Month: August 2020

Lawfully Judged!

Posted on

This article is written by Tulip Das, currently perusing BBA L.L.B(H) from Amity University Kolkata. In this article, the author aims to describe judgement in India and the application of the same as per the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. 

INTRODUCTION

“The safety of people shall be the highest law” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Indian Judicial System is one of the most prominent and upright judicial systems in the world. The function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws of the land to cases coming before it and deliver speedy and fair justice to all. Judgement means the ability to make free, fair, and considered decisions or to come to a sensible conclusion. The concept of judgement in India is properly defined in Section 2 (9) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It says, “judgment” is the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. 

However, there is no proper definition of judgement mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In the case of Surendra Singh v. State of UP [1954 AIR 194, 1954 SCR 330], the Supreme Court defined said that “A judgement is a final decision of the court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal  “pronouncement” or “delivery” in open court and until a judgment is delivered the judges have a right to change their mind”.

Application of Judgment in India under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Chapter XXVII, Section 353 to 365 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deals with The Judgement. However, there is no definition of “judgement” present in the Code, but it is to be understood as the final order of the Court. 

In the case of Ismail Amir Seikh vs. the State of Maharashtra, it was held that a judgment is the act of judging. It was pointed out that judgment should distinctly mention the reason for accepting an argument and rejecting the other. 

This chapter sheds light on the various provisions related to “judgement” in a Criminal proceeding. 

This chapter applies all across India.

SECTION 353 – Judgment 

Ratio decidendi and Obiter dicta form an important part of the judgement. Ratio decidendi of a judgement may be defined as the principles of law formulated by the Judge to decide the problem before him whereas, obiter dicta means observations made by the Judge, but are not essential for the decision reached. These two are very important as they define the legal principles which are useful to the legal fraternity.

If the judgement is of acquittal: –

  • Whether the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • If the act or omission from which the liability might arise doesn’t exist.

If the judgement is of conviction: –

  • The essential elements of the offense committed by the accused and the intervening circumstances which led to the commission of this offense.
  • Participation of the accused as the principal perpetrator, or accomplice or accessory.
  • The penalty that is imposed on the accused.

The absence of a pleader during the pronouncement of a judgement shall not be deemed to be enough reason for causing any delay in judgement.

SECTION 354 – Language and Contents of the Judgment

1. Under Section 354, of CrPC, it is stated that every judgement should be:

  • In the language of the Court.
  • Shall contain the points of determination and the reason for the same.
  • The offense should be specified and the reason for the same should be given for the same. 
  • The offence committed must be mentioned in the IPC or any other law under which the crime is committed and the punishment is given.
  • If the offender is acquitted, the offense for which he is acquitted, the reason for the same and it must be specified that a person is now a free man.

2. If the judgment is passed under the IPC and the judge who is delivering the judgement is not certain about under which Section the offence is committed or under which part of the Section, the judge should mention the same in the judgement and should pass orders in both the alternate situations.

3. The judgement shall give a proper reason for the conviction if it is a sentence for life imprisonment and in case of death penalty the special reason has to be given.

SECTION 355 – Metropolitan Magistrate’s Judgment

Under Section 355 of the CrCP, it is mentioned that the judge instead of giving the judgement in an above-mentioned way, can deliver it in an abridged version that would contain-

  • The serial number of the case,
  • Date of the commission of the offence,
  • Name of the complainant,
  • Name of the accused person, his parentage and residence,
  • Offence complained of or proved,
  • Plea of the accused and his examination,
  • Final order,
  • Date of the order,
  • In cases when the appeal lies from the final order either under S.373 or S.374(3) of this Code, a brief statement of reasons for the decision.

This section has its mention in the Allahabad High Court case of State v. Mahipal And Others, 25th October, 2013.

SECTION 356 – Order for Notifying Address of a Previously Convicted Offender

This section tells us about the order regarding notification of the address of a previously convicted person.

In cases decided by the Court of Session or a Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court or such Magistrate as the case may be shall forward a copy of its or his finding and sentence (if any) to the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction where the trial was held.

SECTION 357 – ORDER TO PAY COMPENSATION

Under Section 357 of the Code, when a Court imposes a sentence or fine or a sentence in which fine is also included then the Court while passing judgment may order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be used:

  • In defraying the expenses incurred during the prosecution.
  • In the payment to any person as compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is recoverable in the Civil Court.
  • When a person is convicted of any offence for causing the death of another person or have encouraged the commission of such an offence, have to pay compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such a death.
  • When a person is convicted of any offence including criminal misappropriation, theft, criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonestly receiving or retaining, or willingly assisting in the disposal of any stolen property knowing that the property has been stolen then compensation has to be given to the bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the person who is entitled to the possession of it.

If the fine is imposed in a case which is appealable, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has lapsed, or if an appeal is presented then before the decision of the appeal is delivered.

