Month: June 2021

Case Analysis: Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose

Posted on

Name of the Case

Mohori Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose

Equivalent Citation

(1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

Date of Judgement

04 March 1903

Name of Judges 

Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the respondent was Dharmodas Ghose. He was a minor (i.e., he had not reached the age of 18), and he was the only owner of his immovable property. Dharmodas Ghose’s mother was appointed as his legal guardian by the Calcutta High Court. He was a minor when he went for the mortgage of his own immovable property in favor of the appellant, Brahmo Dutta, and obtained this mortgage deed for Rs. 20,000 at a 12% interest rate each year. Brahmo Dutta, a money lender at the time, acquired a loan of Rs. 20,000, and the management of his firm was in the hands of Kedar Nath, who functioned as Brahmo Dutta’s attorney. Dharmodas Ghose’s mother notified Brahmo Dutta about Dharmodas Ghose’s minority on the day such mortgage deed was started, but the proportion or quantity of loan that was actually granted was less than Rs. 20,000. The defendant’s representative, who actually acted on behalf of the moneylender, gave money to the plaintiff, who was a minor, and he was fully aware of the plaintiff’s incompetency to perform or enter into a contract, as well as that he was legally incompetent to mortgage his property, which belonged to him. On September 10, 1895, Dharmodas Ghose and his mother filed legal action against Brahmo Dutta, claiming that the mortgage Dharmodas executed was commenced while he was a minor or infant, and thus such mortgage was void, disproportionate, or improper, and as a result, such contract should be revoked. Brahmo Dutta died while this petition or claim was being processed, and the appeal or petition was then litigated by his executors. The plaintiff contended or addressed that in such a scenario, no relief or assistance should be granted to them since, in his opinion, the defendant had dishonestly misunderstood the truth about his age. Furthermore, if the mortgage is terminated at the request of the defendant, Dharmodas Ghose.

Issues

  • Whether or not the deed was void under sections 2, 10, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872.
  • Whether or whether the defendant was obligated to repay the amount of debt obtained under such deed or mortgage?
  • Whether or if the defendant’s mortgage was voidable?

Judgment 

According to the Trial Court’s decision, the mortgage deed or contract that was initiated between the plaintiff and the defendant was void since it was completed by a person who was a baby at the time of mortgage execution.

When Brahmo Dutta was dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s decision, he filed an appeal in the Calcutta High Court.

According to the ruling of the Calcutta High Court, they concurred with the verdict of the Trial Court and dismissed Brahmo Dutta’s appeal.

Then he proceeded to the Privy Council for an appeal, and the Privy Council likewise denied Brahmo Dutta’s petition, ruling that there can be no contract between a minor and a major.

The council’s final conclusion was that any contract entered into with a child or newborn is void/void ab initio (void from beginning).

Because the minor was incompetent to create such a mortgage, the contract that was established or begun is likewise void and unenforceable in the eyes of the law.

Because he was not bound by the commitment that was fulfilled in a contract, the minor, Dharmodas Gosh, cannot be forced to repay the amount of money that was advanced to him.

This case analysis is written by Mudit Jain, pursuing B.B.A.LL.B.(H) from Indore Institute of Law.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Case Analysis: Narandas Morardas Gajiwala v. Spam Papammal, AIR 1967 SC 333

Posted on

Case Number 

Appeal (Civil) 177 of 1964

Equivalent Citations 

1967 AIR 333      1966 SCR 38

Bench 

RAMASWAMI, V.

SUBBARAO, K.

