Month: October 2020

2nd Online National Quiz Competition (LEGIS QUIXOTIC 2.0), free registration with cash prizes.

Posted on

About the Website:

Iuris Jura is an e-learning platform for legal learning aspirants which provides opportunities to all the law aspirants across India. We have put an effort so that the law aspirants and the legal fraternity can associate with us. 

About the Competition:

Iuris Jura invites all the participants across the nation to participate in its 2nd Online National Quiz Competition LEGIS QUIXOTIC 2.0 on Constitutional law, Criminal Law, Legal Maxims, and Miscellaneous.

Eligibility:

  • Open for all students of the colleges and universities;
  • The law aspirants and legal fraternity.

Composition of Quiz:

1.      CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

2.      CRIMINAL LAW

3.      LEGAL MAXIMS

4.      MISCELLANEOUS

Who shall apply?

  • 1st and 2nd-year law shall apply as these are the opportunities that give them exposure.
  • All the students preparing for law entrance exams.
  • All the law students trying to bring laurels to them.
  • All the students who are willing to check their command over the law. 

Note: This is just a suggestion from our side to everyone reading. It has been seen that in this hard time, students are panicking and doing everything and anything just to add on to their CV/Resume, even the things that are not going to add so much value to their CV’s.

Rules and Regulations:

  • The Quiz will comprise 40 MCQs to be attempted in 15 minutes.
  • There will be no negative marking.
  • Participation as a team is not allowed.
  • Participants are required to attempt the quiz at one go.
  • In the case of a tie-breaker between the winner and runner up, a tie-breaker round consisting of 10 objective questions shall be conducted for deciding the winner.
  • Participants will be provided with the link to the WhatsApp group after the submission of the registration form through the mail.
  • Participants shall ensure decent internet connectivity and are advised to be online at least 15 minutes before the quiz begins.
  • If the participant faces any technical issue, it shall entirely be at their responsibility and organizers owe no liability/responsibility towards the same.
  • The decision of the organizers shall be final and binding in relation to any matter connected with the quiz competition.
  • All the participants are advised to regularly check their emails and the WhatsApp group for regular updates with regard to the competition.
  • If any participant is found to be indulged in any type of misconduct, he/she shall be disqualified from the quiz competition.
  • All certificates shall be in digital form i.e. E-Certificate.

Important Dates:

  • Last Date for Registration: 7th November, 2020 (Till 11:59 P.M.)
  • Date of Online Quiz: 8th November, 2020 (05:00 P.M.)
  • The Dates provided are subject to change at the discretion of the organizers.

Rewards:

  • Winner: ₹600+ Certificate of Merit+ ₹ 500 off on any one course by memo pundits.
  • Runner Up: ₹400 + Certificate of Merit
  • Top 10 participants will get ₹ 200 off on any one course by memo pundits.
  • Top 15 Participants will get Certificate of Merit.
  • All the participants will be given certificate of participation.

Registration:

There is no registration fee.

Register for the quiz by clicking the link mentioned- https://forms.gle/8rmje94zncf5uzTE9

The successfully registered participants will be provided with important guidelines and details to participate in the quiz via mail or WhatsApp.

For any query mail: iurisjura@gmail.com

For more such opportunities visit: http://lexpeeps.in/

Republic TV can’t use ‘Newshour’ but free to use tagline ‘Nation wants to know’ as part of speech

Posted on

Justice Jayant Nath, however, ordered Mr. Goswami and ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, which owns Republic TV, to maintain accounts if they choose to use the tagline as a trade mark with respect to any of their goods or services. The High Court also restrained Republic TV and Mr. Goswami from using the trade mark ‘ NEWS HOUR’ or any other mark which is deceptively similar to it, on a suit filed by media outlet Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd, which owns the channel Times Now.

 Bennett Coleman in his argument contended that it has been using the tagline “nation wants to know” since 2006 for goods and services in relation to television broadcast. It has acquired goodwill and reputation due to the time effort, financial and human resources expanded by the company. It was stated that it can be ascertained as to whether Bennett Coleman was using the tagline as a trade mark or it was merely being used as a form of speech in the course of conducting the news channel.

