular correspondent) relevant?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 21 most recent posts we hold, published 18 July 2026 to 7 August 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Indian Laws” (@indian_law), 1,770 subscribers as measured 14 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/indian_law.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.