Month: June 2021

About Child Rights Centre:

The Child Rights Centre (CRC) is a specialized research Centre of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. The Centre was established with a mission to improve access to justice for children and promote research, advanced learning and advocacy to strengthen child rights laws, policies and practices in Bihar. Child Rights Centre is established & running with technical support of UNICEF for effective implementation of children’s laws in Bihar.

About The Blog:

This blog is initiated with the motive to provide a platform for students, academicians and research scholars to share their thoughts and research on the issues related to women and children. This blog stands as a platform for hosting a wide range of articles that would provide better insights into the latest developments in the issues related to women and children of India and also provide a global perspective to the said matter.

Eligibility:

The blog invites submissions from students, academicians and research scholars of any stream.

Theme:

Rights of Children and Women during COVID- 19

Sub-Themes:

1. Bihar as a hotspot/transit place for the Child Trafficking
2. Role of JJB/CWC in Protecting Child Rights
3. Lack of Adult Supervision and its consequences for the children.
4. Discrimination in education among the Children
5. Covid-19 and crimes against Children
6. Legal Rights of Orphan Children in India
7. Online Education in private school and government schools of India.
8. Impact of Covid 19 on the Education of Women and Children
9. Impact of the Pandemic on the children of Migrant Workers
10. Street Children during Covid 19

Guidelines:

Formatting Guidelines:

Body:

• Font – Times New Roman
• Font Size – 12
• Alignment – Justified
• Margin – Normal (1” or 2.54 cm on all sides)
• Line Spacing – 1.5

Footnotes:

• Font – Times New Roman
• Font Size – 10
• Alignment – Justified
• Line Spacing – 1

Submission Fee:

There is no registration or submission fee, all the selected articles shall be published for free.

Last Date of Submission:

All the submissions shall be made by 31st July, 2021.

Contact Details:

Email: crccnlu@gmail.com (In case of any query mail to this id with the subject “QUERY”)

You can access our website from here.

*The decision of Child Rights Centre shall be final regarding the publication of any blog and no contentions for the same shall be entertained.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

About ICFAI:

The ICFAI University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the University) was established under the ICFAI University Act 2003 (Act No.16 of 2003) passed by the Uttaranchal Legislative Assembly and assented to by the Governor on July 08, 2003.

About the Quiz:

The Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, The ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University, Dehradun is celebrating World Refugee Day by organizing “The National Online Human Rights Quiz Competition on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: Laws and Policies” on 20th June 2021.

In a scenario where there is a tie between two or more students, the time taken by the respective candidates will be considered.

• Mode of Quiz: Online
• Total Questions: 60
• Total Marks:60
• Negative Marking: 0.3

Eligibility:

Students pursuing their under graduation or post-graduation in Law.

Registration Procedure:

• Registration is free of cost.
• Register yourself through the link given at the end of this post.

Fee details:

No Registration Fee

Prizes:

• Top 3 participants: Certificate of Excellence
• Top 10 participants: Certificate of Merit
• Certificate of Participation for all the participants

Important Dates:

• Last Date of Registration: 19th June, 2021
• Date of Quiz Competition: 20th June, 2021

Contact Information:

prachi.mishra[at]iudehradun.edu.in

Click here to register for the quiz.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

About:

The School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), Cochin, Kerala

School of Legal School, CUSAT  is one of the oldest Law Schools in India. The Law School was initially started as  the Post Graduate Department of Law  of the University of Kerala in the year 1962 under the leadership and guidance of the late Prof. (Dr.) A.T.Markose, an internationally acclaimed jurist and academician. the School of Legal Studies became part of Cochin University in the year 1971.

Cochin University Law Review:

The Editorial Board of Cochin University Law Review (CULR), the flagship publication of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), is inviting submissions for Volume XLIV proposed to be published in September 2021. CULR (ISSN No: 0970-0331), is a quarterly law journal published with the collective efforts of the members of faculty of School of Legal Studies, CUSAT. The journal has been published since 1974 as a peer reviewed and referred journal. CULR offers a platform for presenting original views on contemporary topics in the field of law. The subscribers of the journal include various prestigious universities and institutions imparting legal education, scholars and students, within and outside India.

