At CRY, they believe in empowering children with the right tools. CRY believes that children who are made aware of their rights are a powerhouse of knowledge. They stand up for themselves and for those around them. They become changemakers and young activists.

CRY has seen multiple examples of this when children as young as 9 years have raised alarm and successfully stopped child marriages in their community. Where adults in the community have failed to stand up to age-old regressive cultural practices, children have boldly raised their voices.

What is “Know your Law” Initiative

Children should be made aware of their rights. Children are smart, they understand their rights and responsibilities when made to understand in a child-friendly manner.

CRY wants to invite Law students to use their expertise and simplify a part/whole of any of the following 4 laws/guidelines.

POCSO

Keeping safe online

Prohibition of child marriage Act

School safety manual

Pick any of the above 4 topics and make either a video, audio, quiz, or posters explaining the content in a vernacular language. Content in English is welcome, but we would urge you to make your submissions in vernacular languages (along with supporting English base text/ content so that it can be cross-checked).

The content should be:

  • In simple language: explaining terms used in the law/ policy wherever applicable.
  • Contain crucial information
  • Be Age appropriate

What is in for you?

  1. This is your chance to give back to the children of India. Nothing compares with the satisfaction that comes from knowing you used your time and knowledge for a good cause.
  2. CRY encourages Young Indians to stand up for our children and as a token of appreciation, we shall be issuing a certificate of participation to all those who make valid submissions.
  3. CRY would give a special shout-out to the best submissions and an offer to intern with CRY and that will be done by October.

What is a Valid Submission?

  • A submission that covers the topic related to the 4 legislations/guidelines mentioned above.
  • The content is appropriate to be disseminated to children between the ages of 6-18
  • The submission is of reasonable quality.
  • A submission that has original content: please paraphrase and do not plagiarize content

How to Submit?

Kindly send in your submissions through this google form.

While uploading your submission Name your file as FullName_Language_Topic_Ageofthechild.

For example, if your name is Aditi Sharma and you have made content in Hindi covering POCSO for children aged 7-10, the file name shall be Aditi Sharma_Hindi_POCSO_7-10.

Deadline: 30th August 2020.

Contact Information

For any queries or issues with submission, send CRY an email at kanchan.hans[at]crymail.org. Please give them 48 working hours to get back to you with a resolution.

VISIT HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION https://www.lawctopus.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Know-Your-Law-Guidelines-and-Submissions.pdf

This Article is Written by Manav Sony from Amity University, Kolkata. The article throws light on defamation and electronic defamation which is taking place these days in various social media sites.

INTRODUCTION

A man’s Reputation is considered as the most valuable thing and everyone has the right to protect his/her reputation. Reputation is the only thing which matters the most in this world these days. Even when you apply for a job, the boss first checks your reputation and also your background and then only you are considered for it. The right to protect reputation is an inherent personal right which is also known as jus in rem i.e. a right good against all the other persons in this entire world. Talking about defamation, it means any sort of oral or written statement which is made by a person which results in damaging the reputation of some other person. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, defamation is any sort of offence that injures the character of a person and also fame, reputation by giving false and malicious statements. If the statement is written, it is known as “libel” and if the statement is spoken, it is known as “slander”. In order to prove any statement defamatory in nature, there are certain essential elements which have to be considered. They are enumerated as follows:

  • A statement should be made either spoken or through any expressions, signs etc.
  • The statement should refer to the plaintiff
  • The Statement must be Defamatory in nature
  • There must be an intention of the wrongdoer
  • The statement should be false
  • The statement should not at all be privileged
  • The statement must be published somewhere
  • The third-party must believe that the defamatory matter is to be true
  • The statement must cause injury to the plaintiff

When one person or group of persons try to agree in order to write or utter some defamatory words of another and one of the persons writes or utters the words when the others are present who all had agreed earlier, would be sued under the charges of joint tortfeasor provided in the defamatory matter to the persons rather than those who were acting all together or the plaintiff. Usually, the person who makes a defamatory statement first is not all liable if that particular statement is republished by another person although he expressly stated that he was reproducing what he heard from some other source. But no person has the right to repeat any sort of slanderous statements against anyone without any proper justification of the statement. If any person is aware of the fact that a statement is defamatory in nature and still repeats to spread it or communicates further, then he can be held liable for defamation at that instant. There may be publication by omission. If in any case the failure by a defendant was authorised and was also able to remove any sort of defamatory matter which is the work of some other person is the publication made by him. For suppose, if anybody tries to put up any sort of a defamatory letter on the notice board of an office or club and the person who is the in-charge has not removed the letter from the board within a reasonable time then that person also would be liable for defamation. 