“In these facts and circumstances, prima facie it is not possible , at this stage without it is not possible, at this stage without leading of evidence, to come to a conclusion that the defendants seek to mislead the consumers of the news channel or that the action of the defendants in using the said tagline would cause damage to the plaintiff as claimed. A plea strongly urged by the defendants is that the tagline in question was used as a common speech for which there is no intellectual property which ensures to the plaintiff.

Mr Goswami, who was earlier associated with Times Now and resigned in 2016, launched his channel ‘Republic TV’ and later filed trade mark applications for registration of the mark ‘Nation Wants to know’, ‘Arnab Goswami Newshour’ and “Goswami Newshour Sunday’ claiming proprietary rights.

The trademark “News Hour” was registered by the Times Group under Classes 16, 35 and 38 in 2014 and the mark itself has been in use since 2006. Therefore, the plaintiff Group claimed statutory right over this trademark. The court also stated that whether or not the tagline was used as a trademark is an aspect that needs to be delved into in detail. Thus, in a partial relief, the Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Times Group, refraining Republic Network from using “News Hour” or anything similar to it with no interim relief being granted with respect to “nation wants to know”. Thus court held that the Republic TV’s editor –in-chief Arnab Goswami was free to use the tagline “nation wants to know” as aprt of his speech or presentation of any news channel.

Deo Narayan vs State of UOI

Posted on

This article is written by Navneet Chandra, a student of Central University of South Bihar, Gaya

Equivalent citations

1973 AIR 473, 1973 SCR (3) 57

Bench

DUA, I.D., Alagiriswami, A., Vaidyialingam, C.A.

Decided on

11 December 1972

Act

Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), Ss. 100 and 102-Right of private defence.

Facts of the Case

There was a clash between the parties of the appellant and complainant over the possession of certain land; in which the appellant inflicted a fatal spear injury on the chest of the deceased. The matter went to the trial court where the Sessions Judge, after an exhaustive discussion of the evidence, produced both by the prosecution and the defence, concluded that the possession of the disputed plots of land was undoubtedly with the- accused persons. The only further question which required determination by the trial court was if the complainant’s party had gone to the plots in question with an aggressive design to disturb the possession of the accused person by the unlawful use of force and if the accused persons had exceeded the right of private, defence in beating and killing Chandrama, father of the complainant and causing injuries to the other members of the complainant’s party. According to the trial court, the complainant’s party had gone to the plots in question to prevent the accused persons from cultivating and ploughing the said land. After considering the evidence on the record, the trial court felt great difficulty in agreeing with either of the two rival versions given by the prosecution and the defence witness Mangla Rai about how the battery had taken place. The learned Sessions Judge, however, considered himself to be on firm ground in holding that the injuries suffered by Chanderdeo and Deo Narain rendered it difficult to believe that they had inflicted injuries with their spears on Bansinarain and Tin Taus, Rajnarain and Suresh who were prosecution witness. In his opinion, had the accused persons been the aggressors, they would not have abstained from causing injury to Rai Narain who was actually ploughing the field. In view of this improbability the learned Sessions Judge did not find it easy to place reliance on the statements of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted all the accused on the ground that the accused were exercising their right of private defence on the the ground of reasonable assumption that Deo Narain and Chanderdeo must have received injuries on their heads before they inflicted injuries on the members of the complainant’s party. Aggrieved with the order of the trial court, the State appealed to the High Court where the conclusions of the trial court were upheld. The High Court was of an opinion that right had been exceeded by the appellant Deo Narain while inflicting injury with the spear on the chest of Chandrama, deceased. Chandrama had received one lacerated wound on the right side of his skull and one incised wound on the left shoulder with a punctured wound 41″ deep on the right side of the chest. The last injury was responsible for his death. This injury, according to the High Court, was given by-the appellant Deo Narain with his spear. The reasoning of the High Court in convicting the appellant is, broadly stated, that it was only if the complainant’s party had actually inflicted serious injury on the accused that the right of private defence could arise, justifying the causing of death. In the present case as only two members’ of the party of the accused persons, namely, Chanderdeo and Deo Narain, appellant, had received injuries which though on the, head, were not serious, they were not justified in using their spears. On this reasoning the High Court convicted the appellant, of an offence under s. 304, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.complainant appealed to the High Court where it was held that the appellant exceeded his right of private defence on the sole ground that he had used his spear with greater force than was necessary, that he had given a dangerous blow with considerable force with a spear on the chest of the deceased though he had only received a superficial lathi blow on his head, and convicted him for an offence under Section 304 of IPC. Aggrieved with the order of the High court, appellant filed SLP in the Supreme Court of India. 