Date of Judgment 

25/03/1966

Relevant Act/ Section 

Principal and Agent-Whether Agent can sue Principal for rendition of accounts.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 92 , Proviso 3

Facts of the Case:

Narandas Morardas Gaziwala and Ors., a partnership firm based in Surat that dealt in lace and silver thread, had dealings with another firm, Krishna and Company, who worked as their agents for selling their goods on a commission basis throughout the three districts of Madras. Murugesa Chettiar, one of Krishna & Co.’s partners, dissolved all of the firm’s assets and obligations. Krishna & Co. became indebted in 1951 as a result of their dealings. On April 1, 1951, Murugesa Chettiar (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) executed a promissory note in favor of Narandas Morardas Gaziwala for Rs. 7,500/-, the amount determined by Krishna & Co. to be due and payable. The plaintiff filed a claim in Kancheepuram’s District Munsif’s Court, requesting a rendition of accounts dating back to April 1, 1951, through the date of the suit, in order to determine the amount owed to him. In response, the Surat firm filed a claim against the plaintiff in the court of Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, trying to recover the sum owed under the promissory note. By agreement of the parties, both actions were tried concurrently. 

Issues:

(1) Is the plaintiff, as the agent, authorized to sue the defendant-Surat firm for accounts?

(2) Is the plaintiff allowed to put up a parole agreement to establish the condition prior to the promissory note’s enforceability?

Held:

Subordinate Judge- It decided that the Surat firm was obligated to account for its sales in those territories and issued a decree for the amount covered by the promissory note, but instructed that the decretal amount be adjusted out of any commission due and payable on account taking.

High Court– The High Court, by its judgment dismissed the appeals of Surat firm.

SUPREME COURT- 

  1. The Indian Contract Act makes no provision for an agent to sue the principal for the account’s rendition. The act is not exhaustive, and the agent’s authority to sue the principal for accounting is an equitable right that arises in unusual circumstances, rather than a statutory right. Such unusual circumstances may develop when the principal owns all of the accounts and the agent lacks the necessary accounts to determine his claim for commission against his principal. The agent’s right may also arise in extraordinary circumstances, such as when his remuneration is contingent on the size of deals that he is unaware of, or when he cannot know the extent of the sum owed to him unless his principal’s books are examined.
  2. The Supreme Court agreed with the HC that the transactions for which the plaintiff is entitled to the commission are unique in that they are only known to the principal. As a result, the Supreme Court decided that the plaintiff has the right to sue the Surat firm for accounts because of the unique conditions of this case (remuneration was based on the number of transactions).
  3. The court also decided to uphold the HC’s judgment that the Surat firm had made direct sales to customers in violation of the plaintiff’s single agency contract.
  4. On the issue of the parole agreement, the SC dismissed the Surat Firm’s argument and confirmed the HC’s judgment that there was a collateral oral agreement that the promissory note obligation would not be enforced for 5 years and until the amount was due after the commission agency’s accounting period. The Supreme Court held that the agreement was a condition prior to the promissory note’s enforceability and that the plaintiff could use the 3rd proviso to s. 92 of the Proof Act to adduce evidence of oral agreement.

This is a case analysis is written by Sanjana Suman, student of Amity Law School, Amity University Jharkhand Ranchi.

Latest Posts

Archives

Is Preamble a part of Constitution: An Analysis

Posted on

Introduction

In a document, a preamble is an opening statement that gives an idea about the aims and approach of the document and the objects it seeks to achieve. Therefore, the Preamble to the Constitution of India tells us about the values and aspirations for which the nation had struggled under British rule, the intention of the Constituent Assembly, and the morals and principles of the country.

It is built on the model of the Objective Resolution, which was presented by Jawaharlal Nehru. It was moved by him in the Constituent Assembly on December 13, 1946, and adopted on January 22, 1947. However, it was adopted only after the approval of the Draft Constitution.

Components of the Preamble

There are four main components of the Preamble:-

  1. The Preamble states that the people of India are the source for the authority of the Constitution. 
  2. According to the Preamble, India is sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and a republic in nature.
  3. It states the securing of liberty, equality, and justice for its citizens and the promotion of fraternity as its objectives.
  4. It declares the date of adoption of the Constitution, i.e., November 26, 1949.