Defences Available Against Defamation

Talking about the defences that are available against defamation, there are certain points which are enumerated as follows: –

  1. Justification by truth
  2. Fair and Bona fide Comment
  3. Fair Comment and Justification distinguished
  4. Absolute Privilege or absolute statement
  5. Parliamentary Privilege as per Indian Constitution
  6. Qualified Privilege or a legal statement
  7. Opinion Statement
  8. Consent
  9. Censure passed by a person in good faith having lawful authority
  10. The accusation made to the person in good faith

Defamation in the Digital World

Our world has actually progressed a lot. From having pagers to having keypad mobile phones to having touch screen phones, the technology has earned a lot of progress during these recent times. The progress in digitalisation has also led to rise in various sort of crimes. One such crime is known as Cyber Defamation. This particular theory means publishing of any false statement by a person against any other person in cyberspace i.e. social media sites that can actually harm the reputation of that particular person and also cause injury too. In our country, defamation is treated as a civil and criminal offence. Cyber Defamation is entirely a new type of concept. The defamatory statements must refer to the plaintiff and the intention must be to lower the reputation against the others which is done through by using modern technological devices like computers or the internet. If any person publishes any sort of defamatory statements on a website or sends any E-Mails which contains defamatory materials to that particular person to whom the statement has been made would lead to cyber defamation.  

Referring to the Liabilities of our country, there are certain sections which come under this particular heading. They are as follows:

  • Section 499 of The Indian Penal Code which gives the definition of defamation
  • Section 500 of IPC that gives the punishment which is two years of imprisonment or fine or both
  • Section 469 of IPC which deals with forgery
  • Section 503 of IPC which deals with criminal intimidation through electronic methods

Apart from all these, there was a section which was section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. That particular section has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the year 2015. It talked about offences made through electronic means. 

Cases

1. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha:

In this particular case, the petitioner was being stalked continuously by someone and also a fake account of hers was prepared by the culprit in which some obscene messages and pictures were sent to the friends. Also, a morphed naked picture of the plaintiff was posted on the walls of the hostel where the plaintiff used to stay. After a clear- cut search operation by the police, they had arrested the culprit and presented before the court of law. The court held the culprit liable for committing such a big offence. 

2. Rajiv Dinesh Gadkari v. Smt, Nilangi Rajiv Gadkari:

In this particular case, when the defendant got the divorce letter from her husband, she filed a suit against him for harassing her by uploading morphed photographs and defamed her. The particular offence was registered in the court of law and in the end the wife claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000. 

Conclusion

The intense volume of information and an easy way of transferring it on the Internet makes it a critical source of defamation. After researching on the aforesaid topic, it can be said that the present scenario of India regarding laws do not have an adequate approach towards cases of cyber defamation. Also, defamation laws should be sufficiently flexible to be applied to all media. As the defamation laws in the era of the Internet, it becomes practically impossible to apply the principle of 18th and 19th-century cases to the issue arising on the Internet in the 21st century. Cyber Defamation in Corporate world can have far-reaching effects on the organizations in some cases. However, there are laws in place to deal with cyber defamation and with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence things have been eased. If the plaintiff is able to prove that defamation has occurred then the onus lies on the defendant to prove that he was innocent. Further, there is also Cyber Crime Investigation Cells to deal with Cyber Crimes in India.

Latest Posts


Archives

This article is written by AASHIKA AGGARWAL, pursuing BBA-LLB (H) from AMITY UNIVERSITY, GURGAON.  

The Sabarimala Temple is a temple complex located at Sabarimala inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Perinad village, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, India. It is one of the largest annual pilgrimage sites in the world with an estimate of over 40 to 50 million devotees visiting every year. The temple is situated on a hilltop amidst eighteen hills at an altitude of 1260m above sea level and is surrounded by mountains and dense forests. This temple is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB). The Supreme Court has made a rule about the Sabarimala temple that women of all ages can visit the Sabarimala temple now. 