Issues

Whether the petitioner exceeded the right of Private Defence? 

Whether the petitioner is justified in using the right of private defence by spear for injury caused by lathi? 

Whether the order passed by the High Court was erroneous? 


Judgment

According to section 102, the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed, and such right continues so long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. The threat, however, must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent, and not to remote or distant, danger. If, after sustaining a serious injury, there is no apprehension of further danger to the body, then obviously the right of private defence would not be available. In our view, therefore, as soon as the appellant reasonably apprehended danger to his body even from a real threat on the part of the party of the complainant to assault him for the purpose of forcibly taking possession of the plots in dispute or of obstructing their cultivation, he got the right of private defence and to use adequate force against the wrongful aggressor in the exercise of that right. The party of the complainant had deliberately come to forcibly prevent or obstruct the possession of the accused persons and that this forcible obstruction and prevention was unlawful, the appellant could reasonably apprehend imminent and present danger to his body and to his companions. He was thus fully justified in using force to defend himself and if necessary also his companions against the apprehended danger which was manifestly imminent. 

It cannot be laid down as a general rule that the use of a lathi as distinguished from the use of a spear must always be held to result only in milder injury, because, a blow by lathi on the head may prove instantaneously fatal. Therefore, if a blow with a lathi is aimed at a vulnerable part like the head it cannot be laid down as a sound proposition of law that in such cases the victim is not justified in using his spear in defending himself. In such moment of disturbed mental equilibrium, it becomes difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression to coolly weigh determine with a composed mind as to what precise kind and severity of the blow would be legally sufficient for effectively meeting the unlawful aggression. Apparently the High Court seems to have implied that the appellant should have used the spear as a lathi and not the spearhead for defending himself or should have given a less forceful thrust of the spear or on a less vulnerable part of the body and not on the chest, in order to be within the legitimate limits of the right of private defence. 

The High Court erred in convicting the appellant on the ground that he exceeded his right of private defence. To say that the appellant could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an aggressive wrongful assault is a complete misunderstanding of the law embodied in s. 102, I.P.C. The approach of the High Court that merely because the complainant’s party had used lathis, the appellant was not justified in using his spear is an equally misconceived aid cannot be supported under s. 100. The view of the High Court is not only unrealistic and unpractical but also contrary to law and in conflict with its own observations while acquitting the other accused, that in such cases the matter cannot be weighed in scales of gold. 

Result

The appeal was allowed and succeeded and the appellant was acquitted. 

Latest Posts

Archive


Doctrine of Res Gestae

Posted on

This article is written by Aanchal Rawat, a student of R.N.P.I.S.L. & J currently in Second year pursuing B.com-L.L.B (Hons.).

INTRODUCTION

The word Res Gestae is a Latin word which means things done, transaction or circumstance surrounding the subject is complete.

Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on the doctrine of Res Gestae. 

Facts not of issue, but connected with the fact in issue and forms part of the same transaction are relevant, irrespective of whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations

  • Mahesh is accused of the murder of Mahila by beating her. Whatever Mahesh or Mahila or the bystanders said and did at the time of beating or shortly before it or after it as to form a part of the transaction is a relevant fact.
  • Ishita ordered certain goods from Kirtan. Kirtan gave the goods for delivery, but it didn’t reach Ishita. Ishita accused him of not delivering the goods. The goods must have passed through several intermediate persons. These deliveries are a relevant fact that goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

Meaning of Res Gestae

Sometimes items of evidence are said to be part of the res gestae. If the nature and strength of the evidence is highly connected with the matter of issue then such evidence is admissible.