Who all can Participate?

The Editorial Board invites submissions from academicians, practitioners, students,
researchers and experts in the field of law. We prefer papers that show a thorough
research and a well-articulated position.

Submission Categories:

Submissions are invited from academicians, practitioners, students, researchers, and experts in the field of law. The papers show thorough research and a well-articulated position.

Submissions under the following categories are invited:

• Articles: Between 10,000 and 12,000 words
• Notes & comments: Between 6000 and 8000 words
• Case Comments: Between 3000 and 6000 words
• Book Review: Between 2000 and 4000 words.

Submission Guidelines:

• Submissions are accepted only in electronic form.
• Submissions must be mailed to culrsls@cusat.ac.in with the title as ‘Submission- CULR 2021’.
• Submissions must be made in Word format (.doc)/(.docx)
• The submission must be accompanied with a cover letter stating the title of the manuscript, name and details of the author/authors and author’s contact details.
• The cover letter should state that the article is original and that it is not published /submitted for consideration in any other publication.
• An abstract of 250 words shall be sent along with the manuscript.
• The manuscript should not contain the name and details of the author/authors.
• Co-authorship of a maximum of two persons is allowed.
• The proper acknowledgment must be given for such use of literature in the article submitted .
• The Board of editors may make such last-minute changes that are necessary to meet the requirements of space and format.
• The submission will be run through anti-plagiarism software and plagiarism in any form will result in rejection of the submission.
• The decision on publication will be intimated within two months after the submission deadline.

Formatting Guidelines:

• Submissions must conform to the Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA), 4th Edition.
• The font shall be in Times New Roman of font size 12 with a line spacing of 1.5.
• The footnotes shall be in Times New Roman of font size 10 with single line spacing.

Submission Procedure:

Submissions must be mailed to culrsls[at]cusat.ac.in with the subject title as ‘Submission- CULR 2021’.

Fee Details:

Please Note: No fee is being charged at any stage, viz. submission, processing, publication, or certification.

Official Information:

Contact Details:

The Chief Editor
Cochin University Law Review
School of Legal Studies
Cochin University of Science and Technology
Kochi -682022
Kerala, India.

• Email: culrsls[at]cusat.ac.in
• Contact Number: +91 4842575465

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

About:

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab is one of the leading national law universities across the nation. The university was established in 2006 and has been accredited with an ‘A’ grade by NAAC. Besides academic excellence, the university also promotes co-curricular activities like moot court competition among students which help them in inculcating expertise in the intricacies of this highly competitive profession.

Details about the Event:

The Surana & Surana Moot has been conceived to create opportunities for learning and development of jurisprudence on emerging trends in International Law besides developing cutting-edge skills in research, writing, and advocacy. Further, it is aimed to facilitate the evolution of International Law through the jurisprudential analysis of the existing law and consequential emergence of new laws. 

The Moot shall be held from 20th August – 22nd August 2021.

Eligibility:

The competition is open for students who are studying LL.B. three-year or five-year courses during the current academic year. Each team shall consist of a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 members. 

Registration Details:

Online registrations are open from the 3rd of June 2021.

The deadline for registration is 7 PM, 26 June 2021.

Teams are requested to register online at www.moot.in. 

Only 24 teams will be registered to participate in the competition on a first-come-first-serve basis. Upon receiving the acknowledgement of the registration, participants are requested to follow the procedure given in the Rules for final registration. The Registration fee for the moot is INR 2,000/-

Important Dates to Remember:

• Last date of Registration: 26 June 2021
• Last date for seeking clarifications: 10 July 2021
• Release of clarifications: 17 July 2021
• Last date of submitting the memorials: 5 August 2021
• Oral Rounds: 20 Aug – 22 Aug 2021

Prizes:

1. Winner: INR 15,000/-
2. Runners Up: INR 10,000/-
3. Best Memorial: INR 5,000/-
4. Best Student Advocate: INR 5,000/-

Contact Details:

For Registration: Mr. Preetam Surana [mootcourt@lawindia.com, 044-28120000]

Faculty Coordinator: Dr. Gettika Walia [mootcommittee@rgnul.ac.in, 0175 – 2391372]

Student Coordinator: Mr. Prithvi Raj Yadav [prithvirajyadav@rgnul.ac.in,+91 8178032455]

Rules & Moot Preposition:

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

–Report by Muskan Chanda

Facts

• An application was filed by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( DV Act) before the Chief Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, stating that she was already married when she met the petitioner in the year 2009.
• In 2014 respondent got married to the petitioner after obtaining a divorce from her husband. The respondent had a son, named Master Jatin, aged thirteen years, from her previous wedding. The petitioner had not disclosed his marital status to the respondent at the time they each met thus inducing the respondent to marry him. The petitioner executed a wedding Agreement to indicate his genuineness and responsibility towards the respondent and her kid.
• Within the agreement it had been mentioned that the respondent was married and incorporates a son from her previous wedding. Later the petitioner herein told the respondent that his spouse is on dialysis and wouldn’t survive long and so he’s trying to find a life partner.
• Further, the respondent took a divorce from her husband and got married to the petitioner in 2014. Another Agreement-cum-Marriage Deed was entered into between the petitioner and also the respondent on 22 November 2014.
• The petitioner herein had organized a rental accommodation and both of them were living as husband and wife. The name of the petitioner is mentioned as the father of the kid of the respondent in the school records. In the bank accounts of the respondent, the petitioner is shown as a nominee.
• Differences arose between the parties and also the respondent was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner. The respondent filed an FIR against the petitioner. The respondent prayed for an order restraining the petitioner from evicting the respondent from the rented accommodation. An application for a grant of interim maintenance has conjointly been filed by the respondent.

Petitioner’s Submission

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act could be filed solely by an aggrieved person. According to the definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the DV Act. An aggrieved person has been defined as any woman who is or has been, in a domestic relationship with an individual and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by that person. He states that the respondent in her application has admitted that both the parties were married when they met. When the respondent knew that the petitioner was married to somebody else the respondent cannot claim any relief under the DV Act. Till the issue of maintainability is not decided, the decision to pay ad-interim maintenance to the respondent is unreasonable.

Respondent’s Submission

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent and petition got along in the year 2009 and got married in the year 2014 and they resided together for 6 years before the difference arose between them in the year 2020. He contends that it was not as if the petitioner was a casual visitor to the house. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has filed an affidavit and entered into a contract with the respondent stating that he has married the respondent and that he would take care of the respondent and the child. He further stated that in school records the petitioner is shown as the father of the child and in the bank accounts of the respondent, the petitioner is shown as the nominee. Hence, the application filed by the respondent was maintainable and the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting that directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs. ten thousand per month to the respondent does not warrant any interference.

Judgment

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order on 26 October 2020, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs ten thousand per month to the respondent herein as an interim arrangement. The principal challenge is that the order could not be passed since the application under the DV Act was not maintainable as the respondent is not an aggrieved person.
In case the Metropolitan Magistrate, after evidence is led, concludes that the respondent herein was not entitled to the protection of the DV Act then adequate safeguards must be made to ensure that the respondent returns the amount received by her as interim maintenance in terms of the order dated 26 October 2020, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate back to the petitioner with interest.

A whole-time member of SEBI, G Mahalingam held the business enterprise prone to pay an economic penalty of Rs 5 crore inside a duration of forty-five days and refund the funding control and advisory costs gathered with recognition to the six debt schemes inspected at the side of easy hobby on the charge of 12 percentage consistent with annum inside a duration of 21 days from the date of this order.

The business enterprise shall additionally be prohibited from launching any new debt scheme for 2 years. Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Pvt. Ltd had determined to land up the subsequent schemes of Franklin Templeton Mutual Funds according to the provisions of Regulation 39(2)(a) of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996:

• Franklin India Ultra Short Fund/Ultra Short Bond Fund;
• Franklin India Low Duration Fund;
• Franklin India Short Term Income Fund/Plan.

