Month: September 2020

CCS Introductory Course in Public Policy ‘ipolicy’ [Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore]

Posted on

Centre for Civil Society (CCS)

Centre for Civil Society (CCS) has been ranked amongst the top 60 think tanks in the world (and amongst the top 3 from India) by the University of Pennsylvania’s highly acclaimed annual Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) report, for the past 5 years.

About the Program

  • Have you ever wondered what makes a policy work?
  • Have you thought about the reason for India still being poor?
  • Have you ever questioned what the role of the government should be?
  • Explore these questions at ipolicy for young leaders- a 2-day certificate course in Public Policy organised by India’s leading thinktank Centre for Civil Society in four cities – Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Bangalore.
  • ìpolicy is an introductory course in Public Policy. The course involves a variety of interactive learning methods including dynamic games, talks, dialogues, and documentaries, designed to provide participants with opportunities to explore and share ideas about policy-based solutions to social problems from a liberal perspective.
  • Only 30 best applications would be selected for the course! Applications are open for all college students and young professionals.

Goals of ìpolicy:

  • To create a fun, open, and respectful environment where everyone is encouraged to think critically about social, economic, and political issues.
  • To evoke in participants a passionate inquiry into their own values and role in creating a good society.
  • To equip participants with fundamental concepts of political economy and sound public policy to enable them to understand the root cause of current challenges and effectively advocate for policy solutions through their current work and future professions.
  • To plug participants into a global network of opportunities to propel their intellectual growth, make personal connections and access resources to help them advance their vision of a free society.
  • We have conducted this same program across premier institutions in India like ISB Hyderabad, FMS Delhi, NLS Bangalore, IIM Kozhikode, IIT Delhi, IIT Madras, IIT Bombay, Delhi School of Economics and many more.

Eligibility

Who Can Apply? College students, young professionals, development leaders under the age of 30

Fee Details: Rs. 2,000/-

(Includes course material and lunch on both days)

For more details click here https://ccs.in/ipolicy-programs

NLUD | International Insolvency and Bankruptcy Moot Competition, 2020

Posted on

National Law University, Delhi

The National Law University, Delhi, in collaboration with INSOL India, supported by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and UNCITRAL Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific, has initiated a unique moot competition on Insolvency and Bankruptcy.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) came into effect on 01st December 2016.  It is one of the most critical components of the financial architecture of the country involving a wide range of stakeholders. It is essential that the students of law, commerce and management understand the nuances of this specialised subject through both education and training in this field. This will enable them to choose a career out of many streams of profession this branch of commercial law offers and prepare them for industry engagement. In light of the same, the inaugural edition of the competition was held during 11th-12th November 2017 at the National Law University, Delhi, India.

About the Competition

The fourth edition of the competition will be held on 10-12 December 2020. The theme is ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution, including issues on Individual Guarantors and Cross-Border Insolvency’. The format of the competition is based on the process envisaged under the IBC.

Representation will be through a team of not more than four (4) and no less than two (2) students. All participants must be full-time candidates presently enrolled in an undergraduate degree programme in law or postgraduate/undergraduate degree management programme at the respective universities.

Registration may be done by sending an email along with the Registration form to insolvency@nludelhi.ac.in and copy to contact@insolindia.com with the subject “Registration for Insolvency and Bankruptcy Moot 2020”. Any registration received after 30.09.2020 will not be considered. For further queries kindly send an email to insolvency@nludelhi.ac.in.

Registration form can be accessed from here. You can also follow our Facebook page here for further details.

We cordially invite you to participate in the fourth edition of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Moot Competition.

For any further queries please contact us at insolvency@nludelhi.ac.in

Faculty Coordinator:

Dr. Risham Garg

Assistant Professor of Law & Director,

Centre for Transnational Commercial Law (CTCL)

National Law University, Delhi

Sector 14 Dwarka, New Delhi- 110078. INDIA

Email: ctcl@nludelhi.ac.in

Delhi High Court Directs Arnab Goswami To Exercise Restraint In Tharoor’s Plea Seeking Injunction Against Defamatory Broadcasting.

Posted on

INTRODUCTION

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned Arnab Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV for running a parallel investigation and trial in the Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s wife Sunanada Pushkar’s death case and directed him to be bound by his undertaking on showing restraint and bringing down the rhetoric.

Appellant’s Contentions

A plea was moved by Shashi Tharoor seeking interim injuction against Arnab Goswami, restraining him from reporting or broadcasting any news or any show related to the death of Mrs. Sunanda Pushkar till the case is pending and also to restrain him from defaming the plaintiff in any manner.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Shashi Tharoor argued that despite the charge sheet being filed in the Sunanda Pushkar case, where no case of murder is made out, Arnab Goswami claims in his shows that he has no doubts that Sunanda Pushkar was murdered. He even pointed out that Goswami has continued to broadcast defamatory content against Tharoor and even claimed that he doesn’t trust the investigation being conducted by the Delhi Police, even though the Court’s last order of 1st December, 2017 directed to restraint and refrain from conducting a media trial.

Mr. Kapil Sibal stated,

“Can a man be abused like this in a public debate? How can he (Goswami) say that a murder was committed, when the charge sheet say otherwise? This can’t continue like this till this court hears the matter”.

Key Highlights

  • Pushkar was found dead in a suite of a five-star hotel in South Delhi on the night of January 17, 2014.
  • The Delhi Police filed a Charge sheet in the trial court which took cognizance of it and Tharoor was summoned under Section 306( Abetment to suicide) and Section 498 A (cruelty to married woman) of IPC in the light of the investigation done by the agency.

Defendant’s Contentions

Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Goswami’s counsel, took the stand by saying that they have credible evidence from an AIIMS doctor that points towards Pushkar’s death.