Moreover, when a Court imposes a sentence, in which fine is not included, the Court while passing judgment may order the accused person to pay, in the form of compensation, the amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced. An order can also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Sessions Court while exercising its powers of revision.

It is important to note that at the time of awarding compensation in any civil suit relating to the same subject matter, the Court will take into consideration any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this Section.

Sub-sections: – 

  • S.357A describes victim compensation scheme
  • S.357B deals with compensation to be in addition to fine under S.326A and S.376D of the Indian Penal Code
  • S.357C deals with treatment of victims 

SECTION 358 – Compensation for Wrongful Arrest

Under Section 358, it is stated that in case a person compels the police to arrest another person, which the Magistrate thinks that there is no ground for such arrest, the Magistrate may order compensation not exceeding Rs 1000, to be paid by the person who causes such arrest. The fine is given as a way of compensation for the loss of time and expenses or other matters, as the judge may think fit. If more than one person is arrested on such a basis, then each of them should be awarded a compensation not exceeding Rs 100, as the Magistrate thinks fit. Such compensation shall be recovered as a fine and if the person does not pay the compensation then the Magistrate can sentence him to imprisonment not exceeding 30 days unless the compensation is sooner paid. 

SECTION 359 – Order to Pay Costs in Case of Non-Cognizable Offence

In Section 359 of the Code, it is held that whenever the Court convicts the offender in a non-cognizable offence, then along with the sentence of the crime, it can also order the payment of expenses that are borne by the complainant, these expenses would include the fees of the witness, pleaders fees or any other which the Court deems fit. The payment could be made in full or in installments. In case of default of such payment, the Magistrate may order imprisonment not exceeding thirty days.

SECTION 360 – ORDER TO RELEASE ON PROBATION OF GOOD CONDUCT OR AFTER ADMONITION

Section 360 of the CrPC mentions a provision in which a person could be released on good conduct or after admonition. In this, if a person is not under the age of 21 years and is not convicted of an offence which is punishable with a fine or a term which is seven years or less. Also if a person is more than 21 years of age or a woman is convicted of an offence which is not punishable with a death sentence or life imprisonment and no previous conviction is there against the person then if the Court thinks it is fit as per the age, character, antecedents of the offender and the circumstance under which the offence was committed, that it is expedient to release the person on good conduct and the Court instead of punishing him, may or may not order him to be released in the sureties. Such a person has to appear before the Court to receive the sentence of the punishment not exceeding 3 years and in the meantime peace and good behaviour, must be exercised.

If the first offender is convicted by the magistrate of the second class then the magistrate has to record its opinion to that effect and submit it to the first class magistrate. The first class magistrate will hear the case in the same manner as if it originally came to his Court and he may order further inquiries if he feels that it is necessary to do so. He may order to record evidence or do it by himself.

Suppose a person is convicted of theft, misappropriation, cheating, or any other offence under the IPC, and is punishable with not more than two years of imprisonment or fine. Then, in this case, the person is not previously convicted of any other offence, the Court may if it deems fit can release the person based on his age, antecedent, mental and physical condition, character, the trivial nature of the offence, or any circumstances which took place. The Court may release him after due admonition. An order under this Section could be given by the Appellate Court or High Court or Court of Session while exercising its power of revision.

The Court should ensure that the offender and his sureties must get a place of living and a regular occupation of observation as specified by the Court.

SECTION 361 – Special Reasons to be Recorded in Certain Cases

The Code through Section 361 makes the application of Section 360 necessary wherever possible and in cases in which there is an exception to state clear reasons. The judge must give specific reasons for awarding the punishment which is below the minimum prescribed under the relevant laws of the country. The act of recording the specific reason is an irregularity and can set aside the sentence passed on the ground of failure of justice. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is very similar to Section 360 of the CrPC. It is more elaborate in the sense that it explicitly provides for conditions of release order, a supervision order, payment of compensation to the affected party, powers and predicaments of the probation officer, and other particulars that might fall in this field. Moreover, Section 360 would cease to have any force in the States or parts where the Probation of Offenders Act is in force.

Sub-section (b) of S.361 says that, a youth offender under the Children Act 1960 (S.60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being which is in force for the treatment, training and rehabilitation for young offenders, but has not done so, it shall also record in its judgement the reason for not having done so.

SECTION 362 – Court not to Alter Judgment

This section tells us that once a judgement is pronounced, no change shall be made by the court or the presiding officer on such judgement. Unless the appeal is filed at a higher court.

In Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 of CrPC, against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment on this case, is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force”. Those words, in turn, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorized by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The power inherited by the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 of the CrPC.