Res Gestae is an expression mainly used in the criminal law in connection with the contemporary of statements to residents.

Contemporaneous statements are relevant and in connection with the matter and can explain matters in issue, and then they will be admissible.

Same transaction

The term ‘same transaction’ has not been defined in the IEA, 1872. 

“Same Transaction” denotes that a series of activities are linked together to present a continuous story. 

Sir James Stephen in his book, “Digest of the law of Evidence” has defined the term “Transaction” as follows:

A group of facts which are connected to be mentioned by one legal name, a crime, a contract, wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be at issue is transacted.

The word ‘transaction’ is difficult to be interpreted. It should be interpreted neither in any strict nor in a technical way, but its ordinary etymological meaning of “an affair” or “a carrying through.”

Efficient test is used to determine whether a fact forms a part of the transaction, it depends upon whether the facts are related to one another in point of purpose, or cause and effect or as probable acts and subsidiary acts as to form one continuous action.

For continuity of action and purpose proximity of time is not essential.

On the one hand, the mere proximity of time between several acts will not necessarily make them parts of the same transaction, while on the other hand, the mere fact that intervals of time between the various acts will not necessarily signify want of continuity. To find out whether a series of acts are part of the same transaction, it is essential to see whether they are linked together to present a continuous whole. Sec. 6 of IEA, 1872 lays down that fact, which form part of the same transaction are relevant.

Res Gestae and Admissibility of facts

Hearsay evidence’s exception is Res Gestae. If a fact or a statement of fact or opinion is closely associated with some act or issue, place or circumstances with some event which is in issue, then it forms a part of the same transaction as the act or the event in issue and will be admissible as evidence. The justification given to the acceptance of such evidence is that the light that it sheds upon the act or event in issue is such that in its absence, the transaction in question may not be fully or truly understood and may even appear to be meaningless, unexplainable or unintelligible.

Res Gestae of any case properly consists of that portion of actual world’s happenings out of the right or liability, complained or stated in the proceeding, necessarily arises. 

Two senses:

  1.  Restricted sense: It means the world’s happening out of which the right or liability in question arises. 
  2.  Wider sense: It covers all the facts which make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them, by which re gestae is reproduced to the tribunal where the direct evidence of the witness or perception of the court is unachievable. Statements may also accompany physical happenings, e.g., an accident, happened in a public place, some bystanders will make mutual conversation about the incident. 

The question is to what scope, such statements can be regarded as parts of the transaction.

Criteria to be fulfilled before a statement can be admitted as evidence under section 6: 

  1. The spontaneous and simultaneous utterance is a part of the transaction, e.g., what a person states during an occurrence in respect of the occurrence itself.
  2. The statement must be made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence, and of such a nature that the events speak for themselves the words must be at least de recenti.
  3. If the statement is made after the act is over for reflection and deliberation (fabrication); and/or it is the mere narration of past events, then it is not relevant.
  4. The statement must be a statement of fact and not an opinion. 

Illustrations:

  1. Kamlesh, while running in the street, crying that Hitesh has stabbed him, is a relevant fact. 
  2.  During the investigations of a crime if any statement is given it is considered as relevant facts.
  3. A man was accused for the murder of his wife. His pleaded that the shot went off accidentally. To rebut that defence, there was evidence of a telephone operator, who stated that before shooting; she had received a call from the address where the deceased lived with her husband. The telephone operator said that the call was from a female, who was sobbing and in a hysterical state she said, “Get me the police, please!” and gave the address. Before telephone operator could make the connection to the police station, the caller’s (deceased) call ended. And when, the police came to the house and found the body of a dead woman. Here the call and the words spoken by the deceased were held to be relevant as a part of the transaction which brought about her death.
  4.  Newspaper Reporting: Whether or not a newspaper report can be relied upon by the High Court would depend upon the nature of jurisdiction being exercised by the High Court. If the question is of admissibility of a newspaper report in any appeal, obviously the Evidence Act is applicable; the High Court is required to go by the provisions of the Evidence Act.
  5. Inference of guilty: To justify the inference of guilt, the circumstances from which such an inference is sought to be drawn, must be incompatible with the innocence of accused.