Keywords in the Preamble

Some of the keywords which are mentioned in the Preamble are described below:-

  • Sovereign – This means supreme power. Thus, this implies that India is an independent state and no other state can rule over it or dominate it. 
  • Socialist – In India, socialism means democratic socialism. It incorporates the concept of a mixed economy where both, the public sector and the private sector exist side-by-side. 
  • Secular – The concept of positive secularism is followed in India. It means that all the religions in India are equal and they receive equal respect, status, and support from the state.
  • Democratic – This means that in India, people elect their representatives who then form the government. In other words, the government derives its power from the will of its citizens expressed through elections.
  • Republic – It is a form of government in which the citizens elect the head of the state. In India, the head of the state is the President, who is elected indirectly for a term of five years.
  • Justice – The Preamble talks about social, economic, and political justice which are guaranteed through the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy given in Part III and Part IV of the Constitution respectively. Social justice refers to the just and equal treatment of all citizens without any discrimination. Economic justice means the abolition of inequality in matters of wealth, income, and possessions. Political justice means all citizens have equal political rights and access to political participation.
  • Liberty – It means the absence of restrictions on an individual’s activities and to secure the freedom of expression, thought, faith, etc. However, this liberty is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations. 
  • Equality – It means the absence of any form of discrimination and the availability of equal opportunities for all.
  • Fraternity – It implies developing a sense of brotherhood among the citizens in order to maintain unity in the country and the dignity of the individual.

Is the Preamble a Part of the Constitution?

One of the main controversies related to the Preamble was whether it is a part of the Constitution or not. This question has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the following two cases:- 

  1. In re Berubari Union case:- At the time of partition between India and Pakistan, Sir Radcliffe was given the task of demarcation of boundaries between the two nations. Radcliffe awarded Thana ‘Berubari’ in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal to India but this was not mentioned in the award’s written text. As a result, Pakistan claimed that Berubari was a part of their territory. This dispute continued till 1958 when the Nehru-Noon Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. According to this agreement, the territory of Berubari was to be distributed equally between both countries. However, the Union Government faced criticism and its authority of transferring the territory was questioned. The matter was then referred by the President to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. 

The Court stated that the Parliament can diminish territory under Article 3 of the Constitution but it cannot cede the territory. Hence, to give effect to the Agreement the Parliament will have to amend the Constitution according to the provisions of Article 368. 

Further, the Court held that though the Preamble shows the objective of the Constitution, it is not a  part of the Constitution.

  1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:- The main issue, in this case, was regarding the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan, the Parliament was granted the power to amend any part of the Constitution. However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Court overruled the judgment given in earlier two cases and held that the Fundamental Rights were non-amendable. To neutralize the effect of the Golaknath case, the Parliament made some major amendments to the Constitution. 

In the present case, Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a Matha in Edneer, Kerala. He questioned the Kerala government’s efforts, under two-state land reform Acts, to place restrictions on the control of the property (Matha) and challenged the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972, the 24th Amendment Act (fundamental rights), 25th Amendment Act (property rights) and 26th Amendment Act (privy purses). This case was heard by a 13 Judge Bench. 

The Preamble to an Act is not considered a part of that Act because it is not introduced and passed by the legislative body like other provisions of the Act, however, the Preamble of the Constitution of India was introduced, discussed, and enacted by the same process as the other provisions of the Constitution. This distinction was not detected in the Berubari case, but it was pointed out in the Kesavananda Bharati case. 

Here the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution of India, but it is not a source of power or limitations. Also, the seven judges who constituted the majority emphasized the Preamble and stated that the Parliament does not have absolute power of amending the Constitution and it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

In LIC of India v. Union Government, the Supreme Court has again stated that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of the Constitution.

Can the Preamble be Amended or Enforced

The Preamble is a part of the Constitution and so it can be amended, but its basic structure should not be modified. It has been amended only once through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This Amendment added the words “Socialist”, “Secular”, and “Integrity” to the Preamble.

The Preamble is non-justifiable, i.e., orders cannot be passed by the Courts to enforce it. But it can be used for interpretation of the constitutional provisions if there is any ambiguity.  

Conclusion

The Preamble is an important component of the Constitution. Its scope might be limited but it is very helpful in cases of ambiguity. It limits the power of the legislation to avoid arbitrariness and also highlights the principles and ideals on which the Constitution is based. 