SECTION 363 – Copy of the Judgment to be Given to the Accused and Other Persons

Section 363 of the CrPC states that when the sentence of imprisonment is pronounced, the guilty must be immediate, given a copy of judgement-free of cost. If the accused applies, the copy of the judgment in his language (if possible) or in the language of the Court shall be translated and given to him in every instance where such a case is appealable. This copy should be given to him free of cost. However, if the High Court confirms the death sentence of the accused, then he should be given a copy of the judgement even if he has not applied for the same. Except for these cases, the accused will get a copy of the judgement or order, once he makes the payment of the specified charges, or in special cases, as the Court shall deem fit, will be given to him free of cost. Furthermore, if the appeal to the judgement lies in the higher Court, then the accused must be informed of the time within which he should appeal, and his appeal must be preferred. Moreover, other persons who are not affected by the judgment of the High Court shall get a copy of the same after payment of specified prices and following certain conditions as ascertained by the High Court in the rules made by it.

In the case of Shree Lal Sarof v. State of Bihar, the Court held that when a person is affected by a judgement or an order passed by a criminal court, then on the application made in this behalf under S. 363(5), and on the payment of the prescribed fees, he has to be provided a copy of the order, disposition or other parts of the record irrespective of whether he has appeared in the court or not. 

SECTION 364 – Judgment when to be Translated

This section provides that every judgement pronounced by a court must be recorded. In an instance where such judgement is not in the language of the court and the accused requires so, then the judgement should be translated into the language of the court and stored accordingly.

SECTION 365 – Session Court to Send a Copy of Finding and Sentence to the District Magistrate

This section tells us that in case a judgement is pronounced by a Court of Session or by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, then a copy of such a judgement should be sent to the office of the District Magistrate, under whose local jurisdiction the trial is held.

CONCLUSION

Judgement forms an important part of any legal proceedings as it mentions the decisions that are taken after hearing the argument from both sides and the reason for the same. Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, lays down a detailed description of the judgement in criminal matters. Provisions relating to the language, contents, etc are provided. Separate provisions are present for delivering judgement in cases relating to the death sentence, fine or imprisonment. 

Latest Posts

Archives

Call for Blogs: NUALS Law Journal Blog

Posted on

About the organiser

The NUALS Law Journal (ISSN Number 2319-8273) is the flagship law review of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, is a multidisciplinary, double-blind, peer-reviewed journal.

NUALS Law Journal Blog

The NLJB welcomes submissions, on any topic of law of contemporary relevance, from academicians, legal practitioners, students and researchers from the legal community.

Submission Guidelines

  1. All submissions shall be made to nualsljblog@gmail.com with the subject “Submission for NUALS Law Journal Blog”.
  2. By submitting an article, the author undertakes that the article is an original work and has not been submitted, accepted or published elsewhere.  
  3. Co-authorship is allowed for a maximum of two authors. 
  4. Plagiarism will result in summary rejection of the submission.   Length of the article must not exceed 1500 words. 
  5. The content should be written in Times New Roman Font with a size of 12. Line Spacing should be 1.5
  6. The article should be referenced using hyperlinks. In the event that a cited material does not have an online copy or reference, endnotes must be used instead of footnotes. Any endnotes must be in Times New Roman font, with size 10 and line spacing 1.    
  7. All submissions must follow the Bluebook (20th Edition) style of citation; non-conformity will be a ground for rejection.  
  8. Submissions must be made in .doc/.docx formats only.  
  9. Details of the author(s) should not be mentioned in the file containing the article.
  10. Authors must include their full name, institution/organization and a bio not exceeding 50 words.

Contact Details

E-mail ID: nualsljblog[at]gmail.com

M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar

Posted on

This case is critically analyzed by Akshat Mehta, a student of Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad. In this case, he tried to highlight where the exception of strict liability also fails and parties are liable so as in absolute liability. 

INTRODUCTION

An exception of “Act of a Stranger” is available or not in the case of ‘Strict Liability’ of electricity board in an event of electrocution because of clandestine pilferage committed by a stranger.

Equivalent Citation

AIR 2002 SC 551

Bench

Justice K. Thomas and Justice S. Phukan 

Decided On

11 January 2002

Court

Supreme Court of India

Relevant Laws

Strict Liability Rule and the exception of ‘act of a stranger’ and Section 19 of the Electricity Act, 1910

Fact of the Case

A workman by the name Joginder Singh, aged 37 was riding to his home in the night from factory through bicycle on August 23, 1997. There was heavy rain in that area at that time due to which most parts of the road were covered with water. There was a live electric wire lying on the road, which was used by Hari Gaikwad (3rd Respondent), who was siphoning the energy for his private house secretly without the notice of the electricity board. The cyclist didn’t notice the live wire lying on the road which was partially inundated with water and as his cycle got over to the water he got twisted and snatched and instantaneously electrocuted. He died with few minutes of the deadly shock. His widow wife and minor son claimed for the sum of Rs. 6.39 Lakhs, but the trial court assessed the compensation amounted to Rs. 4.34 Lakhs to the claimants. 