SEBI had located severe lapses within side the manner Franklin Templeton India Mutual Fund controlled the six debt budget that it wound up all at once in April 2020. Upon attention of the Forensic Audit/Inspection Report, SEBI issued a show-cause beneath Neath the provisions of Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11(4A) and 11B of the SEBI Act, containing the subsequent allegations:

• The business enterprise walking debt schemes inspected similar to Credit Risk Fund scheme and in a comparable manner, regardless of the funding goals of those schemes, being different. The debt schemes inspected had been projected as duration–primarily based schemes, in place of Credit Risk Fund schemes.
• Not disclosed its method of investing in excessive yield securities with credit score rating
• Incorrectly calculated Macaulay duration, taking hobby charge to reset dates as deemed adulthood date, even though there has been no specific go out to each the parties-Issuer and Investor, at the hobby charge reset date
• Entered into phrases of funding, which had been ambiguous and without identical rights to each the Issuer and the Investor.
• Incorrect disclosures of the month-to-month portfolio of securities.
• Invested in illiquid securities without right due diligence.

It has informed the refund of funding to go back fund control costs well worth Rs 451.63 crore to the buyers of the six debt budget. Plus, it has additionally levied a 12 percentage hobby rate in this amount, which sums up the full disgorged rate to Rs 512.50 crore.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

-Report by Muskan Chanda

On the fourth of June, 2021, the High Court of Delhi dismissed Juhi Chawla’s civil proceedings against the launch of 5G and obligatory a significant penalty of twenty lakhs. The complainant is seeking leave to sue in representative interest on the bottom that the launch of 5G technology can cause stupendous damage to the public, as well as future generations, and also the proceedings, involve problems relating to public health of the current as well as future generations.

Plaintiff’s Submission

• The complainant has been in public bell ringing against the technology and its aspect effects conjointly the aspect effects of electromotive force radiation for the last decade and has been approached by a vast range of individuals, requesting to begin legal proceedings against the “silent killer” that exists in our country’s air, and United Nations agency have expressed their want to hitch them in such proceedings.
• While Section 91(1)(b) of the CPC has been invoked, it’s with all respect submitted that Section ninety one has been invoked solely regarding the “wrongful acts” of the defendants, the acts concerning the act of omission in not being aware of the health hazards of 5G before allowing any more activity therein field. The Supreme Court has settled the proposition that the ‘precautionary principle‟ stands embedded among the fold of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby conferring fundamental rights upon the plaintiffs even of Section 91 of CPC.
• Since the plaintiffs, themselves, have severally suffered special in addition to actual damages, it’s not the case of the plaintiffs that the suit cannot proceed if the permission beneath Order I Rule eight of the CPC is to be denied by this Court.
• In different words, the complainant may without doubt rock the conscience of this Court into being sympathetic to the explanation for the present as well as future generation against what’s undeniably a “silent killer”.

Respondent’s Submission

The respondent contended that no case for grant of leave to institute the suit is created out under Section 91(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure or to sue in representative interest under Order I Rule eight of the Code of Civil Procedure or to keep up the suit while not the said leave/permission because the plaintiffs’ suit is flawed and not rectifiable for the subsequent reasons:

• Order VI Rule 2(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall contain statements of fabric facts in an exceedingly pithy type however no proof by that they’re to be tried. However, the complainants haven’t complied with Order VI Rule read with the provision of Code of Civil Procedure as (i) The statements of the complainant don’t seem to be in pithy type and (ii) The plaintiff has incorporated the proof within the plaint.
• Order VI Rule nine of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the contents of any document shall not become into being within the plaint unless the precise words of the document or any half therefrom area unit material. However, the complainant has not complied with Order VI Rule nine of the Code of Civil Procedure in addition and has reproduced the documents within the plaint.
• The complainant has no personal information of any allegations created within the plaint. Thus, the full plaint is predicated on the data and legal recommendation received by the complainant, it seems that the plaintiffs wish Associate in Nursing inquiry to be conducted by this Court into the matter that isn’t permissible in law in these proceedings.
• According to Section 34 of the Special Relief Act, 1963, someone entitled to any legal character will institute a suit against another one that denies or is interested to deny his right. within the scope of the case, the plaintiffs never approached the defendants claiming any right and so, the defendants didn’t have to be compelled to respond or deny the plaintiffs alleged rights. therein read of the matter, the maintainability of the declarative reliefs wanted by the plaintiffs is uncertain.