Res gestae and Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence is that statement which is given by a person who has not seen the happening of the transaction but has heard of it from outside. Such evidence can be given if it forms a part of the transaction. 

Sec. 6 of the IEA, 1872, is an exception to the hearsay evidence rule. It admits certain carefully safeguarded and limited exceptions and makes the statement admissible when such statements are proved to form a part of the res gestae.

Criticism of Res Gestae Doctrine

  • The doctrine of res gestae applies to ‘hearsay’ evidence also, which is not considered a good piece of evidence.
  •   Collateral facts are res inter alios actae, (i.e., transactions between others, for example, statements made behind the accused’s back and to be used as evidence against him. 
  • According to Professor Stone, “no evidential problem is so shrouded in doubt and confusion”. The rule is useless and harmful. Useless as every part of it is covered by some other rule.

Harmful as it confused the limitations of other rules. The limits of res gestae are not easy to define.

  • The Facts differ so greatly that no fixed principle can be laid down as to the matters that will form part of a transaction. As the nature of Res Gestae is confusing it is not included in the Indian Evidence Act. 

Latest Posts

Archives

Constitution and its Classification

Posted on

This article is written by Madhur Samriti Sharma, a student of ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India is known as an organic law. It is because it lays down a set of rules and laws which serves as a base for government, corporations, organizations and, citizens of the sovereign state. The constitution came on 26th January 1950. It starts with the Preamble which says that the citizens of India came together into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, and Republic, Democratic and to secure to all its citizens. Before enacting the constitution, India was under control of the British rule. 200 years of slavery and torture came to an end with the Independence Day on 15th August 1947.

Historical Background

As evident and straightforward it is, the British government dominated India for over 200 years with extreme subjugation and persecution. The British administration have many acts and enactments for governance, which we shall read further:

Government of India Act, 1858: – When the British Crown took hegemony over India from the East India Company, the Parliament validated the first statute for the patronage under the direct control of the British Government. The act was influenced by the philosophy of total royal control without any sought-after engagement in the management of the country. By this act, the powers of the Royal were to be utilized by the Secretary of State for India, aided by a Council of fifteen members, and termed as the Council of India. The Council was incorporated of people from England, some of whom were applicants of the Royal while others were the agents of the Directors of the East India Company. The Secretary of State, who was in charge of the British Parliament, administered India through the Governor-General, supported by an Executive Council, which consisted of high officials of the Government. The important hallmarks of the system introduced by the Act of 1858 were: –

  1. The government of the Company was not only separate but immutably centralized.
  2. Though the administration of the country dissected into Provinces with a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor assisted by his Executive Council as the chief of each of them.
  3. The Provincial Governments were mere representatives of the Government of India and had to function under the charge and control of the Governor-General in all matters relating to the government of the Province.
  4. There was no separation of functions.
  5. The entire machinery of administration was bureaucratic, totally unconcerned about public opinion of India. 

Indian Councils Act, 1861: – This act initiated a new section, which was so long comprised of exclusively of officials, should also include certain non-officials in the Council. But even after the enactment of this new Act the main and more important powers were kept for the Governor-General like: –

  1. Giving foregoing sanction Bills relating to certain matters, without which they could not be introduced in the Legislative Council.
  2. Vetoing the bills after they were passed or reserving them for consideration of the Crown.

Indian Councils Act, 1892: – Two improvements as regards the Indian and Provincial Legislative Councils were presented by the Indian Councils Act, 1892, i.e.

  1. The official members of the Indian Legislative Council were to be nominated by the Bengal Chamber and the Legislative Councils
  2. The non-official members were to be nominated by certain local bodies such as universities, district boards, municipalities;
  3. The Councils were to have the power of discussing the annual statement of revenue and expenditure. 