Issues Presented Before the Court

1)     Whether the electricity board is strictly liable or is negligently liable under the Law of Torts?

2)     If yes, can it take the exception of ‘Act of a stranger’ to abscond from the liability?

3)     Whether the compensation awarded is in consonance with the damages suffered or not?

Ratio of the Court

The Honorable Court read this case with the 18th-century case of ‘Rylands v. Fletcher’ in which the Strict Liability rule was propounded by Lord Blackburn J., as per which “the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and if he does so he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”

Same happened in this case and J. Thomas observed that even after taking all necessary precautionary measures if any hazardous thing is capable to take human life than the person is strictly liable. He also distinguished Strict Liability from the Negligence in a manner that as per the concept of ‘Negligence’ in tort law, a person could avoid the foreseeable harm by taking the precautionary or preventive measures but in the case of ‘Strict Liability’, a person is strictly liable even if he had already taken preventive measures to avoid foreseeable harm. There are seven exceptions available to the rule of ‘Strict liability’ and one of which is ‘Act of a stranger/Act of a third party’. 

The Court also held that in the present case the board also seemed taking the exception of ‘Act of a stranger’ in order to abscond from its liability but this exception doesn’t apply here because of two reasons:

1)     In the present scenario the exception doesn’t hold water because actions of the third party could be possibly anticipated from the defendants and also in either way consequences could also have been prevented by the board if reasonable care could be taken with due diligence. 

2)     As long as the power transmitted in the wires is potentially dangerous and also could take the life of any person it adds on to the duty of the board and management to take all safety measures to prevent any escape from such potentially harmful transmission wires.

The Court also used similar reasoning laid down in cases such as Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, Gujarat State Rod Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhain,  Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1987) while granting the decision.

Decision of the Court

The Court in this directed the electricity board to pay the compensation to the widowed wife and minor son of the deceased person and also held that the electricity board cannot escape from the liability and it doesn’t create any difference that whether the 3rd respondent could interfered or not, the potentially dangerous power in the electricity cables makes the board Strictly liable and no defense prevails.

Latest Posts

Archives

CALL FOR BLOGS: RGNUL FINANCIAL AND MERCANTILE LAW REVIEW

Posted on

CALL FOR BLOGS

The Editorial Board of the RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review (RFMLR) invites blog posts from legal practitioners, academicians, research fellows, undergraduate students, postgraduate students, etc., for RFMLR Sidebar.

ABOUT THE REVIEW

RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review was set up as an academic initiative to promote research and debate in areas of financial and economic law. The review looks to understand the legal paradigm prevalent in India and South East Asia and how it affects finance and other cross border mercantile activities. The journal aims at giving the opportunity to legal academia, research scholars, legal practitioners and students to publish work that is at the cutting edge of doctrinal, theoretical and empirical research.

ABOUT THE BLOG

RFMLR is one of the established forums for creating a dialogue on corporate and Financial Laws. Through the platform of this Blog, the Editorial Board has made an attempt to further the objective of exchange of ideas and the reporting of new developments in all aspects of business, financial and mercantile laws, broadly defined. RFMLR invites submissions from students, legal professionals and practitioners on a rolling basis on corporate law, securities law, insolvency law, banking law, arbitration law, competition law and taxation law. Submissions can be in the form of articles, opinions, case comments and short notes on the aforementioned topics. We request you to read the Submission Guidelines carefully before sending your submissions.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

  1. The co-authorship is limited to maximum of two authors. 
  2. All submissions must be in Times New Roman, font size 12 and Spacing 1.5.
  3. Submission should contain endnotes instead of footnotes.
  4. All endnotes shall be in Times New Roman, font size 10 and single-spaced.
  5. Word Limit for each submission is between 1000 to 1300 words (exclusive of Endnotes).
  6. The submission should be accompanied with a covering letter specifying the author’s name, designation, institute, contact number and e-mail for future reference.
  7. All entries should be submitted in .doc or .docx format.
  8. All selected entries will be published on the RFMLR Sidebar at rfmlr.com
  9. The entries must be original, unpublished and an outcome of the author’s own efforts. The plagiarism limit is 12% (Exclusive of Endnotes).
  10. The authors by submitting their entry would be deemed to have divested the copyright to RFMLR, however, all moral rights shall remain with the author(s).

CITATION FORMAT

The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation (20th Ed.) is to be followed for citation. All endnotes must be in Times New Roman, font size 10, single-spacing and justified text

CONTACT DETAILS

For any queries, please contact the Editorial Board at rfmlr@rgnul.ac.in.