The shrine at Sabarimala is an ancient temple of Lord Ayyappa also known as sasta and dharmasastra. There is a strong belief of everyone that in the 12th century, Manikandan, a prince of Pandalam Dynasty, meditated at Sabarimala temple and became one with the divine. Manikandan was an avatar of Ayyappa. If we will talk about the Lord Ayyapa then the Lord Ayyappa is a pure god that means Hindu God. They are known as eternal celibate. The Lord Ayyappa fully believes in celibacy which means no contact with the female and they maintain a huge distance with the females, that’s why they have been given a title named NAISHTIKA BRAHMACHARI. Since this temple is for Lord Ayyapa, then purity is very important. All the males visiting at the temple their purity is very important, not only from the body but also mentally. The devotees are expected to follow a vratham (41 days austerity period) before the pilgrimage. This begins with wearing a special mala (a chain made of rudraksha or tulsi beads is commonly used, though still, other types of chains are available). During the 41 days of vratham, the devotees who have taken the vow is required to strictly follow the rules that include following only a Lacto-vegetarian diet, follow celibacy, follow teetotalism, not use any profanity and have to control the anger, allow the hair and nails to grow without cutting them.

In 1990, a petition was filed in the Kerala High Court seeking a ban on the entry of women inside the Sabarimala temple. In 1991, the Kerala High Court restricted entry of women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 from offering worship at the shrine as they were of the menstruating age. In 2006, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian young lawyers association seeking entry of women between 10 to 50 years. In 2008, the matter was referred to a three-judge bench two years later. In January 2016, the Court had questioned the ban, saying this cannot be done under the Constitution. In April 2016, the United Democratic Front Government of Kerala led by Chief Minister Oomen Chandy informed the Supreme Court that it is bound to protect the right to practice the religion of Sabarimala devotees. On November 6, 2016, the Kerala government had told the Supreme Court that it was in favour of allowing all the women inside the temple. Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the state government, said it would support the entry of women of all the ages to the temple. In 2017, the Supreme Court referred the case to the Constitution bench. On September 2018, a five-judge bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice, Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict, said banning the entry of women in Sabarimala temple is gender discrimination and the practice violates the rights of Hindu women and allowed the entry of women of all ages in the revered shrine. The state government sought time to implement the verdict, however even after the entry was allowed a large number of followers camped outside the shrine to prevent the entry of women of all the ages inside the temple. In February 2019, the order was reserved by the Apex Court. The order expected to be announced is likely to uphold or set aside the 2018 order. While Justice of India R F NARIMAN and DY CHANDRACHUD concurred with the CJI and Justice of India A M KHANWILKAR, Justice of India INDU MALHOTRA (only a single female judge) gave a dissenting verdict. 

The observations of Judge INDU MALHOTRA said that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. She was of the view that it is not for the courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil like SATI. Adding that the issue is critical to various religions, he said, issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily interfered by the courts. The Sabarimala shrine and the deity are protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India and the religious practices cannot be solely tested on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ‘Notions of rationality cannot be invoked in the matters of religion’, said Justice Indu Malhotra adding ‘what constitutes essential religious practise is for the religious community to decide, not for the court. India is a diverse country. Constitutional morality would allow all to practice their beliefs. The court should not interfere unless there is any aggrieved person from that section or religion.’ 

Now the final thing comes that the temple is open for worship only during the days of mandalapooja (approximately 15 November to 26 December), makaravilakku or Makar Sankranti (14 January) and maha vishuva sankranti (14 April) and the first five days of each Malayalam month. Here, the Supreme Court verdict is very revolutionary and path-breaking. In India, there is a wave going on for feminism. Recently, the Section-497 of the act has been scrapped and now the Sabarimala temple issue. A few years back, in the USA, there came a lot of waves on feminism and there the USA has empowered women.  

Latest Posts


Archives

Write What’s In Your Mind!

South Asia Students For Liberty invites students between the age-group 14-18 to participate in a Short Essay Writing Competition on the topic “What Does Liberty Mean To You In The Times Of The Pandemic?”

Has Quarantining Inspired You? Or Has It Disappointed You? Either way, SASFL provides you the space to freely express your thoughts and recognises you for each step that you take towards creating a freer society that allows you to speak your mind.

Begin this journey by asking yourself one simple question: What Does ‘Liberty’ Mean To You In The Times Of The Pandemic?