Bibliography

  1. Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE, Lawsisto, https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/OTA4MA==/Case-Analysis-THE-BERUBARI-UNION-CASE.
  2. Dr JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Fifty-Seventh Edition.
  3. Om Marathe, The Preamble: What does it say, and what does it mean to India and its Constitution?, The Indian Express (Jan. 24, 2020), https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/the-preamble-what-does-it-say-and-what-does-it-mean-to-india-and-its-constitution-6232014/.    
  4. Percival Billimora, Faraz Sagar, India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala And The Basic Structure Doctrine, Mondaq (Oct. 02, 2017), https://www.mondaq.com/india/constitutional-administrative-law/633634/kesavananda-bharati-v-state-of-kerala-and-the-basic-structure-doctrine. 
  5. Preamble to the Constitution of India, Lawctopus, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/preamble-constitution-india/. 
  6. The Preamble of Indian Constitution – Meaning and Significance, Enterslice, https://enterslice.com/learning/the-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-and-significance/.

Why Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case is considered landmark in India’s independent history¸ India TV News, https://www.indiatvnews.com/fyi/what-is-kesavananda-bharati-case-vs–state-of-kerala-basic-structure-constitution-fundamental-rights-647544.

This article is written by Muskan Harlalka, a 2nd-year law student from the School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

11th National Quiz Competition on Consumer Law by Legis Scriptor: Register by 10 July 2021

Posted on

About the quiz competition:

In furtherance to the aim of revolutionizing the legal educational sector and Enthused by the success of 10 series of Online National Quiz Competition, Legis Scriptor is pleased to introduce 11 th National Law Quiz Competition on ‘CONSUMER LAW’. It aims to provide a unique platform to students and Law aficionados across the country to put their knowledge and quizzing instincts to test. We assure you of an experience filled with legal knowledge, excitement, and ecstasy!

Important dates:-

Last date of registration for the quiz: 10 th July, 2021
Date of competition for Quiz on ‘Consumer Law’: 11 th July, 2021
Time for Quiz: 5:00 PM
Topic: CONSUMER LAW
Who Can Participate:-
*The quiz is open to everyone from any stream/profession.

Rules:-

  1. The quiz will comprise of 20 MCQs to be attempted in 10 minutes and in one go.
  2. Every question will carry equal marks & there will be no negative marking.
  3. Participation as a team is not allowed.
  4. The quiz will be conducted on an online platform, as decided by the organizers.
  5. The registration amount shall not be refunded in any case whatsoever.
  6. Any technical glitch faced by any participant shall entirely be at his responsibility and organizers owe no liability/responsibility towards the same.
  7. Participants shall ensure decent internet connectivity and are advised to be online at least 30 minutes before the quiz begins.
  8. Certificate of Participation will be given to all participants.
  9. All certificates shall be in digital form and will be sent on the e-mail id provided in the google form.
  10. The decision of the Organizers shall be final and binding in relation to any matter connected with the competition.
  11. Participants are advised to check their mailboxes regularly for updates.
  12. In the case of a tie, the higher rank would be determined on the basis of least time taken by the applicant.
  13. The registered candidates will be added to a WhatsApp group for updates.
  14. The results for the Quiz will be declared on the WhatsApp Group so made for the purpose & the official LinkedIn account of Legis Scriptor.
  15. Legis Scriptor will not be responsible for any technical error in paying the registration fee for the quiz competition or any connectivity/device failure during the Quiz.
  16. You will be added in the WhatsApp group one day prior to the competition.

Prizes:-

1 st Position– Rs 500/- + Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Publication in double peer reviewed journal @50% discount.

2 nd Position– Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Publication in double peer reviewed journal @50% discount.

3 rd Position– Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Publication in double peer reviewed journal @50% discount.
4 th – 10 th Position– Certificate of Merit + Opportunity of Publication in double peer reviewed journal @25% discount.
*NOTE- Participation Certificate + 15% Discount on Publication for all Participants.