Court’s Decision

The Single Bench consisting Justice Mukta Gupta, putting aside the defendant’s stand stated,

“When a case under abetment to suicide is made out in the charge-sheet, why are you still saying that murder has been committed? Were you there at the spot, are you an eye-witness? You must understand and respect the sanctity of criminal investigation and the various contours of it. Just because there’s a bite mark, it doesn’t amount to murder. Do you even know what constituted a murder? You need first to understand what murder is before claiming that a murder took place.”

The court further observed that when a chargesheet has been filed by an agency authorized to conduct investigation and a competent court, while taking cognizance of the same, has pima facie concluded that the case involves abetment to suicide and not murder, the statements made by the defendant insinuating murder being committed by Tharoor violates the directions of the court’s previous order.

The court even remarked by stating’

“People must take a course in criminal trial and then get into journalism“.

Therefore, the court directed Arnab Goswami to comply with the court’s previous order and exercise restraint till the next date of hearing or else consequences will follow.

-Report by Abhilasha Kumari

READ THE FULL NEWS HERE…

Webinar by Students for Liberty (SFL)

Posted on

About the Organisers

Students for Liberty (SFL) is an International libertarian non-profit organisation whose mission is to “educate, develop, and empower the next generation leaders of liberty.” Formed in 2008, SFL has since grown into a full organisation with various programs and a network of affiliated student groups in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific. Students for Liberty is the world’s largest law and academically market-oriented movement of students who have been deliberating and focusing on essential policy issues that our societies face.

About the Session

The SASFL’s Speaker Session on ‘Consumers, Corruption and Economic Development’ is organised on Sep 17, 2020, from 7:38:30 PM to 7 PM IST via Zoom.

Speaker

Dr. Krisztina Pusok, Director of Policy and Research at the American Consumer Institute- Center for Citizen Research

How to Register?

Interested applicants can register for the session through https://forms.gle/tVs4WhwPmhAQvLn46
Registration is free and compulsory.
Registration Deadline
September 16, 2020

Contact
Ritik Kumar: rikumar[at]studentsforliberty.org (+918136841952)

Media Trials: Free Trial or Based on Speculations

Posted on

This article is written by Samridhi Chhabra, a student of UILS, Panjab University                                 

“The nation wants to know, Gor se dekhiye iss chehre ko” a number of the words and rhetorics often heard by the general public from the anchors and journalists influences us to believe their words and opinions about a difficulty or an individual even before the person has been convicted by the particular courts. “The media is the most powerful entity within the world.  it’s the facility to form the innocent guilty and to form the guilty innocent, which is powerful because they will control the minds of the masses “quoted by MalcomX. 

Rightly quoted, Media has been considered as the fourth pillar of democracy and plays a vital role in shaping democracy. In an exceedingly progressive world that we live in, People’s daily lifestyle starts with the influence of the media be it in sort of Newspapers, Television channels or social media and ends with it. It can Align or malign one’s reputation and influence other’s minds with the power of its pen and its mic. it’s often seen that these news channels become a public court even before the accused becomes convicted.

The media sometimes plays havoc with the public’s emotions and sentiments by specializing in the scandalous news in an eye fixed-catching manner. Not only this, but the media sometimes hypes the news for its personal benefits just like the Television Rating Points referred to as its TRP.

 When Does Media Trial Happens?

The Supreme Court of India has recorded on the consequence of media trial as under: ―the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person‘s reputation by creating a broad view of the case irrespective of the choice within the actual court of law. During most high-profile cases, the media is usually accused of making a public atmosphere with a lynch crowd that not only makes the case unbearable but also means without the end result of the case, within the spotlight the suspect is already guilty and that they won’t be able to live their entire lives without much public scrutiny. There are reasons why the eye of the media around certain cases is sensationally high. the explanations are: Cases could involve children or they might be so horrific or gruesome that the media considers it necessary to sensationalize such cases. The case may well be of a number one celebrity either as a victim or as an accused. In cases where big celebrities are involved, the influence of the media could drastically change the opinion of the so-called “fans” of such influential celebrities.

 Role of Article 19(1): Freedom of Speech and Expression

There is a marginalized difference between accused and convict and that they ignore the aspect and influences their opinion on the general public Although Freedom of press and Right to express and be heard may be a constitutional right provided to everyone and that they have full freedom to exercise their opinion on the subject but the scenario takes a turn when because of the powerful influence of those media houses and their tactics they’re ready to convince and prejudice public and it can include the judges too. Humans have a bent to varying their opinions and outlook when shared a strong opinion. Thus it can harm the accused person of getting rightful justice within the actual courtroom. The constitution of India guarantees its citizen Right to freedom of speech and expression as per Article 19(1) and 19(2). It means the proper to talk and to precise one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or in the other manner. It thus includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek out and receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of its frontiers. the liberty of expression thus includes the liberty of the propagation of ideas, their publication and circulation. Similarly, it’s thus settled law that the proper to freedom and expression in article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of the press. This liberty has been held to be one amongst the good bulwarks of liberty and may never be restrained but by the despotic government [1].

 A journalist has the correct under article 19(1)(a) to publish as journalist a faithful report of the proceedings witnessed and heard within the court. However in certain matters like the commission of the offence of rape, unnecessary publicity may result in the miscarriage of justice. The apex court in State of Maharashtra v Rajendra jawanmal Gandhi[2] did hold that an effort by press electronic media or public agitation was the very antithesis of rule of law. within the present scenario, there are plenty of such famous cases like Sushant singh rajput’s suicide case wherein the prime accused has filed a plea before supreme court for the media trial being initiated and defamation being caused to her and her family. Also in cases like Jessica lal murder case, Aarushi murder case the Talwars were declared murderers by media even before the judgment. Another example is of Asaram Bapu. Though just charged under Protection of youngsters from Sexual offences Act, 2012, he was declared guilty by the media. Media portrays the accused in such some way, by using assertive form of writing, which the general public is created to believe the story of the media. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras[3]  Justice Patanjali Sikri observed that: “Freedom of Speech and of the Press lay at the muse of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the correct functioning of the strategy of popular Government, is possible

Immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, publications under free trials are sheltered against contempt proceedings. However, any publication which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is actually a pending proceeding, constitutes the contempt of court. It has been termed as contempt because some of the acts which are published before the verdict given by the court, can mislead the public and affect the rights of the accused of a fair trial. Such kind of publications may be related to his previous convictions or the confession he made in front of the police or merely character assassination of the accused. 