Land Owners are also Consumers under COPRA Act, 1986: Analysis of Faqir Chand Gulati v. Uppal Agencies Private Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 345

Posted on

This case analysis is written by Siddhi P. Nagwekar, a student of Karnataka State Law University’s Law School

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 3302 of 2005

Equivalent Citation

1994 1 CPJ 160; 1995 2 CPJ 275; 1994 1 SCC 243

Bench

Justices R.V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta

Decided on

10.07.2008

Relevant Act/Section

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(r)(ii) and Section 2(1)(c) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act

Brief Facts

It relates to the question whether a land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a `consumer’ entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service-provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant is the owner of the premises no. L-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. He entered into a `collaboration agreement’ with the respondent. The appellant alleges that the respondent secured sanction of the plan for construction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short ‘MCD’) but made several unauthorized deviations during construction, resulting in several deviation notices from MCD. In fact, MCD passed an order dated 16.1.1991 to seal the premises, but subsequently, the premises were de-sealed to enable the builder to rectify the deviations. The delivery of the ground floor was made by the builder to the appellant’s son during the appellant’s absence from India. On his return, the appellant sent a letter dated 29.10.1992, pointing out several shortcomings in the construction and the violations of sanctioned plan, and called upon the builder to rectify the deviations and defects. The builder did not comply. The appellant, therefore, filed a complaint in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-IX, Delhi which was dismissed. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum and the said appeal was dismissed by the State Commission, Delhi. This appeal was also dismissed for devoid of merit. The appellant filed a revision petition before the National Commission. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

Issues Before the Court

Whether the owner can maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act?

Whether in such circumstances, the owner can claim that he is a consumer and the builder is the service provider?

Ratio of the Case

The basic underlying purpose of the agreement is the construction of a house or an apartment (ground floor) in accordance with the specifications, by the builder for the owner, the consideration for such construction being the transfer of undivided share in land to the builder and grant of permission to the builder to construct two floors. Such agreement whether called as a ‘collaboration agreement’ or a ‘joint-venture agreement’, is not however a ‘joint-venture’. There is a contract for construction of an apartment or house for the appellant, in accordance with the specifications and in terms of the contract. There is a consideration for such construction, flowing from the landowner to the builder (in the form sale of an undivided share in the land and permission to construct and own the upper floors).To adjust the value of the extent of land to be transferred, there is also payment of cash consideration by the builder. But the important aspect is the availing of services of the builder by the land-owner for house construction (construction of owner’s share of the building) for a consideration. To that extent, the land owner is a consumer, the builder is a service provider and if there is deficiency in service in regard to construction, the dispute raised by the land owner will be a consumer dispute. We may mention that it makes no difference for this purpose whether the collaboration agreement is for construction and delivery of one apartment or one floor to the owner or whether it is for construction and delivery of multiple apartments or more than one floor to the owner. The principle would be the same and the contract will be considered as one for house construction for consideration.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court passed the following orders:

  1. The orders of the National Commission, State Commission and District Forum are set aside.
  2. The appellant’s complaint is held to be maintainable.
  3. The District Forum is directed to consider the matter on merits and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
  4. The respondents shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant.

Latest Posts

Archives

CALL FOR INTERNS: Antahkarana Group

Posted on

Antahkarana Group is a non-profit organisation working for mental health inclusivity. We are working on various Mental Health issues through research work, content creation, organizing and executing campaigns, events or workshops and other public action with our volunteers’ support. There are on-ground projects as well in collaboration with various organisations.

This Research-Advocacy Project is one of its kind to bring together persons from legal and mental health background to work together on a macro level research of mental health care structure in India. We have shortlisted a few issues which need to be worked upon in terms of research and advocacy. We are looking for Research Interns from psychology or law background for this project. The work shall be done on a Volunteer basis.

Role of an Intern

As an intern, you’d be required to work with a team on a research issue for five weeks and submit research on that issue. They will also be provided with training sessions, to gain researching skills. Regular meetings with mentors will also be scheduled.

Skills you’ll learn

  • Researching Skills
  • Content Writing
  • Analytical and Logical Skills

Duration

24th August, 2020 to 30th September, 2020
(Flexible Timings)

Perks

Certificate of Internship
Letter of Recommendation

How to apply

Fill the Google form at
https://forms.gle/2qgnpD6xd1 7n5B9cg9

For more information visit here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PUnAs9V8Y67VMq0wiuPAQbt6KxEshwiD/view

Call for Articles/Short Notes/Case Comments: NUALS Law Journal

Posted on

NUALS Law Journal (ISSN Number 2319-8273) is a student-edited law review at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is multidisciplinary, double-blind, and peer-reviewed.

The Editorial Board of the NUALS Law Journal (ISSN Number 2319-8273) is inviting submissions for its 15th Edition. The Journal, being the flagship law review of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, is a multidisciplinary, double-blind, student-edited law review. We welcome submissions, on any topic of law of contemporary relevance, from academicians, legal practitioners, students and researchers from the legal community. All submissions will go through a rigorous review process and possible editing by the Editorial Board.