There are other acts which gradually enacted after one another expanding the scope for the citizens and non-official members. Every act brought new legislation and amendments. Like Morley-Minto reforms and The Indian Councils Act, 1909 which was known by the names of the then Secretary of State for India (Lord Morley and the Viceroy Lord Minto) which was implemented by the Indian Councils Act introduced the element of vast representation of non-official members and elections; Montagu-Chelmsford Report and the Government of India Act, 1919 was another constitutional development of India as Morley-Minto Reforms failed to satisfy the aspirations of the nationalists. The Indian National Congress which was established in 1885 was in control of moderates but became active during World War I and started the ‘Home Rule Movement’. But every Act of amendment comes with a loop hole. After the non-cooperation movement by the nationalists, the British introduced the Simon Commission. It should be noted that even after all the reforms, acts or amendments The British Crown kept their authority to the highest and always. But after all the reforms, changes, martyr, torture, and then came Indian Independence Act, 1947. The following were the results: –

  1. Abolition of Indian Dependency and the suzerainty of the British Crown
  2. Sovereignty of the Dominion Legislature

Making of the Constitution  

The Constituent Assembly which had been elected for unalloyed India, held its various sittings reading and finishing the constitution and it finally was the date 26th November, 1949, on which it was declared as passed. The features of the Indian Constitution were borrowed from different countries. The rest of the additional provisions effect, i.e. from November 26, 1949. 

Classification of Constitutions

  1. Evolved and Enacted constitutions 
  2. Legal and Real constitutions
  3. Written and Unwritten constitutions
  4. Flexible and Rigid constitutions 

Evolved and Enacted constitutions: – An evolved constitution is the repercussion of the historical burgeoning. It is not mounted at a particular time. For instance, the British Constitution has either been passed by any exceptional Constituent Assembly at a specific time or has the ruler given it to the people. Natively, England is about a complete kingship still, but in practice her place is different. Enacted constitutions are framed at a specific time, like the American constitution mounted by a Constituent Assembly after the declaration of Independence. In France, the 1st constitution was made in 1830, 2nd was constituted in 1848, third was framed in 1871, 4th in 1946 and 5th in 1958. After the II World War, India’s new constitution was completed on November 26, 1949 and it was introduced on 26th January, 1950. 

Legal and Real constitutions: – The scribbled components of the constitution constitute legal constitution and when the agreements and decisions of the court are added to it, it becomes the real constitution. 

Written and Unwritten constitution: – According to DR. Garner, the dissimilarity between evolved and enacted constitution is similar to that of written and unwritten one. Unwritten is the one, in which the most part is not written like decisions, legal judgements, customs etc.

Flexible and Rigid constitutions: – A flexible constitution refers to which could be amended by ordinary law exercise. While rigid constitution refers to which could only be amended by a very difficult special procedure. 

CONCLUSION

Constitution may come in different forms or shapes but still it acts as a parent for all rules and regulations of a state. It serves as a base of rights and duties served to citizens.

Latest Posts

Archives

Webinar on “Lawyers in Military Uniform: Career in the Indian Army”: REGISTER NOW!!!

Posted on

About Webinar:- Workshop on lawyers in military uniform: a career in the Indian army is conducted in association with Jus Commune, Law Education and JLSR.

The workshop entails the following:

  1. One on One interaction with the esteemed speaker
  2. An opportunity to gain insight into JAG exam
  3. Strategy and planning to secure a career
  4. Tips and secret that have been well kept until now!
TOPIC: Lawyers in Military Uniform: Career in the Indian Army
SPEAKER: Adv. Richa Singh ( Delhi High Court )
DATE: 1st November 2020

TIMINGS: 4:30 PM onwards 

NOTE: No Participation Certificate will be provided but the knowledge you will receive would be immense.

REGISTRATION LINK: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfeBeAGD3IdRlP7d_ekJYCaX8O-gt2PGZ3ebCq8sSqAe7ZL-w/viewform?usp=sf_link

FOR ANY QUERY

Write to us at- communejus@gmail.com 

Winter Virtual Internship Programme: ProBono India apply by November 5, 2020

Posted on

About the Organisation

ProBono India is India’s first platform that started in 2016 and which focuses on highlighting all legal aid and awareness activities around the world on one platform. It is a platform which provides free legal aid service to serve the needs of people.

The objective of the organization is to provide legal aid, conduct legal awareness activities, disseminate legal aid, promote legal awareness activities of various organizations of the world and conduct research on all aspects of legal aid and legal awareness.