Structure of the essay

Kindly note that the structure of the essay should be as follows:
Name of the Participant:
Email address:
Phone Number:
Age:

The content should be divided into three components: Introduction, Main Body, Conclusion

Eligibility Criteria

1. 14-18 age group
2. Any school/college
3. Last Date of Submission: 30.08.20
4. 700 words only
5. Submit in a Word Doc or PDF format
6. Only one entry will be accepted per person. Multiple entries are forbidden.
7. Individual participation only. Group entries will not be accepted.

How will you benefit?

1. eCertificates will be given to all participants.
2. Winners will get the chance to be featured on our social media pages.

For registration click here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe4W0BJUbr5i-UaIh2K4Q8YCKQ4YE9js8FkGAebDeekhIhQpg/viewform?gxids=7628

For any queries, please reach out to Dipanita Malik here: dmalik@studentsforliberty.org

About the Quest Sociolegal Review

The Quest Socio-Legal Review is an initiative by law students. As the name of the blog suggests, it is a continuous search of new ideas, opinions and contributing towards an informed citizenry.

Taking the example of the Constitution of India, which in itself is an amalgamation of law with various other aspects of social sciences. The Quest Socio-legal Review is an effort to explore law and interdisciplinary approaches to law by drawing on insights from various disciplines- history, economics, and social sciences.

About the Event

The Quest Sociolegal Review is organizing a Panel Discussion on Telling Feminism through theory, experiences, and judgment writing in India in association with the Centre for Human Rights, Symbiosis Hyderabad, and Oxfam India. The objective of the panel discussion is to understand the current feminist approach.

Date and time of the event: 6th September, Sunday 1 PM onwards.

Each and every registered attendee will get an E-certificate.

Speakers

  • Ms. Nabeela Siddqui: Research and Teaching Assistant at National Law University Jabalpur.
  • Ms. Flavia Ages: Advocate and Human Right Activist
  • Professor Aakash Singh Rathore: Author of the AAmbedkar’s Preamble
  • Professor Jhuma Sen: Associate Professor at O.P Jindal Law School
  • Ms. Ranu Bhogal: Director of Oxfam India

Contact Information

E-mail ID: Info@thequestslr.i@lexpeeps

For registration and full details of the Panel Discussion on Telling Feminism by Quest Socio-Legal Review, click here.

About the Webinar

Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, Aluva, Kerala, in association with World Mediation Organisation, Berlin, is conducting an International Webinar on September 11, Friday 2020.

The scope of this webinar lies in the realm of great opportunities spread out in the field of mediation and arbitration. It is also very much essential to wheel out the legal system to reach justice in an alternative way to meet its end.

As everyone knows about the expansion of mediation and arbitration outside the country, it has triggered many of the legal practitioners and aspirants to practice the law internationally. This webinar will throw light on the job opportunities and understanding of International Mediation and Arbitration process among the parties from different countries.

Therefore, Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, Aluva and World Mediation Organisation, Berlin are auspiciously coming together to provide a platform to discuss the possibilities of International Mediation and Arbitration to show the light to everyone who are looking forward to have a great career opportunity in mediation and arbitration.

About the Speakers

Professor Daniel Erdmann, the Founder & President-WMO. He worked for several years as a member of the managing board for humanitarian organizations across many countries. Nowadays he is the Chairman and Founder of the World Mediation Organization and Professor and Dean of the School of Mediation and Terrorism Studies at Euclid.

He was a tutor at the United Nations System Staff College and former COTIPSO Training Partner/Thesis Advisor at the Peace Operations Training Institute. He is responsible for the training concept, supervision and management of civil peace projects in Europe, Asia and the U.S.

Advocate Krusch P Antony, WMO Fellow and Mediator, is an accredited Arbitrator and an ADR Professional for the past 15 years. Currently he is a Partner- Arbitration & Litigation to M/s King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates & Attorney, Kochi, Chennai & Bangalore. He is presently the Educational Advisor (India) to WMO, Berlin.

Important Dates

Registration Starts from 27th August 2020

Last date of Registration: 8th September 2020

Details of the Webinar

Topic 1: Mediation Profession & Practice by WMO President: Professor Daniel Erdmann

Topic 2: Arbitration Law & Practice by Arbitrator & Mediator: Advocate Krusch P. Antony

Date: 11th September 2020 [Friday]

Time: 3 pm to 5.30 pm

The program will be live-streamed on Google Meet and YouTube live

Registration Details

Registration for the webinar is Free. Please note that the E-certificate will be provided for this program.