Registration Details:-

Fees- Rs. 99/-
After the payment all participants need to upload screenshots of the same on
Google form given below while registration.
Payment Method:-
PayTM no.:7703902276
Google Pay: legisscriptor-1@okicici
Phone Pay: 7703902276@ybl
OR pay through UPI
UPI ID:7703902276@paytm

How to Register:-

Participants have to pay via above mentioned payment method and then register themselves through registration link given below.

CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO REGISTER:
https://forms.gle/oYNrV48ny4oenr7A8
Contact us for any query:
E-mail:- info.legisscriptor@gmail.com
WhatsApp number: – 8851264387(WHATSAPP ONLY)

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BKRZpHyuzA46mTWlaFqdjq

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/

Alliance University Model United Nations (24th & 25th July,2021), ONLINE: Registrations Open!

Posted on

About the Institution 

Alliance University is a Private University established in Karnataka by the State Act No.34 of year 2010. The University is jointly recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, Bar Council of India (BCI) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi. Alliance University with a vibrant and picturesque campus in Bengaluru, one of the fastest growing cities in India, offers more than 20 undergraduate and postgraduate majors to approximately 7000 students of diverse backgrounds. 

About the MUN 

Alliance School of Law, Bangalore is organizing its first online edition of Alliance University Model United Nations (AUMUN) on 24th and 25th July, 2021. 

The aim of organizing AUMUN is to facilitate meaningful debate on international issues by inculcating the quintessential skills of critical thinking, research and eloquence in all participants. AUMUN presents an enriching platform for peer interaction and exchange of ideas. Overall, our purpose is to aid the participants in holistic development of their personality. 

AUMUN Committees 

  • General Assembly 1 – The Disarmament and International Security Committee 
  • General Assembly 6 – Legal 
  • Lok Sabha 
  • Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) 

Eligibility

Applications are invited from all school and college students (from Class VIII onwards). 

Registration Details 

Registration Fee is Rs. 350/- per Delegate.  

No extra fees for Group Delegations 

For Registration Links and Payment, Visit- https://www.alliance.edu.in/aumun-2021/  

Last Date for Registration is July 19, 2021. 

Awards & Certificates 

E-Certificates for participation to all delegates. 

E-Certificates for all Winners. 

Gift Vouchers upto Rs. 2,500/- per Committee 

Platform– ZOOM 

Contact Information 

For any queries, please email us at amunc@alliance.edu.in 

Student Co-ordinators: 

Arkadeep Pal, Director General : +91 97314 45903, parkadeepllb18@law.alliance.edu.in 

Paarth Samdani, Secretary General : +91 80075 04772, spaarthllb18@law.alliance.edu.in 

Varun Nair: +91 98194 42209, nvarunllb18@law.alliance.edu.in 

 URL: https://www.alliance.edu.in/aumun-2021/

Official Brochure;

AUMUN-BROCHURE-1Download

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BKRZpHyuzA46mTWlaFqdjq

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/

Magistrates Don’t Have Power To Order Deportation Of Foreign Citizens

Posted on

Magistrate quashed 2 deportation orders passed by a Magistrate concerning a foreign resident, the High Court of Telangana observed that under the Code of Criminal Procedure a magistrate does not have the power to order the deportation of foreign residents in case of violation of the Foreigners Act.

Further, it was said that “Learned Magistrate has to confine his findings concerning either acquittal or conviction of accused therein under Section 248 of the Cr.P.C., Learned Magistrate is not having the power to order the deportation of any foreign citizen for any violation.”

The applicant, who had come to India on an employment visa from the Ivory Coast had approached the High Court, the plea sought quashing of the deportation orders by which the Magistrate had directed the jail authorities to release him forthwith after acquitted him in the criminal cases filed against him.

It was thus held by the High Court of Telangana, the case of the petitioner that the Magistrate while pronouncing judgment under Section 248 of Cr.P.C. does not have the power to order the deportation of foreign resident for any kind of violation.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Zydus Cadila Covid-19 Vaccine For 12-18 Age Group to be Available Soon : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Posted on

On May 31, 2021, the Supreme Court of India raised a slew of questions in its order while hearing the suo-motu case related to Covid Management in India. In the said order, the Court criticized the Centre’s Covid vaccination policy and described it as prima facie arbitrary and irrational.