About the Opportunity

The ProBono India provides opportunities to law students for the Winter (November-December) Virtual Internship Programme to enhance research and drafting skills on different case analysis and research works over socio-legal issues. It seeks interested students with outstanding research works that provide them with finest work in the field of law.

Eligibility

Any law students of a 3 year/5 year programme or any legal scholar may apply.

Tenure

1 months

Stipend

No stipend.

Mode of Internship

Virtual Internship

Perks:

1.      Advance the ability of Case-analysis

2.      Enhance the Research skills

3.      Internship Certificates.

4.      Certificate of Publication

How to Apply?

Please attach your CV, cover letter and Statement of Purpose to the attached linkon or before 11:59 PM, 05 November 2020.

The internship will commence from 15 November 2020.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzVgOpskIlGd5UmXpBm_t8w6UoiUfywDpdDmb_Oluapi2Lcw/viewform?usp=sf_link

Submission Date

Last date to Apply: 05 November 2020

Contact Details

For any further query, please contact:

Tejasva Pratap Singh: 9140331386, 9580669905

Email: tejasva.law2211@gmail.com

Internship Opportunity at Greenpeace: Environmental Protection and Policy: Apply now!

Posted on

Greenpeace India is the Indian branch of the global environmental group Greenpeace, a non-profit NGO, with a presence in 55 countries across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Greenpeace India has legally registered society in 4 locations with Bengaluru as its headquarters and other branches at Delhi, Chennai, and Patna

About the internship: 

Greenpeace India provides internship opportunity for students from top educational institutions to undertake an internship at their offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore or Patna.

Goal behind the internship:

  • To enhance research skills of students in the field of environmental protection and policy through practical work assignments. 
  • To expose them to advocacy and local project initiatives of Greenpeace India. 
  • To utilize students’ skills towards our work in the area of environmental protection and conservation.

Eligibility:

Candidates applying for the internship program should fulfil the following criteria to qualify:

  1. The applicant should be in his/her 2rd year of study (or higher),
  2. The applicant should be able to provide a verification letter from their institution’s departmental head stating the requirement of internship.
  3. The applicant should be an Indian citizen.

Duration:

Minimum: 45 days.

Maximum: 3 months. 

Nature of Internship:

Offline.

How to Apply:

  • Fill in the application form annexed and available in the downloads box https://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/internships/
  • The applicants should send their completed application form at least two months in advance from the date of the start of the internship. 

For more such opportunities visit: http://lexpeeps.in/ 

Internship Opportunity at Centre for Civil Society: Applications Open!

Posted on

About Centre for Civil Society:

Centre for Civil Society is an organization that operate as an independent educational and research organization. The Centre for civil society was founded in the year 1997 by Dr. Parth Shah former Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan. CCS works with the vision to envision a world where each individual leads a life of choice in personal, economic and political spheres and every institution is accountable.

About the Internship:

Centre for Civil Society’s latest initiative is to put India on a more sophisticated path of law-making. Based on an extensive literature review and a study of global best practices, we have developed a checklist that allows us to measure the quality of a given set of laws. The checklist outlines a set of minimum safeguards (democratic, legal and economic) that any legislation ought to conform to. It draws from indices that measure regulatory quality around the globe, including the World Bank, European Union and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

Who can apply?

Law students.

Duration: 

In the next three months, CCS will analyses all 144 state laws on school education using their rubric and are looking for law interns to assist in application. Interested law students are required to fill the form below. The duration of the internship is as follows:

The internship will start from 28 October 2020 and end on 21 December 2020. 

Fill the form to apply https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzNf6CKY4KcHIml3j_bgIzckjXHwRDVHFupInibucfTT0XEw/viewform


For any queries, please write to: jayana@ccs.in or meghna@ccs.in.