Word limit:

  • Articles of length 5000 to 10000 words (exclusive of footnotes; however speaking footnotes must be limited to 50 words); articles exceeding the word limit may be considered on merit.
  • Short Notes (between 1500 and 5000 words)
  • Case Comments (minimum of 1500 words)

Longer submissions may be considered on the basis of merit.

Submission guidelines

  1. Submissions are to be made only in electronic form and must be sent to lawjournal@nuals.ac.in  
  2. Submissions are accepted on a rolling basis; the 15th Edition will consist of two issues. The cut off for consideration for the first issue will be 24th of October 2020, while the cut-off for the second will be the 21st of February, 2021. All submissions after the 21st of February will be considered for the 16th Edition.
  3. All submissions are to contain an abstract, of not more than 250 words, accompanying the article. Please refrain from sending abstracts in separate word doc.
  4. By submitting an article, the author undertakes that the article is an original work and has not been submitted, accepted or published elsewhere.
  5. Plagiarism will result in summary rejection of the submission.
  6. Co-authorship is allowed for a maximum of two authors.

Formatting Guidelines

  1. All submissions must follow the Bluebook (20th Edition) style of citation; non-conformity will be a ground for rejection.
  2. Submissions must be in Times New Roman font, with size 12 and line spacing 1.5.
  3. All footnotes must be in Times New Roman font, with size 10 and line spacing 1.
  4. Submissions must be made in .doc/.docx formats only.
  5. The documents must not contain any identification markers. Eg: Name of the author after the title, Author as recognised by Word or any other meta data.

Receipt of submission will be intimated to the authors within two weeks of submission. Authors will be periodically updated on the status of review of their piece. If there are any doubts, the board can be contacted at lawjournal@nuals.ac.in

For more information visit this website https://nualslawjournal.com/submissions/

Editorial Policy: https://nualslawjournal.com/editorial-policy/

2nd National Article Writing Competition: VAKEEL SAHAB PRO

Posted on

Vakeel Sahab Pro

Vakeel Sahab Pro is an online Indian legal Portal founded in the year 2020, envisioned to empower the Lawyer’s creed. Law is like an ocean the deeper you go, the more you realise its depth. We aim to enhance your legal knowledge and skills not only by providing a learning platform but to make use of law in forming your opinions and raising your arguments.
Our startup strives to bring innovative legal events and programs for participants who are willing to stand apart from the crowd and realise their potential in uncommon ways. Being part of the legal world is about adding value to your personality and professional development. We always try to achieve what is fruitful for your Curriculum Vitae as well as self-fulfilment. The usual bars to learning surrounded by orthodox methods leave no space for growth. Thus our mission should be to break the four walls of customary learning and think out of the box ways to advance our growth.

ABOUT THE COMPETITION

After the successful completion of the 1st National Article Writing Competition with such a marvellous response, herewe are moving further to organize our 2nd NATIONAL ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION, which will be open for all ages and all fields.
During this COVID – 19 we all are at our home and we are having an excess of time to think and write so VAKEEL SAHAB PRO is giving you an opportunity to show your thoughts and ideas and we will provide you our platform.

ARTICLE TOPIC

The topic should be related to law or management.

ELIGIBILITY 

Open for everyone.

SUBMISSION AND COMPETITION RULES

1.  The article should be the original work of participants (25% plagiarism allowed)

2. Co – Authorship up to only one allowed.

3. Language: English ONLY

4. Submission should be in .docx format.

5. Font: Times New Roman     Size: 14
    Alignment: Justified

6. Two Co-authors can be from different colleges

7. Maximum word: 1500 words and MINIMUM words: 800 (excluding footnotes.

8. An article should have INTRODUCTION  & CONCLUSION.

9. At the last of the article, you have to mention YOUR NAME (s), COLLEGE NAME, YEAR OF STUDY, COURSE WHICH YOU ARE PURSUING

10. You have to mail your articles to ayushku065@gmail.com11. SUBJECT of the mail – 2ND ARTICLE WRITING COMPETITION (YOUR NAME).

REGISTRATION PROCEDURE

All participants must register themselves by paying a nominal fee of Rs. 50/- only.
In the co-authorship, they have to pay Rs. 55 per team only (means 26 Rs per person).
NOTE: You have to pay fees first and after that fill registration form because you have to upload a screenshot of payment.
After payment please fill out this form CLICK HERE.

PAYMENT DETAILS

You have to pay the fee by PayTm / PhonePe / GooglePay/ BHIM / AMAZON PAY only in this number: 8933948420
NOTE: Take Screenshot after doing payment and after that, you have to upload in the Google form.