Judiciary’s Take on Media Trials

The Supreme Court has held that a trial by media has affected a number of cases is the very anti- thesis of the rule of law and has led to the miscarriage of justice. In M.P. Lohia v West Bengal[4]  and in State v Mohd. Afzal and Ors.[5] The Supreme Court cautioned for publication of issues which was prejudiced. It deprecated the media for interfering with the administration of justice by publishing one sided articles pertaining to merits of cases pending within the Courts.

In the very famous case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder, [6]2013, the media had declared who was guilty and who wasn’t even before the particular trial had begun. There have been mass protests and therefore the public had gone into hysterics over the fact that her own parents were the explanation of her death. But, this is often also an immunity given to the press, albeit the media had gone berserk in this case. Such publications have been known to have gone unchecked without the interference of the legislature. [7]

This had been appropriately indicated in R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court[8]where the Court was of the view that the impact which the media causes makes an un-biased trial impossible. In Express Newspaper v. Union of India, the Court observed that there’s every possibility of an unbridled liberty to become a license resulting to anarchy and disorder. Therefore, the so-called media verdict emerging from media trial affects the administration of justice.

In Re: P. C. Sen[9] the real risk of prejudicial remarks by media was expressed and also raided the priority about the impacts such comments may wear the mind of the judges.

Rao Harnarain v. Gumori Ram[10], where the Court deplored the practice of media trial and observed that journalist cannot attempt to influence the judges. Though judiciary has not clearly accepted that the judges are influenced by media trial but has shown concern about its potential effects on the judge’s subconscious..

In the case of  Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors.[11]), 1996, there was little evidence that the accused had murdered his partner. However, while the case was still pending in the court, the media had started portraying the accused as a murderer and was capable of adjusting the views of the general public even before the outcome of the case. It was held by the High Court of Delhi that the conviction of any person would solely be supported on the facts of the case and not because the media wanted the person to be declared as guilty. The charges also have to be framed against the person accused based on the evidence available on record and not supported on what the media portrays the person to be. 

CONCLUSION

“Where the press is free and each man is able to read, all is safe.” Thomas Jefferson

Jawaharlal Nehru was also of the same view and even. In some cases Media’s focus and intervention has been a boon to the nation rather than a bane such as the case of helpless migrant labourers who had to move to their native villages and became jobless and homeless due to the pandemic situation.  In the instant case the media helped them by covering their grievances and the Supreme Court took Suo moto Cognizance and ordered the Centre and State government respectively to take measure of transporting them to their places and and provisions for employment schemes for them and for this media has to be credited but when powers are used ignoring its limits it happens to create a havoc. Often these media houses are funded by mighty political parties and their representatives which happens to focus on their opposition parties failure and in defaming them resulting to a biased and partial information. Thus it would be in a greater interest of the society if media sticks to unbiased facts and un prejudiced information.

REFERENCES

  • http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/18950/10/10_chapter%205.pdf
  • https://indiankanoon.org/
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/defaultinterstitial.cms
  • http://www.rmlnlu.ac.in/webj/devesh_article.pdf
  •  https://www.researchgate.net/
  • https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1003644_code741912.pdf?abstractid=1003644&mirid=1 
  • http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/99750/16/15_chapter%2010.pdf
  • http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l255-Contempt-of-Court.html
  • http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/rep200.pdf

[1] The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

[2] SLP (Crl.) No.1773/96) 

[3] 1950 SCR 594

[4] SLP(Crl.)No.1829/04

[5] 2003 VIIAD Delhi 1

[6] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2012

[7] https://blog.ipleaders.in/constitutionality-of-media-trials-and-landmark-cases/

[8] 2009) 8 SCC 106.

[9] 1970 SC 1821

[10] AIR 1958 P H 273.

[11] (1997) 1 SCC 133 R

Latest Posts

Archives

Call for Paper: NLSIR

Posted on

NLSIR

NLSIR is the flagship law journal of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. In its 33rd year now, the NLSIR is a bi-annual, student-edited, peer-reviewed law journal, which holds the distinction of being the first Indian student-run law journal to be cited by the Supreme Court of India, in its decision in Action Committee, Unaided Private Schools v. Director of Education. Notably, we have also been cited recently in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 which established the Fundamental Right to Privacy in India. NLSIR has also been recently cited in Justice R. S. Bachawat’s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, a leading treatise on arbitration law in India.

To further our aim to encourage legal writing, provide inclusive legal scholarship, and contribute to issues at the forefront of contemporary legal discourse, the Board of Editors is inviting submissions for its forthcoming Volume 33, Issue 1.

Submission Guidelines

  1. All contributions submitted to the NLSIR should be original, and should not have any plagiarized content.
  1. By submitting contributions to NLSIR, the author(s) confirms that the manuscript is not being simultaneously considered for publication elsewhere (online or print).
  2. Pieces with relevance to India or Indian law are particularly welcome. This, however, is not a prerequisite.
  3. Submissions are accepted for the following categories:
  4. Long Articles: Between 5,000 and 10,000 words. Papers in this category are expected to engage with the theme and literature comprehensively, and offer an innovative reassessment of the current understanding of that theme. It is advisable, though not necessary, to choose a theme that is of contemporary importance. Purely theoretical pieces are also welcome.
  5. Essays: Between 3,000 and 5,000 words. Essays are more concise in scope. These papers usually deal with a very specific issue and argue that the issue must be conceptualized differently. They are expected to make an easily identifiable and concrete argument.
  6. Case Notes and Legislative Comments: Between 1,500 and 2,500 words. Case Notes are expected to analyse any contemporary judicial pronouncement, or a new piece of legislation, whether in India or elsewhere. The Note must identify and examine the line of cases in which the decision in question came about, and comment on implications for the evolution of that branch of law. In case of Legislative Comment, the Note must analyse the objective of the legislation, and the expected legal impact.
  7. Book Reviews: Between 2,000 to 3,000 words.
  8. The journal is flexible regarding the word count depending on the quality of the submission. All word limits are exclusive of footnotes.