For BSOLS and WMO’s Webinar on International Mediation and Arbitration, click here.

Contact Information

For any queries, please contact: jinesh[at]bsols.edu.in

For more details visit here http://www.bsols.in/Brochure%20original%20Final.pdf

ABOUT US:

Lexpeeps is totally dedicated to the legal fraternity law professionals get an opportunity to flourish their career in a better way. Lexpeeps organises various events like debates, seminars of its own and also organises the major law school activities on tie-ups with leading law school. Lexpeeps is not only limited to managing the legal events but it also provides internships to law students where the law professionals come in touch with each other and grow by associating with the company.
Lexpeeps is also focusing on several social works like providing information and free legal aid to the poorer section of society.

TOPIC OF THE EVENT:

Lexpeeps.in organised a live Webinar on “Career prospects in ADR ”. 

EXPERT GUEST:

MS. IRAM MAJID

Executive Director of Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (APCAM)
Director, Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM)

Moderator:

MADHUR RATHAUR

Founder, Director, Lexpeeps

Date and Time:

AUGUST 15,2020 4:30-5:30 P.M.

Registration

Registration Fee: Totally Free

Response to the Workshop

We received an overwhelming response from the participants. There were more than 300 attendees. We are thankful to all the attendees and media partners for making the event successful

Perks: Free E Certificate AND E-BOOK

For Queries Contact Us:

Email: lexpeeps.in@gmail.com

This article is written by Tulip Das, currently pursuing BBA L.L.B(H) from Amity University Kolkata. 

INTRODUCTION

International humanitarian law (IHL), also referred to as the laws of armed conflict, is the law that governs the conduct of war (Jus in Bello). It is a part of international law which attempts to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities, and by restricting and governing the means and methods of warfare available to combatants. IHL has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

The IHL regulates the activities during armed conflict and situations of occupation. It is distinguished from and applies irrespective of, the body of law that regulates the recourse to armed force. This framework is recognized as the jus ad bellum and is enshrined in the UN Charter. It regulates the conditions under which force may be used, namely in self-defence and pursuant to UN Security Council authorization. Whenever there is an armed conflict, IHL applies to all the parties, whether or not a party was legally justified in using force under the jus ad bellum principles.

The balance of humanity and military necessity is seen in the foundational IHL norms of distinction and proportionality. Parties to an armed conflict are needed to distinguish, at all times, between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objects. Moreover, an attack may not be launched if it is anticipated to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage expected. Additional IHL principles include the duty to take precautions to spare the civilian population before and during an attack, the prohibition against the infliction of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.

Key Instruments of International Humanitarian Law

The two main sources of IHL rules and regulations are treaties and customary international law. Treaties are referred to as agreements between States, and those States that ratify a treaty are bound by its terms. Though a non-State armed group cannot sign a treaty, IHL treaty rules like Common Article Three and Additional Protocol II but apply to these actors too.

Many IHL rules are now considered to exhibit customary international law as well. Customary international law consists of rules acquired from the consistent practice of States based on a belief that the law requires them to act in that way. Such rules and regulations are binding on both states and non-State armed groups. The International Committee of the Red Cross published a study thereby creating a database on customary international humanitarian law. 

The key IHL treaties incorporate the 1907 Hague Regulations, the four Geneva Conventions, and their Additional Protocols.

  • 1907 Hague Regulations (Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907)
  • Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949
  • Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949
  • Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949
  • Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949
  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977
  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977
  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005.

How Does IHL Protect?

IHL governs the manner of hostilities by the parties to a conflict and protects persons in enemy hands. It also: 

• Requires the parties to a conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to abstain from attacking civilians

• Prohibits the use of weapons that are particularly cruel or that do not distinguish between combatants and civilians

• Requires the parties to a conflict to care for the wounded and sick and protect medical personnel

• Requires the parties to a conflict to ensure that the dignity of prisoners of war and civilian internees is preserved, in particular by allowing visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross delegates.

Whom Does IHL Protect?