PRIZES

1st Prize: 1500 Rs.
2nd Prize: 1000 Rs. (3 Free Publications on Vakeel Sahab Pro + COLLEGE AMBASSADOR POST)
3rd Prize: 1 Free publication + COLLEGE AMBASSADOR + INTERNSHIP in Vakeel Sahab Pro in September.
+ Top 10 Articles will be published on our website. (WITH PUBLICATION CERTIFICATE)
E – Certificates for every participant.

IMPORTANT DATES

* Last date for registration and payment of fee: 16 AUGUST 2020
* Last date of Submission of an article: 20 AUGUST 2020
* Announcement of Results: 27 AUGUST 2020
* Certificates will be dispatched from 1 SEPTEMBER 2020

CONTACT DETAILS

Contact for any query if you have:

AYUSHKU065@GMAIL.COM  (Note: after Ku 0 is Zero)
Mobile Number: 8112457884 ( WhatsApp)

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad v. Durdana Zamir

Posted on

This Case Analysis is written by Siddhi P. Nagwekar, a student of Karnataka State Law University’s Law School.

Case Number

I.A.- 10367/2007

Equivalent Citation

(2009) 109 DRJ 357

Bench

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra

Decided on

02.03.2009

Relevant Act/Section

Sections 406, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Brief Facts

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad is a distinguished professor of Sociology at Jawahar Nehru University. A woman named Durdanda Zameer filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell allegedly making defamatory statements against him. The excerpts of the complaint, where his name was recorded as ‘Imtiaz Ahmad Ansari’ according to the plaintiff amounted to his defamation and entitled him to damages. He contends that he has been portrayed as a perpetrator of dowry demand and in his name, Ansari has been deliberately added since ‘Ansaris’ belong to lower community viz ‘Julaha’. He claimed that he was a renowned social psychologist and because of the assertions made by the defendant in her complaint to CAW Cell and other authorities, his reputation received a severe dent in academic circles and among his colleagues and also towards the mammoth work that he has done for the betterment of the society in general.   The plaintiff claimed damages to the tune of Rs.20 lac from the defendant.

Issues before the Court

Whether the excerpts of the complaint made by Durdanda Zameer to the CAW caused defamation of the plaintiff?

Ratio of the Case

Under the law of defamation, the test of defamatory nature of a statement is its tendency to incite an adverse opinion or feeling of other persons towards the Plaintiff. A statement is to be judged by the standard of the ordinary, right-thinking members of the society at the relevant time. The words must have resulted in the Plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or regarded with the feeling of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike or disesteem or to convey an imputation to him or disparaging him or his office, profession, calling, trade or business. The defamation is a wrong done by a person to another’s reputation.

Court’s Observations

Justice S.N. Dhingra observed that the plaintiff’s submissions that adding of caste ‘Ansari’ against his name was per se defamatory is very strange. If a professor of sociology has a notion and thought that ‘Ansari’ was a caste of lower-class since it represents ‘Julaha’ community, I can only take pity upon such ‘highly respected’ and ‘qualified professors’ 

If it is stated that a Hungama was created by many from in-laws of the defendant, including the plaintiff, that does not mean that the defendant made defamatory imputations against the plaintiff or the defendant made a statement to cause an adverse opinion or hatred feelings of other persons towards the plaintiff. As has already been observed above the statement is to be judged by the standard of an ordinary person. The alleged words must have resulted in the plaintiff to be shunned or evaded or inculcated a feeling of hatred and condemn. The plaintiff continues to be the professor in JNU and he continues to a known voice at different TV Channels. It is not the case that people have abandoned him or boycotted him because of this imputation. The plaintiff has not named a single person who had changed his opinion after filing of the complaint by the defendant.

Moreover, the defendant had a right to make complaints of her grievances to the authorities. Whenever a person makes a complaint against someone to the lawful authorities and in that complaint, he makes imputations against the person complained of, it cannot be considered that the person has publicized or publicly made defamatory averments against a person.

Judgment of the Court

In view of the facts presented, and the applicable law considered, the Court did not find any cause of action arising against the plaintiff for defamation. The suit of the Plaintiff was thus dismissed.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Posted on

This case is critically analyzed by Akshat Mehta, a student of Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad. In this case, he analyzed how the need for ‘Absolute Liability’ emerged despite having the 18th century doctrine of ‘Strict Liability’.

INTRODUCTION

This case serves the basic foundation for the emergence of ‘Absolute Liability Rule’ in India after the Bhopal Gas tragedy and oleum Gas leak incident.