The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud also asked the Central Government to provide the details and information about how Rs. 35,000 crore, which was earmarked especially for procurement and supply of vaccines, has been spent so far and for the Centre to present all the relevant and important documents regarding the covid vaccination policy in front of the court.

The Union Government has stated that as per the projected midyear population of India for 2020, the total population aged 18 years and above is approximately 94 crore, and the administration of 2 doses to each citizen would require an estimated 188 crore vaccine doses.

In a 380-page affidavit, the Centre stated that it expects to procure the estimated requirement of around 188 crore doses from at least 5 manufacturers by the end of the year. It also stated that a poor person and a millionaire are equally entitled to get the Covid vaccine for free and that necessary actions are being taken to ensure the safe, accessible, and effective administration of vaccines. It further contended that along with the two major vaccines of the country, Covishield, and Covaxin, another Russian Coronavirus vaccine named Sputnik V has received Emergency Use Authorisation by the DCGI, India. Some other domestic vaccines from Biological E and Zydus Cadila are also in the final stages of clinical trials and once approved, will further increase the availability of vaccines.

The court, in its order dated 31.05.2021, also asked for the reasons behind the involvement of private hospitals in the process of administering vaccines. To this, the government stated that according to the statistics, almost 55% of the population gets medical care from private hospitals and the remaining 45% gets health care services from government-run hospitals. It argued that private hospitals have a wider range to vaccinate people and also lessens the stress on government facilities during a time of crisis.

The Health Ministry Of India on 26th June informed that Zydus Cadila, an Indian pharmaceutical company, will soon complete clinical trials for the vaccine against Covid-19 for citizens in the age bracket of 12-18 years and that the doses will most likely be available from July end or August.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Jharkhand HC Criticizes Investigating Officers for Defiance of Judicial Officers

Posted on

The Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a bail application in a sexual assault of a minor case, gravely criticized the investigating authority and the officers of the case for defiance of judicial orders.

The victim, who shall remain nameless, was a 13-year-old minor girl who was sexually assaulted by the petitioner and the victim had neither been made a charge sheet witness nor was presented before the court, despite judicial orders which instructed them to do the same.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the victim of the case was not a charge sheet witness and had not even been examined yet. He further stated that despite several letters written to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, and the DIG, Dumka, the petitioner is rotting in custody for more than 3 years and the victim is not being examined.

The court stated that it is really surprising why the Investigating officer has not made the victim a charge sheet witness, despite the case being registered under POCSO Act and the victim is a 13-year-old minor girl. Further, the court found that the Trial Court has sent several letters to the Superintendent of Police and also to the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand asking to produce the victim in front of court but the said letters yielded no response and no actions were taken.

The court concluded that prima facie the acts of the Investigating officers and authorities cannot be said to be bonafide since leaving out the main person as a witness in the charge sheet and continuous defiance of court orders are bound to arise questions and suspicions. The court feels that the officers, by not responding to judicial orders, have committed contempt of Court.

The court ultimately stated that an affidavit should be filed by the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand personally within 3 weeks after making proper inquiry and verification.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

PIL: Evolution and Development

Posted on

Introduction

PIL means litigation filed for the protection of “Public Interest”, like Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, Constructional hazards, etc. Any matter where the interest of the public at large is affected is often redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation. The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence, where it had been designed to supply representation to previously unrepresented like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganized consumers, citizens who were hooked into the environmental issues, etc.

Public interest litigation is the power given to the general public by courts. The person filing the petition must convince the court that the petition is being filed for public interest and not for personal reasons.

The court itself may take suo moto cognizance of the cases may commence on the petition of any public-spirited person.

Some of the matters which are considered under PIL are:

  • Bonded Labour matters
  • Neglected Children
  • Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of workers.
  • Atrocities on women
  • Environmental pollution and disturbance of ecological balance
  • Food adulteration
  • Maintenance of heritage and culture

Origin and Evolution of PIL in India

The concept of public interest litigation was introduced for the first time in India by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in the case of Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai.