IHL protects combatants and those who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities, such as:
• civilians
• medical and religious personnel
• wounded, shipwrecked and sick combatants
• prisoners of war
• civilian internees

Recognizing their specific needs, IHL grants women and children additional protection.

When Does IHL Protect?

IHL applies in three situations:

• International armed conflicts, which involve at least two nations

• Situations where the whole or part of a country’s territory is occupied by a foreign power

• Armed conflicts that arise within a country between a government and one or more organized armed groups, or between multiple organized armed groups. 

IHL applies to all the parties to a conflict, regardless of who started it.

Application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applies in situations of armed conflict. It offers two systems of protection: – one for international armed conflict and another for non-international armed conflict. The rules applicable in a specific situation will, hence, depend on the classification of the armed conflict.

A) International Armed Conflict (IAC)

IACs occurs when one or more States resort to the use of armed force against another State. An armed conflict between a State and an international organization is also categorised as an IAC. Wars of national liberation, in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, are classified as IACs under certain conditions.

B) Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)

Many armed conflicts today are non-international in nature. A NIAC is an armed conflict in which hostilities take place between the armed forces of a State and organized non-State armed groups, or between such groups. For hostilities to be considered a NIAC, they must reach a certain level of intensity and the groups involved must be adequately organized. IHL treaty law establishes a distinction between NIACs within the meaning of common Article 3 and NIACs falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.

• Common Article 3 applies to “armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.” These include armed conflicts in which one or more organized non-state armed groups are involved. NIACs may occur between State armed forces and organized non-State armed groups or only between such groups.

• Additional Protocol II applies to armed conflicts “which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.” The definition of a NIAC in Additional Protocol II is narrower than the notion of NIAC under common Article 3 in two aspects.

1) It introduces a requirement of territorial control, by providing that organized non-State armed groups must exercise such territorial control “as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.”

2) Additional Protocol II expressly applies only to armed conflicts between State armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups. Unlike common Article 3, Additional Protocol II does not apply to armed conflicts between organized non-State armed groups.

In this context, it must be kept in mind that Additional Protocol II “develops and supplements” common Article 3 “without modifying its existing conditions of application.” This means that this restrictive definition is relevant only for the application of Additional Protocol II; it does not extend to the law of NIAC in general.

CONCLUSION

Even wars have limits. International humanitarian law, whose bedrock is the Geneva Conventions, is a set of rules which endeavour to safeguard the people who are not, or are no longer, participating in the hostilities and to restrict the means and methods of warfare. International Humanitarian Law or the IHL is there for the safety of civilians, army personals and others who are involved and indulged in the war business. International Humanitarian Law is doing an extremely good job by protecting the people, we, as responsible individuals must say no to the concept of war and try our level best, be good, sincere, and honest and make the world a better place to live in. We must always remember the words of Thomas Mann who said that, “War is the only cowardly escape from the problems of peace”.

Latest Posts


Archives

This case analysis is made by Bhavna Arul, a fourth-year law student from Symbiosis Law School.

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1955

Judges

Vivian Bose, B. Jagannadhadas and Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, JJ.

Decided on

7/10/1955

Citation

AIR 1956 SC 171 / 1956 Cri LJ 338

Facts

The two appellants and the deceased have had a long ongoing dispute regarding a certain piece of land. On the night between the 18th and 19th February 1953 the two appellants, Rawalpenta Venkalu and Bodla Ram Narsiah, along with three others, with the intention of causing the death of the deceased had set fire to the hut of the deceased, Md. Moinuddin when he was asleep. In addition to setting fire, they had also latched the front door from outside to make sure the Moinuddin could not leave the house.

Soon after the hut was on fire, Moinuddin had started crying for help. This woke up an old servant who was sleeping in front of the cottage. The servant soon after waking up tried going and helping Moinuddin and he also called the other workers working for Moinuddin who were near-by to help.

When they came near the cottage to help, they were beaten with sticks by the appellants. The servant was beaten severely. The hut was also set on fire again as the previous fire was put off by the wing. The employees of Moinuddin were kept at bay by the superior force of the accused and their associates. These employees later called more villagers to help them. When the villagers came, the appellants and others prevented them from going to the rescue Moinuddin who was stuck in the cottage by throwing dust in their eyes and beating using their sticks.