EQUIVALENT CITATION

 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

BENCH

Justice P.N. Bhagwati 

DECIDED ON

20 December 1986

COURT

Supreme Court of India

RELEVANT LAWS

Rule of Absolute liability under the law of Torts, Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India

FACTS

On December 2, 1984, the deadly ‘Methyl Isocyanate gas’ leaked from the plant of UCC, Bhopal which killed almost 4,000 people immediately within 2 hours of the leak of the gas. Most people died were the people of the slum area residing near the geography of the plant. Till the morning the death toll reached up to 8,000 because lethal gas spread throughout the city. Around 20,000 people died in the next 20 days and more than 80,000 people suffered permanent disability. The most horrible part of the incident was that UCC was found shifting the whole liability to Union Carbide India Limited. The case was initiated by the name union Carbaid Corporation V. Union of India (1984) in the Apex Court. 

While the matter was pending before the Supreme Court similar incident occurred after the one year in the factory of Shriram Fertilizers & Chemicals and Other v. Union of India on 4th and 6th December 1985. A leakage of hazardous Oleum Gas occurred in the factory plant of Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industries a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. in which one advocate along with several other people was dead and some others are badly injured. Several applications were filed by Delhi Legal Aid and Advice board and Delhi Bar Association regarding the allocation of compensation to the deceased advocate and others who were badly injured and died. Also several times the question was raised in the parliament in 1985 proceedings regarding the use of hazardous substances which had taken away the lives of numerous people in both the incidents. The then leading legal practitioner M.C. Mehta filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

Following issues were raised before the Apex Court:

1. Whether the Plant could be allowed to continue or not, if yes what are the preventive measures taken by the government to ensure that the operation of the plant doesn’t cause any risk or hazard to the community?

2. Whether Shriram Food and Fertilizers were engaged in production and making of hazardous substances and chemicals at the cost of human life and environment and could be made ‘Absolutely liable’ for their actions and the rule of ‘Rylands v. Fletcher’ could be applied in this case? 

3. Whether Shriram food and fertilizers could be considered under the ambit of Article 12 as a state?

4. Whether the factory management is liable to compensate the victims and application for compensation under Article 21 could be sustained?

RATIO OF THE CASE

The court was in the opinion that this case should be read in reference to ‘Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India’s case and held that powers in Article 32 of the Constitution are not only to be exercised when Fundamental Rights are threatened to be violated but also could be used for remedial purposes when the Rights are violated. The court also observed that the Court has the power to grant remedial relief in the cases where ‘paramount collective interest’ is located or the public at a large has an impact.

In regards to the ‘Strict Liability’ principle emerged in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the court came out of a critical difference between the concept of ‘Strict Liability and Absolute Liability’, which is:

Strict Liability rule says:

⮚ There must be a dangerous thing which has been brought on to the land of the defendants. 

⮚ Such a dangerous thing must be used for a non-natural purpose.  

⮚ Such dangerous thing must escape away from the control of the defendants.

There are five exceptions to strict liability through which it could be avoided:

⮚  If the plaintiff was himself at fault.

⮚  Plaintiff’s consent to suffer harm.

⮚  Act of a stranger (3rd party).

⮚  Act of God, and

⮚  Statutory Authority.

But, the Court had noticed that ‘Strict Liability’ the rule was an 18th-century old law when science and technology have not developed to an extent as it is today. There is a serious need to develop new laws that could cater to the needs of current situation of industrialized society. Thus, the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ emerged, which says: 

⮚ There must be a dangerous thing that has been brought on to the land of the defendants. 

⮚ Such a dangerous thing must be used for a non-natural purpose.  

⮚ Such dangerous thing must escape away from the control of the defendants.

⮚ Such dangerous thing must be brought in to the land of defendants for the Profit Motive. 

The Court noticed that these four conditions are needed to be satisfied in order to establish ‘Absolute Liability’. There is no exception to the rule of Absolute Liability as the term itself suggests that it makes a person absolutely liable for his wrong deeds or negligence.

On the issue of compensation, the Court held that compensation must be awarded after taking into account the magnitude and capacity of the industry so that deterrent effect could be positively created. The larger the scale of operation of the industry the more the amount is it liable to pay for compensation. 

DECISION OF THE COURT

1. The Shriram Food and Fertilizers are supposed to deposit Rs. 20 Lakhs in the Court for payment of Compensation to deceased and injured. Also, it was directed to keep Rs. 15 Lakhs as a security deposit in the bank that could be encashed by the registrar of the Supreme Court in the event of any sought of leakage.

2. Management and Directors of the company are supposed to give a written undertaking guaranteeing payment of compensation to the victims in case of any future tragedy.

3. The Shriram Food and Fertilizers should comply with the recommendations of the expert committee and Rs. 30000 must be paid by them for the traveling and convenience expenses of the committee members.

4. A green belt should be created within the width of 1.5 K.M. of the industrial plant set up. 

5. The Court directed Shriram Food and Fertilizers to pay Rs. 10000 to M.C. Mehta for costs occurred by him and appreciated his efforts.

6. The Court also directed the central government to setup an ‘Environmental Court’ consisting a judge and other experts and in consonance with this Government passed the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 to deal with the cases of Environmental Pollution.