The first-ever reported case of Public Interest Litigation was Hussainara Khatoon v. the State of Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhumane conditions of prisons and under trials, which led to the acquittal of about 40,000 under trials prisoners.

The right to speedy justice emerged as a fundamental right that was not given to those prisoners. A similar set pattern was adopted in later cases.

A new period of Public Interest Litigation Movement was started by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the case of SP Gupta v. Union of India.

Some of the landmark judgments on PIL were:

  • Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors.
  • M.C Mehta v. Union of India.
  • Vishaka v. the State of Rajasthan.

Facts Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India

The character of the Indian Constitution: India features a written constitution which through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) provides a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens and between citizens inter-se.

The liberal interpretation of locus standi also means that any person can apply to the court on the behalf of the people who are financially or physically unable to return before they are helped. Judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action supporting newspaper articles or letters received.

Although social and economic rights given within the Indian Constitution under Part IV aren’t legally enforceable, courts have creatively read these into fundamental rights thereby making them judicially enforceable, for instance, the “right to life” in Article 21 has been expanded to include the right to free legal aid, right to live with dignity, right to education, etc.

Judicial innovations to assist the poor and marginalized: In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the respondent stating it might treat every case of forced labor as a case of bondage unless proven otherwise by the employer. Similarly, in the case of Asiad Workers, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting a wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going to the labor commissioner and lower courts.

In PIL cases where the petitioner isn’t in a position to supply all the required evidence, either because it’s voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or economically, courts have appointed commissions to gather information on facts and present it before the bench.

Drawbacks Related to Public Interest Litigation

A PIL may give rise to the matter of “competing rights”. When the Court orders the closure of a polluting industry, the rights and interests of the workmen are also being violated as their only source of livelihood is being snatched away from them and this may not be taken into account by the court.

It’s for the reason that people can misuse and file frivolous PILs motivated by personal and selfish reasons or malice, the Courts have reiterated time and again that PIL isn’t “personal interest litigation” for corporate, personal, and political gains. This results in the overburdening of the courts.

In the process of solving socio-economic issues or a drug related to the protection of the environment, the judiciary may in certain cases exercise judicial overreach through the PILs.

There is an inordinate delay within the disposal of PIL cases especially matters involving the poor and disadvantaged. This defeats the entire purpose of speedy justice and dilutes the importance of judgment.

Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation has departed from the normal system of litigation and caused a system that involves initiating an action to enforce the interest of the general public at large. Over the years it’s become a potent tool for the poor, illiterate and underprivileged to possess access to the Courts and seek judicial redress by filing an application under Article 226 to the Supreme Court and Article 32 to the Supreme Court.

Therefore, PIL has democratized access to justice by relaxing the rule of locus standi. Thus, any public-spirited person or social activist or group can now approach the Court on behalf of a particular group or class of persons, especially the oppressed and marginalized. The main reason why PIL has flourished in India is that the Constitution of India through its Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) provides a framework to manage the relationship between the state and the citizens and also between citizens.

The accountability of the government towards the rights and interests of the poor and disadvantaged has increased in PIL within the country. The relaxation of the normal rule of locus standi enables a person to approach the Court and represent those that are socio-economically disadvantaged and unable to get redressal. Therefore, PIL has been a crucial tool in bringing about social change; upholding the Rule of Law enshrined under Article 14, and thereby creating a fragile balance between law and justice.

Bibliography

  1. Anasuya Mukherjee, Public Interest Litigation- Genesis, and Evolution, https://lawcirca.com/public-interest-litigation-genesis-and-evolution/.
  2. Public Interest Litigation, https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/public-interest-litigation.
  3. Rachit Garg, All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL), https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-public-interest-litigation-pil/.

