Channel
@lawexplorer
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry
4,687subscribers
+11 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001322545192 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @lawexplorer |
| Description | 📚 For judiciary preparation please subscribe our Youtube channel 👇🏻 🔴 YouTube 🔜 http://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER Join 🔜 @lawstuden Join 🔜 @lawexplorer Join 🔜 @indian_judicial_services |
| Created | Between 1 March 2018 and 30 June 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 10 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 10 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/lawexplorer |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Aug 2026, 12:54 | 4,687 | +6 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 15:54 | 4,681 | +5 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 18:00 | 4,676 | first reading |
25 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 7 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 25 (18 July 2026 – 12 August 2026) |
| Views total | 3,253 |
| Reactions total | — |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 05:35 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 12 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
The question is whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife is relevant under which section?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under the proviso to Section 44, an opinion on relationship is not sufficient to prove a marriage in prosecutions under Sections 82 and 84 of which Act?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
According to the proviso in Section 44, an opinion on relationship shall NOT be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Under Section 44, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, an opinion expressed by conduct is relevant if given by:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
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. 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, totalling 101%. 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. 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, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Signed ASIF ALI
Showing the 12 most recent of 25 posts we hold for @lawexplorer. 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 23 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.
The question is whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife is relevant under which section?
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Under the proviso to Section 44, an opinion on relationship is not sufficient to prove a marriage in prosecutions under Sections 82 and 84 of which Act?
Shares as published, totalling 99%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
According to the proviso in Section 44, an opinion on relationship shall NOT be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
Under Section 44, when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, an opinion expressed by conduct is relevant if given by:
Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.
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. 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 25 most recent posts we hold, published 18 July 2026 to 12 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 10 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“LAW EXPLORER” (@lawexplorer), 4,687 subscribers as measured 10 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/lawexplorer.
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.