Formatting Guidelines 

  • The body of the manuscript should be in Times New Roman, font size 12 with 1.5 line spacing. The footnotes should be in Times New Roman, font size 10 with single line spacing.
  • The manuscript should contain only footnotes (and not endnotes) as a method of citation. Citations must conform to OSCOLA (Oxford University Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities) (4th) style of citation.
  • Authors are required to adhere to the NLSIR Style Guide which can be found here.

Submission Procedure

Submissions may be emailed to mail.nlsir@gmail.com under the subject “33(1) NLSIR – Submission”. All submissions must contain the following:

  1. The manuscript in a .doc or .docx format. The manuscript should not contain the name of the author, their institutional affiliations, or any other identification markers. The title of the manuscript should indicate the sub-theme that the author(s) have chosen.
  1. A separate cover letter in a .doc or .docx format, containing the Name of the author, Professional Information, Title of the manuscript, and Contact information.
  2. An abstract of not more than 150 words.

General Information

The deadline for submissions is October 30th, 11.59 PM.

  1. Co-authoring of papers among individuals of the same or different institutions is permissible, for a maximum of three authors.
  1. Upon submission, every manuscript will undergo two internal reviews by the Board of Editors. If approved in both the rounds, it is subject to a double-blind peer review process.
  2. We hope to update authors on the submission within 4 weeks of their submission.

CONTACT

For more information, please visit www.nlsir.com. For queries, write to us at mail.nlsir@gmail.com.

Call for Papers | RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR) Journal

Posted on

The RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR) Journal is a bi-annual, student run, blind peer reviewed, flagship journal based at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. It has been founded with the objective of facilitating arguments in black and white. Legal Research skills form the core of the learning process in any dimension of law.

About Saikrishna and Associates Advocates 

Saikrishna and Associates Advocates is a Tier-1 full-service firm and its expertise extends across wide practice areas and issues related to clients from diverse sectors. The firm has been recognized in the Legal 500 Asia Pacific and the Asia Pacific Chambers and Partners in 2018. An academically and research driven firm, the Firm’s consumer law practice has also gained prominence through the years. The Firm has represented thousands of clients in hundreds of consumer complaints, making it a leading law Firm for consumers across India.

The Editorial Board in collaboration with Saikrishna and Associates Advocates invites submissions from academicians, practitioners, legal luminaries and students on the theme “Protecting Consumers in the 21st Century: Broadening the Outlook.” 

Background

The dawn of the 21st century has witnessed drastic changes in the market dynamics, the modus operandi of businesses and the technological landscape. With the advent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  new concepts to protect the consumers have been introduced, namely criminal liability, product liability, liability for misleading/ false advertisements, amongst many. However, despite the recent turn of legislative measures, the implementation and realisation of the objectives of CPA, 2019 is yet to be tested. A comprehensive legislation entailing a strong consumer protection framework and an efficient consumer disputes redressal mechanism has always been a challenge for India.

Thus, in light of the changing market dynamics and evolving consumer protection laws, RSRR seeks to delve into this theme, to review the legal and policy framework in today’s consumer centric economy.

We welcome submissions from legal practitioners, academicians, students and members of the legal fraternity.

For more details, kindly refer to the ‘Call for Papers’ PDF attached, herein.

Sub themes

RSRR invites submissions on the following sub-themes:

  1. Liability under Consumer Protection: A Boon or a Bane?
  1. Criminal Liability: A Step Backwards?
  2. Critical Analysis of the Product Liability Framework
  3. Imputability of liability in the age of Robots and AI
  4. Protecting a Digital Consumer
  5. The Impact of AI on Consumerism
  6. Privacy of an Online Consumer
  7. Unsolicited Commercial Communications
  8. Changing Ambits of Consumer Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A Cross Jurisdictional Analysis
  9. Mediation as a Fresh Resolution Mechanism
  10. The Arbitrability of Consumer Disputes
  11. Expanding the Jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes
  12. Online Dispute Resolution: A Viable Remedy?
  13. Consumer Law in a Global Village
  14. Need for Uniform and Standard Principles of International Consumerism
  15. Jurisdictional and Enforcement Issues vis-a-vis Cross-Border Trade
  16. Comparative Consumer Law: Analyzing International Best Practices
  17. Revamping the definition of ‘Service’
  18. Educational Institutions: Serving Students?
  19. Accountability for ‘Free’ Healthcare Services?
  20. Content Moderation on Social Media Platforms: A Consumer Issue?
  21. Applicability of Sovereign Immunity for Government Services
  22. Aggregators and Gig Economy: Are gig workers consumers?
  23. Issues Around Consumer Consent
  24. Consenting to Unfair Contractual Terms
  25. Impact of Big Data Analytics on Consumer Rights
  26. Consent in Internet of Things and Consumer Law
  27. Consumer Protection in the Financial Sector
  28. Regulating Fin-Tech and E-payment Portals
  29. Deficiency of Service by Banks- An Expansive Interpretation
  30. Insurance Regulation for the Benefit of the Consumer
  31. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Issues vis-à-vis Consumer Laws
  32. Consumer as a Creditor to the Corporate Debtor
  33. Concurrent Reliefs for a Consumer
  34. Individual Bankruptcy: A Consumer Protection Measure or a Market Abuse Measure?
  35. Evolving Anti-Competitive Practices and Consumer Protection: Are the existing legislations adequate?
  36. Consumer Protection and Environmental Sustainability: Creating a Balance
  37. IPR Regulation for Consumer Benefit
  38. Regulation of Advertising and Marketing Laws: Influencing Consumers’ Behavior
  39. Liability of Advertising Agencies and Influencers
  40. E-Commerce Portals: Targeting Online Consumers
  41. Regulation of Telemarketing and Robocalls
  42. Deceiving Vulnerable Consumers: Advertising and Trademarks

Note: The submissions are, however, not restricted to the aforementioned sub themes, provided they fall within the ambit of the main theme.