For more such opportunities visit: http://lexpeeps.in/ 

S. N Hussain vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on

This case analysis is written by Khan Mahenoor Barsati, a student of Rizvi Law college

Case No

Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1969

Equivalent Citation

AIR 1972 SC 685, 1972 CriLJ 496, (1972) 3 SCC 18, 1972 (4) UJ 487 SC

Bench

Justice D Palekar and Justice P J Reddy

Decided on

5/01/1972

Relevant Act and Section 

Section 304A IPC

Section 337 IPC

Section 338 IPC

Brief Facts and Procedural History

In the instant case, an appeal was filed by the state government against the acquittal of the bus driver who has been declared charged in Munsif Magistrate, Alampur, for offences under Sections 304A, 338 and 337

The appeal by the government was made and the high court has declared the bus driver convicted, convicted him to undergo strict imprisonment for two years under Section 304A IPC and made the other penalties to run together with the same conviction, hence the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the same 

The factual scenario is as follow:

The appellant, the Bus  Driver of an R.T.C. Bus No (APZ 1672) was driving the bus on 1-1-1966 (Accident day) from Kurnool to Vanaparthy however, the bus evacuated Kurnool at approximately 6.15 A.M. and entered the Railway level crossing gate between the Alampur Road Station and Manopad Railway Station at nearly 6.30 or 7.00 A.M.

The railway crossing had a gateman and it was his duty to close the gate when a train is predicted to pass by,  but at the moment when the bus reached, the gate found open. The Driver hence passed through the entrance and crossed the track when unexpectedly a train rushed against the vehicle on the backside, as the consequence of that the bus was drawn away resulting in severe damages and injuries to the 43 passengers. 

One passenger died on the spot, three died later in the hospital and about 21 other passengers received further or less serious injuries.

The charge sheet was filed against the appellant as it was considered that he was reckless, careless, negligent in striking out the railway track when a train filled with goods was about to pass the gate.

However, the appellant contended that he was not negligent and the accident was indispensable. He did not acknowledge at all that a Goods train was enacting at the moment and since the entrance was empty or open, Driver struck out the railway crossing unconscious of the evidence that a train was moving toward, and also the  Magistrate court has approved the defence but the High Court was gratified to hold that the appellant stood both rash and negligible.

Moreover, all the witnesses interrogated to confirm the case against the appellant turned hostile, but The High Court relied upon a few witnesses for its outcome that the appellant was both sudden and careless, and it is asserted that these witnesses had not substantiated the charge against the appellant.

It was further argued that the Magistrate have had accepted a very reasonable view of the case and, thus, the High Court should not have impeded with the decree of acquittal and the view of the High Court could not be maintained on the evidence which occurred in favour of the appellant that the conviction stood outrageous and improper.

Issue before the Court

Whether the appellant was either rash or negligent.

Ratio of the Case

It was considered that Rashness comprises hazarding a hazardous act with the understanding that it may cause injury. 

Thus, the criminality fabricated in a case is running the harm of performing a concerning act recklessly as to the outcomes. 

Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is the terrible and guilty neglect or loss to exercise that adequate and proper care and precaution to conserve against injury either to the public or to an individual having concern to all the situations out of which the penalty has arisen

The evidence ascertained by the passengers was extremely late to curb, crash because the bus had already crossed the route and saving the circumstance would be to speed up the vehicle, which according to the witness, the driver had done. Unfortunately, the train whisked against the rear side of the bus. 

Judgment of the Case

It was held by judges that Blameworthy failure in the instant case prevaricates in the loss to exercise adequate and proper care and the extent that of reasonableness had always relied upon the circumstances of any case.

However, it was further considered that The gate was opened and scheduled train to pass at the time hence,  the driver would be justified in driving his vehicle through the level crossing.

Thus, it was taken into account that Passenger trains usually have a schedule and if a train is expected to come at about the time the appellant entered the level crossing, a regular driver of motor vehicles on that route found negligent in crossing the railway tracks and if any mischance, the gate was empty. But the train in the instant case was not a passenger train but a Goods train and it is not demonstrated that the Goods train was scheduled to pass the level crossing just at about the time the bus reached the spot. 

The appellant doesn’t even know that a Goods train would be coming at that moment hence The court held that 

” The appellant was guilty of criminal negligence merely because he did not stop when the road signal wanted him to stop” and the case was clear ease of unavoidable accident because of the negligence of the gateman in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass.

The order of conviction and sentence was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

Latest Posts

Archives