Judgment

The case is dismissed. The court expressed that The plaintiffs have abused and exploited the method of law that has resulted in an exceedingly waste of judicial time. The penalty of Rs.20 lakhs is obligatory on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s area unit was directed to deposit the price of Rs.20 lakhs with the metropolis State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) within one week. If the price isn’t deposited within one week, it shall recover an equivalent from the complainant beneath the law. It shall utilize this price for the victims of road accidents. Moreover, the justice mentioned that It seems that the complainant has filed this suit to gain publicity and that is evident from the very fact that the complainant circulated the video conferencing link of this Court on her social media accounts, which resulted in the recurrent disruption of the Court proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing two separate pleas requesting the Centre and the states to provide Rs. 4 lakh as compensation to the families of the victims of this deadly virus.

Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, one of the two petitioners, contended that under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, every family whose member died due to a disaster is entitled to compensation worth Rs. 4 lakh. The legal team of Reepak Kaushal, the second petitioner, argued that since a large number of people have succumbed to the novelty virus, proper issuance of death certificates need to be issued, as only the aggrieved families can claim the aforementioned compensation under Section 12(iii).

On June 11th, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Supreme Court that the issues raised in the please, seeking compensation for the affected families, are genuine and are under consideration of the Central government.

The Supreme Court has given the Centre 10 days to file a reply and thereafter the matter will be heard. The court has also said that there should be a uniform policy in place for issuing death certificates to the victims of the virus and the doctor’s certification ascribing the death to a different reason rather than covid is not fair.

The matter has been listed on June 21 for the next hearing.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Rashid Zafar, a prisoner undergoing trial, was arrested in 2018 for allegedly being a member of the terrorist organization named Islamic State Of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He was alleged to be involved in planning serial blasts, suicide bombings, and political assassinations in Delhi and other areas around the country.

Zafar approached a Delhi Court on Wednesday, claiming that he was beaten by the other inmates inside the Tihar jail and was forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. The inmate’s legal team claims to have a video in their possession, in which the alleged ISIS member is narrating the whole incident. In the video, he says that he was beaten badly by a few inmates and a sipahi and that they assaulted him because of his background. Advocate M S Khan, Zafar’s lawyer, also confirmed the existence of this video and moved before the court with a plea requesting the Jail Superintendent to look into the matter.

Tihar Jail’s administration countered these allegations and stated that he inflicted these injuries on himself. However, they further stated that they have recovered the phone from Zafar’s possession and have ordered an inquiry into the whole matter.

A petition filed by the inmate’s counsel alleged that Zafar was forced to chant religious slogans of another religion by the other inmates in the cell.
According to the plea, the incident was disclosed by the accused to his father on phone from the jail itself.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

A petition was filed by Amazon India and Flipkart owned by Walmart in the High Court of Karnataka which sought to overturn the Competitive Commission India (CCI)’s inspection order to investigate the business affairs of these two corporations.

The high court rejected the petition paving the way for antitrust regulators to execute the inspection against both of the companies business affairs and to investigate the commercial operations of e-commerce businesses. It is the responsibility of the CCI to eliminate operations and practices of business that harm competition in Indian markets and to protect the interests of consumers to ensure free trade practices in the Indian market.

The Court also rejected Flipkart’s petition seeking to extend the suspension of the investigation for few weeks but the court could not be satisfied by the reasons put forth. in addition, they have 30 days to appeal to the court. The commission had ordered a probe against Flipkart and Amazon India in January 2021 to initiate an inspection and inquiry under article 26 (1) because it has preliminary evidence against the two corporations allegedly these corporations also offer substantial discounts to predatory consumers all these allegations made it necessary to begin the inspection against the corporations.

-Report by Muskan Chanda