Submission Categories

The RSRR invites papers under the following categories: –

  • Articles (5,000 to 10,000 words)
  • Short Notes (3,500 to 5,000 words)
  • Case Comments (2,500 to 4,500 words)
  • Normative Law Articles (3,000 to 5,000 words)

Instructions for Authors

  1. All submissions must be in Garamond, font size 12, spacing 1.5.
  1. All footnotes shall be in Garamond 10, single-spaced and should conform to the Standard Indian Legal Citation (SILC).
  2. Margins: Left 1 Inch and Right 1 Inch, Top 1 Inch and Bottom 1 Inch (A4).
  3. The word limit is exclusive of all the footnotes.
  4. Co-authorship is allowed up to 2 authors.
  5. All entries should be submitted in .doc/ .docx format only.
  6. The author(s) bear sole responsibility for the accuracy of facts, opinions or views stated in the submitted paper. In case of any plagiarism found in the contents of submitted paper, the Manuscript shall be subject to rejection.

Abstract Submission

All submissions must be accompanied with an abstract of subject to a maximum of 250 words. Abstract shall also be accompanied by at least 3 keywords in the paper, up to a maximum of 7 keywords.

Submission Procedure

The abstracts and the papers must be mailed at submissionsrslr@rgnul.ac.in, with the subject “Submission for Volume 7, Issue 1 – Type of Submission (Article/ Short Note/ Case Comment/ Normative Law Articles)”.

The submissions of abstracts and papers should accompany a cover letter specifying author’s name, designation, institute, contact number and email for future reference in the mail body itself.

Deadline

The last date for submissions of abstracts is 15th October, 2020 by 11:59 P.M. (Indian Standard Time).

Deadline for final paper submission is 15th November, 2020 by 11:59 P.M. (Indian Standard Time).

Contact

For any further queries, contact the Editorial Board at submissionsrslr@rgnul.ac.in

Furthermore, the following people can be contacted:

Senior Editors 

Stuti Srivastava (98738-81807)

Aditya Vyas (94148-78054)

Sehaj Singh Cheema (87250-82864)

CRY SHORT TERM VOLUNTEER PROGRAMME

Posted on

Child Rights and You (CRY)

Recognized as India’s most trusted NGO, Child Rights and You (CRY) works tirelessly to ensure happier and healthier childhoods for India’s underprivileged children.  CRY addresses children’s critical needs by working with parents, teachers, Anganwadi workers, communities, district and state level governments as well as the children themselves. Over the last 41 years, CRY has impacted the lives of over 3 million children.

Details about the opportunity

8 weeks long non intensive online volunteering programme from the comfort of your home/ desk whereby you learn- reflect and contribute to the cause of child rights, honing your perspectives and skills on the way!

Why someone should apply

We’re ALL inherently kind and compassionate beings – qualities we’ve exhibited in so many big and small ways right from the time that we were children. If you look back, we’re sure you’ll remember so many such instances of your own!

But you’ll also agree that sometimes, as we grow older, we may not do it as consciously anymore. Volunteering for a good cause is such a great way to reconnect with the truest part of ourselves!

And if you’d like to volunteer with CRY, we have an incredible online volunteering program that you should totally sign up for this programme.

For details watch this youtube video to know more about CRY.

Duration and expectations from volunteers

8 week long, starting October 1. Typically a three hour commitment per week. Volunteers will be expected to follow the handbook as will be provided before the tenure begins and undertake the weekly activities and do the submissions.

Eligibility criteria

Anyone above the age of 14 years and willing to experience volunteering or making satisfying use of time for a social good.

Application and selection procedure

Anyone interested can sign up using this application link by September 30.

The programme starts in the first week of October 2020. Every valid application will stand a chance to be a volunteer. There will not be any screening done.

Deadline

Application deadline: September 30.

The recruitments are on through the entire month of September. All applicants will hear from CRY between Oct 1-3 regarding the tenure, after they have filled and submitted the form.

The programme will run through the months of October and November. The final submission should not be beyond December first week.

Contact

You will get a detailed mail with guidelines on 1st October. All specific clarity that you seek will be addressed at that stage. If you have any other queries, send an email to volunteering.cry@gmail.com.

To know more, visit the official website of CRY.

Evolution of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897

Posted on

Introduction

India has witnessed many large outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases in the recent past. The outbreak of a cholera epidemic due to the O139 strain in 1992, that of plague in Surat in 1994, the large-scale spread of chikungunya and dengue fever, and that of avian influenza (H5N1) and pandemic H1N1 influenza were some which caused widespread havoc. The resurgence of diphtheria and the outbreaks caused by the Nipah, Chandipura, and Japanese encephalitis viruses and Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever also posed a threat to the country’s public health in the last decade. The emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis and malaria and New Delhi Metallo-beta-lactamase (NDM-1) – resistant organisms is also a matter of concern for the country. As in any other country, diseases with the potential for international spread, such as the Ebola virus disease and Zika virus, also pose threats to the public health security of India.

Legal frameworks are important during emergency situations as they can delineate the scope of the government’s responses to public health emergencies and also, the duties and rights of citizens. In recent years, many states in India have invoked various provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 to force H1N1-affected persons to be segregated and get themselves treated at recognized hospitals, to direct private hospitals to set up isolation treatment facilities, and to notify cases of dengue and H1N1 (2, 3, 4). In this context, it is important to critically evaluate the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, its relevance in the current context, and whether it has kept up with the recent global developments in disease surveillance, disease control, and rights perspective.

This review attempts to describe the Act, its historical aspects, and key elements, the current status of the Act. Further, it aims to identify its limitations and lacunae and describe disease surveillance and response in the country. Finally, it sets out to examine key legislations and the sections of these which are relevant for updating Acts or reforms in this area and for proposing recommendations.

Background

The Epidemic illnesses Act changed into enforced in 1897 to cope with the plague epidemic that broke out within the presidency city of Bombay. The act changed into enacted for higher prevention of epidemic diseases consisting of Cholera, Plague, and many others. The plague took thousands and thousands of lives and the British authorities have been tasked with the difficult process of containing the ailment to spread in addition, so the local government was given special powers through the then governor widespread Victor Bruce to take actions which will manage the epidemic.

The result turned into that the chairman Bombay Plague committee Brigadier preferred W.F. Gamache together with different individuals made a regulation towards folks who had been fleeing from their municipal limits with a view to save you the disease from spreading within the complete British colony. The century-old law has once more come into use for stopping the spread of COVID 19.

Legal Provisions

Electricity to take unique measures and prescribe guidelines as to dangerous epidemic disorder

 while at any time the [State Government] is happy that [the State] or any element thereof is visited by means of, or threatened with, a deadly disease of any risky epidemic disease, the [State Government], if [it] thinks that the regular provisions of the regulation in the meanwhile in pressure are inadequate for the cause, may additionally take, or require or empower any character to take, such measures and, via a public notice, prescribe such brief guidelines be discovered by means of the general public or by using any man or woman or elegance of humans as [it] shall deem necessary to save you the outbreak of such disorder or the spread thereof, and may decide in what way and by whom any prices incurred (which includes repayment if any) will be defrayed.

 Powers of significant government

While the principal government is satisfied that India or any element thereof is visited by way of, or threatened with, an outbreak of any risky epidemic ailment and that the ordinary provisions of the law in the meantime in force are insufficient to prevent the outbreak of such sickness or the spread thereof, the relevant government may take measures and prescribe policies for the inspection of any deliver or vessel leaving or arriving at any port and for such detention thereof, or of any person proceeding to sail therein, or arriving thereby, as can be important.

Three.

Penalty.

Any individual disobeying any regulation or order made beneath this Act will be deemed to have devoted an offense punishable underneath section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (forty-five of 1860).

Four. Safety to folks acting under Act.

No healthy or other prisons intending shall lie in opposition to any individual for something achieved or in properly faith intended to be accomplished underneath this Act.

Amendment of the Law

Recently, in many locations in India the fitness care workers had been attacked by means of many perpetrators. After such acts of attacks on corona warriors, the principal authorities introduced an ordinance on twenty-second April to amend the Epidemic illnesses Act 1897 and to punish such perpetrators who attacked the warriors.  This flow of presidency is indeed welcomed and is praiseworthy.

The government which will defend corona warriors, health workers, and their property permitted the promulgation of an ordinance on twenty-second April to amend the Epidemic illnesses Act 1897. The change makes acts of violence, in opposition to medical experts and a different scientific group of workers) as a cognizable and non-bailable offense.

Now fee of offense in opposition to medical examiners will be punished with imprisonment of the time period for three months to five years and with quality of fifty thousand Rupees to 20 thousand Rupees. In case, grievous harm is caused then the imprisonment will be for the term of 6 months to 7 years and with nice of one lac to five lakhs. Furthermore, the culprit may also pay an amount as a reimbursement to the sufferer, and double the marketplace rate will be charged for the healing of damaged finished to the assets of the sufferer.

Limitations to the Act

His archaic act became promulgated 123 years ago. In this era of changing priorities, the act suffers from many boundaries. Firstly, the definition of dangerous epidemic sickness isn’t always given in the act. Moreover, the criteria to decide whether a disorder is risky or not is also now not given.  It can not be said that whether or not the definition of dangerous is based totally on the magnitude of the population affected, the seriousness of the problem, or the good-sized of the sickness.

Secondly, the act is merely regulatory in nature and focuses handiest on the powers of government. The act does now not describe the responsibilities of the government and the rights of residents. No provision of the act concentrates on pastimes, desires, needs, healthful life-style of people. Additionally, the act does not provide the situations underneath which liberty and privateness of humans can be compromised, for this reason, there are probabilities of misuse of the act. Thirdly, the act can be said to be only a file on paper.

The act affords the most effective quarantine measures and does no longer provide scientific measures that can be taken to save you the spread of the disease. Fourthly, the act says any individual may be empowered to take some degree but in present days we’ve higher health care structures. Incorporated disorder Surveillance devices (IDSP), District leader scientific officers, every district with a surveillance unit, and a fast response group (RRT), area people, various fitness care clinical officials had been assigned the challenge for the care of the fitness machine. Hence the act saying any character makes no feel. It has to specify who and what. Fifthly, the act wishes some adjustments in the context of the present situation.

Conclusion

There is a want to bolster felony frameworks to prevent and manage the access, spread, and existence of communicable illnesses in India. The Epidemic illnesses Act 1897, which is extra than a century antique, has the most important limitations in relation to tackling the emergence and re-emergence of communicable illnesses inside us of a, especially inside the changing public health context. Over the years, many states have formulated their own public fitness laws and a few have amended the provisions of their epidemic ailment Acts. However, these Acts vary in excellent and content material. There may be a want for an incorporated, complete, actionable, and applicable legal provision for the control of outbreaks in India that should be articulated in a rights-based, people-focused, and public fitness-orientated way. The draft countrywide health bill 2009 is one such proposed legislation, but it’s miles still in its long gestation length and its fate is unpredictable.

Latest Posts

RD Bajaj v K.P.S Gill

Posted on

Case Number

S.L.P (Cr.) No. 1361 of 1989

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 1995

Equivalent Citation

1996 AIR 309, 1995 SCC (6) 194

Decided On

12 October 1995

Relevant Act

Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code

Sections 123/124 of the Evidence Act

Section 210,  482of Code of Criminal Procedure

Abstract

RD Bajaj V. K.P.S. Gill is a well known “Butt Slapping Case” and was one of the most criticized and recognized cases. Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj, an officer of the Indian Administrative Services (I.A.S.) member of the Punjab Cadre, employed as the Special Secretary Finance, complained with the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh Union Territory. The complaint was alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 341, 342, 352, 354, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code by Mr. K.P.S. Gill, the Director-General of Police, Punjab, towards her on 18 July 1988 at a dinner party. The last verdict came in 2005, which ultimately reduce the punishment to probation. An opinion can be formed from the case about the lenient and humane judicial procedure towards society’s high elites.

Brief Facts and Procedural Facts

  • Around 10 PM on the said night, Dr. Chutani and Mr. Gill walked across the garden and sat within the ladies’ circle.
  • Bajaj, who was having a conversation with Mrs. Bijlani and Mrs. Bhandari at the time, was requested by Mr. Gill to take a seat next to him as he wanted to speak to her about something.
  • Responding to his such request when Mrs. Bajaj went to sit in a chair next to him, Mr. Gill suddenly pulled that chair close to his chair.
  • Bajaj was a bit stunned when she put that chair at its original place and was about to sit down, and Mr. Gill again pulled his chair closer.
  • Realising something was wrong, she immediately left the place and went back to sit with the women.
  • After about 10 minutes, Shri Gill came and stood in front of her. He was so close that his legs were about 4 inches from her knees.
  • He then, by action with the crook of his finger, asked her to “get up immediately” and come along with him.
  • When she strongly objected to his behavior and asked him to go away from there, he repeated his last command that shocked the ladies present.
  • Being apprehensive and frightened, she tried to leave the place but could not as he had blocked her way.
  • Finding no other alternative when she drew her chair back and turned backward, he slapped her on the posterior in the full presence of the ladies and guests.

This analysis is written by Pooja Lakshmi (l19blb076@bennett.edu.in), studying BBA-LLB at Bennett University, Greater Noida. Handling the complaint filed by Mrs. Bajaj as the First Information Report (F.I.R.), a case was recorded by the Central Police Station, Chandigarh,  under Section 17, and an inspection was taken up. After that, her husband, Mr. B.R. Bajaj, who also happens to be a senior I.A.S. officer of the Punjab Cadre, on 22 November 1988, lodged a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the same wrongdoing. Alleging, among the other things, Mr. Gill is a high-ranking police officer. The Chandigarh Police had neither arrested him in association with the police’s case on his wife’s complaint nor conducted an investigation fairly and impartially. And apprehending that the police would decide the investigation by treating the case as untraced; he was filing the complaint.

On receipt of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred it to a Judicial Magistrate for disposal. Later insight into the fact that the Police’s investigation was ongoing about equivalent offenses called for a report from the Investigating Officer under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Within the meantime – on 16 December 1988 to be precise – Mr. Gill moved to the high court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. and the complaint. On the petition, an interim order was passed, staying the investigation into the F.I.R lodged by Mrs. Bajaj, but not the proceedings initiated on Mr. Bajaj’s complaint.

Resultantly, the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded with the complaint case and examined the complainant and, therefore, the witnesses produced by him. After that, Mr. Bajaj moved an application before the learned Magistrate for summoning Mr. Y.S. Ratra, an I.A.S. Officer of the govt of Punjab, and Mr. J.F. Rebeiro, Adviser to the Governor of Punjab for being examined as witnesses on his behalf and for producing certain documents, which was allowed. Rather than appearing personally, the above two Officers sought exemption from appearance. Therefore, after producing the documents, the district attorney filed an application claiming privilege under Sections 123/124 of the Evidence Act in respect of them.

The learned Magistrate refused the prayer of the above two officers and also rejected, after going through the documents, the claim of privilege, believing that the documents did not concern the affairs of the State.

Assailing the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the claim of privilege, the State of Punjab filed a Criminal Revision Petition, allowed by the High Court by its order dated 24 January 1989. The petition earlier filed by Mr. Gill under Section 482 Cr. P.C. came up for hearing before the High Court and was allowed by its order dated 29 May 1989, and both the F.I.R. and the complaint were canceled. The above two orders of the High Court are under challenge in these appeals at the instance of Mr. and Mrs. Bajaj.

Issue before the court

Whether the allegations constitute any of the offenses mentioned?

Facts of the Case

1. Rupal Deol Bajaj was an I.A.S. Officer belonging to Punjab Cadre. She lodged an FlR against Mr.KPS Gill, the Director-General of Police u/s 341,342.352,354 and 509 of I.P.C.

2. On the said date, in the party of K.P.S. Gill, the accused, around 10.pm, walked across a group of ladies and joined them. After some time, some of the ladies started leaving and going into the house. The victim did not notice that Mr.KPS Gill was misbehaving with them.

3. K.P.S. Gill then called the victim to talk about something. On realization by the victim about the awkward behavior of Gill, she avoided going.

4. After a while, Gill reached out to her amongst other ladies who were sitting together. He offensively ordered her to get up and come along. She resisted and turned back and started leaving when he slapped her back.

Ratio of Case

  • While considering whether allegations constitute any offenses for which case was registered, the court first looked at S. 354 and S. 509, I.P.C., that relates to women’s modesty.
  • Since the word modesty had not been defined in the code, they considered various dictionaries such as the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (third edition), Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English language Oxford English dictionary (1933 Edition).
  • The division bench also considered the judgment given in the State of Punjab v. Major Singh, where it held that when an act was done to, or in the presence of a woman is suggestive of sex, according to the common notions of humankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354. The other learned Judge citing his view concerning the case referred above, stated that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex. From her very birth, she possesses humility, which is the attribute of her sex.

When the Hon’ble Court applied the test in the present case, keeping in view the total fact situation, it cannot but be held that Mr. Gill’s alleged act in slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior amounted to `outraging of her modesty.’  Therefore, it was not only an insult to the usual sense of feminine decency but also an affront to the dignity of the lady – “sexual overtones” or not, notwithstanding.

  • It was however strenuously urged by Mr. Tulsi that even if it was assumed that Mr. Gill had outraged the modesty of Mrs. Bajaj, still no offense under Section 354 IPC could be said to have been committed by him for the other ingredient of the offense, namely the intension to do so was lacking. He urged that the culpable intention of the offender in committing the act is the crux of the matter and not the consequences thereof.

This court took the view that it is undoubtedly correct that if intention or knowledge is one of the ingredients of any offense, it has to be proved like other ingredients for convicting a person. However, it is also equally valid that those ingredients being states of mind may not be verified by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from the present circumstances of a given case.

In the instant case, we are only at the incipient stage that we have to ascertain, only prima facie, whether Mr. Gill by slapping Mrs. Bajaj on her posterior, in the background detailed by her in the F.I.R., intended to outrage or knew it to be likely that he would thereby outrage her modesty, which is one of the essential ingredients of Section 354, I.P.C. The sequence of events that we have detailed earlier indicates that the slapping was the finale to Mr. Gill’s earlier overtures, which, considered together, persuade us to hold that he had the requisite culpable intention.

  • The court then considered the applicability of S. 341,342 and 352 of IPC. The court held that nothing in the FIR or the facts of the case pointed towards a situation of Wrongful restraint or Wrongful confinement. Mr. Gill’s mere act of standing in front of Mrs. Bajaj cannot be said to be wrongful restraint.
  • The court next considered the applicability of S.95, IPC, which talks about the act of causing slight harm. After considering the principles laid down by the court in Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan, the court observed that S. 95 of the IPC has no application in the present case.

Talking about the High Court’s decision, the court held that the settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probability, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations made therein, an FIR or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever conclude that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the High Court has not recorded such a finding, obviously because on the allegations in the FIR. It was not possible to do so. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a gross error of law in quashing the FIR and the complaint. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition filed by Mr. Gill in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Decision of the Court

Trial and sentencing. In 2005, the Supreme Court of India upheld the charges and conviction of K.P.S. Gill for the offense. He was spared from undergoing the three-month jail sentence as it was converted into probation by Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Judgement

1. In 1998 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana booked Gill u/S 354, i.e., outraging the modesty of women and u/s 509, i.e., an act, word, or gesture intended to insult a lady.

2. Mr. Gill was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three months and simple imprisonment for two months along with a fine of Rs. 200000.

3. Appeals were made into the Supreme Court of India, wherein the punishment was turned into probation in 2005.

The court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, to take cognizance upon the police report regarding the offenses under Sections 354 and 509 IPC and try the case himself as per law.

They made it abundantly clear that the learned Magistrate should not in any way be influenced by any of the observations made by them relating to the facts of the case as their task was confined to the question whether a `prima facie case’ to go to the trial was made out or not. In contrast, the learned Magistrate will have to dispose of the case solely based on the evidence to be adduced during the trial. Since both the offenses under Sections 354 and 509 IPC are trailable under Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.

Comments

I.A.S. officer Rupan Deol Bajaj is delighted after 30 years. Her 17.5 year-long struggle to punish the powerful man who sexually harassed her is resonating in the stories flooding social media. As the #MeToo storm rages across the country, provoking anger and outrage, and also for the first time a creeping fear in the hearts of serial sexual predators who operated till now with carefree impunity, one woman can watch the developments with quiet satisfaction.

When Rupan Deol Bajaj called out the behavior of Mr. Gill, she stood all alone, threatened with death, slander, given punishment postings and Bajaj said a blighted career in an interview with The Wire

Rupan Deol Bajaj secured a conviction under the archaic Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code; the two sections under which no one had ever filed a case since 1860 when the British first drafted the I.P.C.

They are an affront to the dignity and honour of a woman and can traumatize her for life. Actions that fall under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC are universal to the extent that almost all women experience it five or six times in their lives. Section 509 deals with words, gestures, or actions intended to insult a woman’s modesty, and section 354 deals with assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman. These are a set of provisions different from physical assault, but which deal with crimes only against women as there is an element of modesty involved.  All those men who think that unwanted lewd gestures or talking dirty are not offenses need to worry.

It took her another seven years to get the direction from SC to prosecute Gill. Even Rupan Deol Bajaj’s highly educated mother dissuaded her from registering an FIR, and she was asked to cry over it privately and move on with the guilt and fear.

Rupan Deol Bajaj was an empowered woman, but the system and society were conspiring to disempower her. It is hoped that today’s girls get justice as fast as possible.

Firstly, the court has defined ‘modesty’ for the first time in this case as it applies to these two sections of IPC. Secondly, the court has laid down that to prove such matters, one witness is enough, and the victim herself is the best witness, as long as she is truthful. Thirdly, in every crime, the prosecution has to prove the intention of the accused. Nevertheless, here it was held that there is no need to prove intention, but just his knowledge of having acted indecently is sufficient to prosecute a person. Fourthly, the court set a time limit of six months to complete the trial, to ensure that the victim is not deliberately tired out in long-drawn litigation. The difference now is that none of these women need to take the men to court. They dare to speak on social media is enough for everyone to believe them. It is the most critical validation of the truth. If the accused man goes to court, then the case precedent gives them ample ammunition to fight it there.

Latest Posts