The first information report of the occurrence was lodged at the Penpabad police station on the morning of the 19th February by Yousuf Ali, a cousin of the deceased, to the effect that some goons of the village had set fire to the cottage occupied by Moinuddin after chaining the outer door, with the result that he was burnt alive and that the villagers who tried to extinguish the fire had been beaten away by those goons. The villagers thus became terrified and had to retreat to the village.

Procedural History

On 22nd and 23rd February, the appellants had made their confessions to the munsif magistrate and were subsequently arrested. These two appeals by special leave arise out of the same judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court confirming those of the Sessions Judge of Nalgonda. In Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1955 Rawalpenta Venkalu is the appellant and in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1955, Bodla Ram Narsiah is the appellant. Both these persons were sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of Md. Moinuddin. They were placed on their trial along with three others who were acquitted by the learned trial Judge. The sentence of death was the subject matter of a reference to the High Court. The two condemned persons had also appealed to the High Court which was dismissed. The case was then tried in the Supreme Court as a reference petition. 

Issue

Whether the appellants had the intention to kill as per Section 300 (intention to murder) or not? 

Rule

Section 32, IPC- Common Intention

Section 300, IPC- Definition Clause- Murder

Section 302, IPC- Punishment for Murder 

Ratio Decedendi

The appellants argued that the death of the deceased, Moinuddin was a result of culpable homicide and not murder. The basis for this argument was to reduce the sentence of the sessions court from the death penalty to life imprisonment. 

When we look at the definition sections of murder and culpable homicide, it reads as follows-

Section 299. Culpable homicide. —Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Section 300. Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in­flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

The definitions of both may sound the same as both of the definitions talk about 2 key ingredients- the intention to cause death and an act that has caused death. However, culpable homicide is considered less severe than murder as the gravity of intention in culpable homicide is lower than the intention in murder. 

The Supreme Court observed the following-

  1. The appellants and the victim had an ongoing dispute over a piece of land which instigated the appellants to kill the victim.
  2. Both the accused lit matches to set the cottage on fire.
  3. They took measures to make sure the victim doesn’t leave the house by locking the front door from out.
  4. They also did not let anyone help the victim out as they brutally
  5. attacked anyone who tried helping by beating with sticks and throwing dust in their eyes.
  6. The murder was preplanned as the appellants had attacked the victim in the middle of the night after he had gone to sleep.

By stating the following reasons, the Supreme Court established intention to kill under Section 300 of the IPC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Sessions Court and decided that this was a clear case of Murder under section 300 and awarded the death penalty under section 302. 

Latest Posts


Archives

About the Organization

Lexstructor is an online, open access legal news, journals publication and education imparting platform, which is dedicated to express views on varied legal issues, thereby generating diversified research emerging areas in law. This platform shall also encourage the intent of young law students, professionals and members of academia to contribute to the field of law and its relation with various aspects of technology, policy making, management and other disciplines of academia, through journal and blogs sections. Besides, it provides free access of daily legal news updates to literate a lawman as well as a layman with the contemporary legal developments and know-how. Lexstructor has recently secured its position under top 100 Indian Legal Blogs and Websites, powered by Feedspot.

About the Webinar

Lexstructor is organizing 2nd Webinar on Effect of Pandemic on Execution of International Administrative Contracts.

About of the Speakers

  1. Ms. Meenal Maheshwari, Lead Commercial Counsel (Global Transactions, Contracts and Privacy), Essar Group, Member of FDPPI, The Scheduled 2020 Fellow of the Prestigious Chevening Awards
  2. Mr. M.M. Mohamed Gomaa, Judge at the Court of Appeal – Egyptian State Council, Former lawyer
  3. Legal Affairs Department of Egyptian Russian University, PhD researcher in Public Law – Cairo University, Double LLM in International Business Law from University of Jean Moulin Lyon III, France, 2017 and in Private and public law, from Ain Shams University (2013-2014)

Other Details

  • Date : September 13, 2020 (Sunday)
  • Time : 5 PM to 6 PM IST
  • Registration Fee – Rs. 20/-
  • Any interested person will be eligible
  • Payment methods are mentioned in the Registration form

Registration Process

To register, kindly fill up the registration form: https://rb.gy/vfpeda

For details, visit: https://lexstructor.in/2020/08/26/webinar-on-effect-of-pandemic-on-execution- of-international-administrative-contracts-organized-by-lexstructor-register-by-september-12/