This article is written by Priyanka Choudhary, currently pursuing BALLB from Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Case Analysis: Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 9 April 2019

Posted on

Case Number 

Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2012

Bench

Hon’ble Justices Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Date of Judgment 

09 April 2019

Relevant Section 

Section 177 (CrPc), Section 178 (CrPc), Section 179 (CrPc), 498A (IPC)

Facts of the Case 

  • Marriage of petitioner and respondent: December, 1997

In December of 1997, the petitioner, who had her parents’ home in Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, married respondent no.2, who used to dwell in Mau with his family. Sufficient cash and dowry articles were given at the time of marriage, but the accused persons were not content and began harassing and maltreating the petitioner in her Sasural on account of a demand for Rs. 2 lacs in cash and a car. She told her father about it as well. Her father traveled to Mau and attempted to reason with the accused, who were resolute in their demand.

  • Petitioner gave birth to a child: 12 May, 1998

The petitioner gave birth to a son on 12.5.1998, who is now 7 years old. The petitioner’s harassment continued even after the birth of a son. When she became pregnant again, the accused admitted her to Dr. Saxena’s Ladies Clinic in Mau and forcibly terminated her.

  • Petitioner thrown out of Matrimonial home (Mau): July 2002

The petitioner was ejected from her matrimonial home in July 2002, and the accused individuals kept the male kid with them. Her father drove her to Deoria and tried unsuccessfully to appease the accused.

  • Petitioner went back to her matrimonial house: 14 April 2005

The accused persons, accompanied by certain Mau responsible persons, came to the petitioner’s house in Deoria on 14.4.2005 at about 4:00 p.m. for a compromise and expressed their desire to take the petitioner with them. After some hesitation, the petitioner returned to her sasural, but when she arrived, she discovered that a stranger woman was also living with the accused’s family, and upon more investigation, it was discovered that she was the petitioner’s husband’s second wife. When the petitioner objected, the accused beat her, locked her in a room, and forced her to sign blank papers.

  • Petitioner again turned out of Matrimonial house:27 May 2005

On 27.5.2005, the petitioner was kicked out of their house after signing divorce papers. The petitioner travelled to Deoria and told her father everything that had happened.

  • Petitioner lodged an F.I.R at Police Station Kotwali, Deoria: 17 September 2005

On September 17, 2005, petitioner filed an F.I.R. against respondent at Police Station Kotwali, Deoria, alleging violations of Sections 498A, 494, 313, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues Raised

Rupali Devi vs. the State of Rajasthan has set a precedent for determining whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to seek refuge with her parents or other family members.

Judgment

The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that Section 178 offers an exception to the “ordinary rule” engrafted in Section 177 by allowing courts in another local area to take cognizance of the offense. In addition, if an offense committed in one locality is repeated in another, the courts in the latter location are competent to hear the case. If an offense is committed in another jurisdiction as a result of the consequences of a criminal act, the court in that jurisdiction is likewise competent to take cognizance under Section 179. As a result, if an offense is committed in part in one location and part in another, the exception to the “ordinary rule” would be attracted if the offense is a continuing offense or if the consequences of a criminal act result in an offense being committed at a different location, and the courts within whose jurisdiction the criminal act is committed would lose exclusive jurisdiction to try the offense.

The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and overturned the High Court’s acquittal. It found the respondent guilty of the offense punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and held that the courts in the location where the wife seeks refuge after fleeing or being driven from the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives also have jurisdiction to hear a complaint alleging commission of offenses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Critical Analysis

It is to be commended that the Supreme Court has said explicitly that women can file criminal charges related to cruelty from the location where they have sought refuge after leaving or being pushed out of their matrimonial home. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) covers both the wife’s mental and physical health. Even if a wife leaves her matrimonial home and returns to her parental home, the acts performed by the husband in the matrimonial home that constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A can have negative consequences for her mental health in the parental home.

This Supreme Court ruling was necessary to prevent the rising number of cases of cruelty and domestic abuse directed at women, which result in suicides or serious injuries. The vulnerable women who are habitually beaten and tortured by their husbands and husband’s family members would be protected by the Hon’ble court’s decision.

This case analysis is written by Sanjana Suman student of Amity Law School, Amity University Jharkhand Ranchi.

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES