Month: June 2021

10th Online National Quiz Competition on FAMILY LAW by Legis Scriptor: Register by 19 June 2021

Posted on

About the quiz competition:

In furtherance to the aim of revolutionizing the legal educational sector and
Enthused by the success of 9 series of Online National Quiz Competition, Legis Scriptor is pleased to introduce 10th National Law Quiz Competition on ‘FAMILY 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: 19 th June, 2021
Date of competition for Quiz on ‘Family Law’ : 20 th June, 2021
Time for Quiz: 5:00 PM
Topic: FAMILY 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:-

  • 1st Position– Rs 500/- + Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Free
    Publication.
  • 2nd Position– Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Free Publication.
  • 3rd Position– Certificate of Excellence + Opportunity of Free Publication.
  • 4th – 10th Position– Certificate of Merit + Opportunity of Publication @65% discount.

*NOTE- Participation Certificate + 40% 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/b6j22TptZqFPotg39

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/BQ3gYzs6H9Z5SoRYq718zN

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/

Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic

Posted on

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

Introduction

Proceedings withinside the present suo motu writ petition had been initiated on 22 April 2021, while this Court took consciousness of the control of the COVID-19 pandemic at some stage in the second wave. Subsequently, hearings had been performed on 23 April 2021, 27 April 2021, and 30 April 2021 while submissions had been heard on behalf of the Union of India, States/Union Territories, found out Amici appointed through this Court and a number of the intervenors

Since the remaining listening to on this matter, the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has begun out receding throughout the state and the scenario seems to have come to be extra manageable. Hence, a number of the problems mentioned withinside the preceding orders can watch for similar deliberation. However, the problem of vaccination is surely crucial, because fitness professionals globally agree that vaccination of the state’s complete eligible populace is the singular maximum critical project inefficaciously preventing the COVID-19 pandemic withinside the lengthy run. Hence, at some stage in the direction of the court cases on 31 May 2021, this Court has restricted itself to listening to submissions at the UoI’s vaccination coverage and its roadmap for the future. By manner of plentiful clarification, we observe that every one of the problems contained on this Court’s preceding orders nonetheless holds their universal importance, and this Court shall keep to screen them along with the National Task Force and intrude each time necessary.

Submission by Counsel

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, based on the affidavit of the UoI dated May 9, 2021, has filed the following additions in the light of recent updates:

  • The vaccination campaign will be completed by the end of December 2021, and the central government is leading at the highest political and level Active diplomatic talks with foreign vaccine manufacturers to ensure sufficient vaccine supplies;
  • It would be wrong to suggest that one consequence of the updated UoI directive on vaccinating 18-44-year-olds is that there will be competition between states / UT; and
  • Anyone over 45 can continue to be vaccinated at a center by registering on-site without pre-booking an appointment through CoWIN.

Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, discovered Senior suggests and Amici, have raised the subsequent troubles referring to vaccination distribution, augmentation of vaccine manufacturing and differential pricing of vaccines, and the destiny preparedness for handling the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • With admire to the procurement of vaccines, reviews endorse that overseas vaccine producer are commonly now no longer receptive or open to a speak with State/UT Governments on the premise that, as a rely upon company coverage, they handiest cope with federal governments of various countries;
  • The UIP has been changed through the Liberalized Pricing and Accelerated National COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy from 1 May 2021 in segment three of the vaccination force.

National Vaccination Policy

Phase 1 of the National COVID-19 Vaccination Strategy become released on sixteen January 2021 and 1 February 2021 and become centered closer to shielding HCWs and FLWs. Phase 2 become initiated on 1 March 2021 and 1 April 2021, and become directed closer to shielding the maximum susceptible populace withinside the age organization of men and women above forty-five years of age. In sections 1 and 2, the UoI become buying the vaccines and dispensing them to the States/UTs freed from fee for disbursal thru authorities and personal COVID-19 vaccination centers. The personal centers had been now no longer allowed to price a sum above Rs 250 in step with an individual in step with dose (Rs a hundred and fifty for vaccines and Rs a hundred as operational charges) from a beneficiary.

Separation of Powers

First, we try to clarify the nature of the court’s jurisdiction over the administration of the COVID-19 pandemic in India.​​​ The affidavit dated May 9, 2021, listed the following points:

  • The current vaccination policy is in line with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and does not require court intervention, because the administrative department has “room for maneuver” in the face of such a large-scale epidemic;
  • Continue to take measures to deal with the imminent crisis, In the long run, this may be reckless; however, they should be fully evaluated in the short term;
  • Judicial review of administrative guidelines is only allowed in completely arbitrary circumstances. When executives need expert medical and scientific advice to solve a medical crisis, procedures need to be adopted;
  • In the absence of professional advice or management experience, any excessive, albeit in good faith, judicial intervention may lead to undesirable situations. There is almost no room for managers to find innovative solutions.

Issues with the Liberalized Vaccination Policy

1.Vaccine Logistics

We have already stated that attributable to the Liberalized Vaccination Policy, the obligation for the vaccination in segment three is being divided among the Central Government (for the ones above forty-five years of age, HCWs and FLWs) and the State/UT Government together with the non-public hospitals (for the age institution of 18-forty four years). This could suggest that the constrained vaccine logistics to be had in a State/UT could be shared among the State/UT Government and the Central Government. This isn’t the same as the state of affairs beneath neath the UIP, wherein the Central Government buys and allocates vaccines to States/UTs, as a way to make certain that their bloodless garage centers aren’t overwhelmed. Hence, we direct the UoI to offer the subsequent clarifications:

  • The way wherein bloodless garage gadget capability is being balanced among the Central and State/UT Governments. The way wherein the States/UTs are dealing with the logistical burden for vaccinating men and women elderly among 18-forty four years, together with men and women elderly over forty-five years.
  • Whether bloodless garage centers in India have improved for the COVID-19 vaccination drive; the prevailing numbers, and evaluation with the numbers previous to March 2020;
  • Whether the bloodless garage gadget is indigenously synthetic or is imported. If it’s far imported, the stairs that have been taken to begin indigenous manufacturing.

3.Digital Divide

In our order dated 30 April 2021, we had highlighted the issues regarding the cap potential of the marginalized participants of society to avail of vaccination, completely via a virtual portal within side the face of a virtual divide. The UoI’s affidavit made the subsequent submissions in terms of the accessibility of the CoWIN portal:

  • The CoWIN portal allows one individual to sign in four folks the usage of the equal cellular wide variety;
  • Walk-ins can not be accredited because of the shortage of vaccines and fears of overcrowding at centers. The online registration requirement counters this worry and additionally efficaciously video display units the management of the second dose. The coverage can be re-taken into consideration in the end whilst extra vaccines are to be had.

It has been delivered to our be aware that the CoWIN platform isn’t handy to folks with visible disabilities. The internet site suffers from positive accessibility obstacles which have to be addressed. These encompass:

  • Audio or textual content captcha isn’t to be had;
  • The seven filters, which inter alia, encompass age group, call of vaccine, and whether or not the vaccine is paid or free, aren’t designed accessibly. This problem may be addressed with the aid of using the introduction of a drop-down list;
  • While visually challenged folks can decide the wide variety of to be had vaccine slots, one can not discover the day the ones slots correspond to. This may be resolved with the aid of using making sure that desk headers correspond to related cells.

Conclusion

We direct the UoI to report a testimony, which shall cope with the troubles and questions raised in Section E, in which it shall make certain that every problem is answered to in my opinion and no problem is neglected out. We additionally direct that the affidavit ought to offer the subsequent information:

  • The records on the proportion of populace that has been vaccinated (with one dose and each dose), as towards eligible folks withinside the first 3 stages of the vaccination drive. This shall encompass records relating the proportion of rural populace in addition to the proportion of city populace so vaccinated;
  • The whole records at the Central Government’s buy records of all of the COVID-19 vaccines until date (Covaxin, Covishield, and Sputnik V). The records ought to make clear: (a) the dates of all procurement orders positioned via way of means of the Central Government for all three vaccines; (b) the number of vaccines ordered as on every date; and (c) the projected date of supply.

We additionally notice that UoI’s said to function in its affidavit dated nine May 2021 is that each State/UT Government shall offer vaccination freed from fee to its populace. Person State/UT Governments must confirm/deny this function earlier than this Court. Further, if they have determined to vaccinate their populace free of charge then, as a rely upon principle, it’s far critical that this coverage is annexed to their affidavit, so that the populace inside their territories may be confident in their proper to be vaccinated free of charge at a State vaccination center. Hence, we direct every of the State/UT Governments to additionally report a testimony within 2 weeks, wherein they shall make clear their function and place on file their policies.

……………………………………J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

……………………………………J. [L Nageswara Rao]

……………………………………J. [S Ravindra Bhat]

New Delhi.

Delhi High Court Defers Plea for Postponing Foreign Medical Graduate Examination to June 11

Posted on

Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) is a licensure examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations (NBE) in India. The test is one of the mandatory requirements for an Indian citizen who has a medical degree from a college outside India to practice medicine in the country.

An instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the Association of MD Physicians through its president Dr. Rajesh Rajan asking for the postponement of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination, which is scheduled to be held in mid-June, on account of the dangerous pandemic prevailing in the country.

Kirtiman Singh, the counsel representing the National Board of Examination, stated that the examination is conducted twice a year by Indian authorities to confer a right of licensure on doctors who have a foreign degree and that the examination has been taking place all through the pandemic. He further contended that 18,600 candidates have already registered to take the examination in June and if the petitioners do not want to write the exam right now, they can take it in December as there is no cap on the number of attempts this exam. He informed the Court that the exam is going to be conducted in around 52 cities at around 98 centers all over India and that all necessary precautions are being taken in conducting the examination.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal listed the matter for further hearing on 11th June 2020 and meanwhile asked the petitioner and the respondents to place on record the relevant documents relied upon them during arguments.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Delhi Court Dismisses Wrestler Sushil Kumar’s Request for Special Food, Dietary Supplements

Posted on

On May 23, Sushil Kumar, a renowned wrestler, and a decorated sportsman were arrested for the murder of Sagar Rana. The wrestler has been placed in judicial custody and is facing charges of murder, abduction, and criminal conspiracy.

Advocate Pradeep Rana, the counsel of the renowned wrestler, pleaded with the court seeking dietary supplements and special food for the wrestler. He further averred that the accused has won several laurels for the country and still wishes to continue his career in wrestling the alleged false accusation should not result at the end of his wrestling career.

On 9th June, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Satvir Singh Lamba observed that all the necessities of the accused were being met as per the provisions of Delhi Prison Rule, 2018 and that the supplements were only the desires of the accused and are not in any manner a necessity.

The court also stated that the desire of the accused tantamount to discrimination against other prisoners. It was further contended that allowing a plea of such kind may invite a flood of applications from more prisoners.

The court ultimately observed that “It is well-settled law that all the persons, whether natural or juristic are equal in the eyes of law irrespective of their caste, religion, sex, class, etc. The right to equality is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It implies the rule of law. It also implies an absence of any special privilege in any person due to his rank, status, whether rich or poor, etc. The law should be equal and should be equally administered, that like should be treated alike.”

-Report by Anuj Dhar

Delhi High Court on Students Claims of CBSE Exams Bye-Law to be Unconstitutional

Posted on

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Delhi High Court on 3rd June 2021 quashed the Writ of student which claims a clause of CBSE Examination bye-laws to be unconditional.

Petitioner’s Contention

A Petitioner who is a minor child files a writ petition through her father. Her petition states that there has been an error in the recording of her parent’s name and which one of the bye-laws of the CBSE Examination doesn’t allow so. She mentions that her parent’s names have been recorded incorrectly as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. In her birth certificate, their name has been recorded the as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav. It was stated in the petition if she is not been allowed to correct this error then it will lead to the violation of the fundamental right to education and she will also not be allowed for higher education. In the appeal, the constitutionality of the bye-law has been challenged by the petitioner.

Respondent’s Contention

Respondent is contented by the counsel that C.B.S.E. is an autonomous and independent body and so will not be compliant to the writ jurisdiction. As CBSE is an autonomous society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The counsel of Respondent has also mentioned that the C.B.S.E is not entitled with either the power or resources to verify the details of every candidate independently and they have to rely upon the records which are given to them by the schools. It should that there has been an error on behalf of the parents.

Judgment

In the judgment court, Justice Manmohan held that the parents of the petitioner consciously and consequently choose to fill in their names as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav and Mamta Yadav in the school records. And the petition cannot deal with the challenge of the constitutionality of the bye-laws as petitioners are the ones who are at fault as they have repeated this mistake on many occasions. It held that the change of names shouldn’t be permitted as they chose to fill those names on their wish and account. The court also stated that the grounds of challenging the constitutionality are increasing nowadays even though the Petitioner is a default themselves. So the court quashed the following Writ Petition by saying that the petitioner’s parents are at fault.

What were the issues in the above case?

  • Whether the Writ can be issued against CBSE?
  • Whether the current petition can challenge the constitutional validity?

When can constitutionality be challenged?

The constitutional validity of any Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz

  • Lack of legislative competence
  • Violation of any of the fundamental rights

Explain Article 226

  • Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.

Sports Law in India

Posted on

This article is written by Prateek Chandgothia. This article discusses at length the different aspects of sports law in India including its governance and its interplay with other fields of law.

INTRODUCTION

Sports Law as a field of law overlaps substantially with other fields of law like labour law, competition law and arbitration law. Regulation of sports has become necessary in today’s age with the increasing levels of popularity and revenue generation. In the past few decades, almost every sport, especially cricket, football and basketball has transitioned from a simple act of playing to a complete industry playing a huge role in the global economy. Along with the increase in revenue generation, various sports have witnessed grave violations of not only the rulebook of that sport but of the general laws of the land. Acts like doping, bribery, corruption and tax frauds have overtaken the sports industry in the past decade. Certain violations in contravention of competition law or labour law within the sporting industry have been classified under the ambit of Sports law. Sports law also substantially covers the acts of betting and gambling.

International Regulatory Authorities for Sports

International governance of sports has become an important issue in the recent years as grave violations are on the rise. At the International level, the International Olympic Committee is an authority which governs the various Olympic sports.[i] Global Association of International Sports Federation was established in 1967 as an umbrella association for the International Federations of different sports around the world.[ii] Further, at the national level, countries have formed their individual associations like National Olympic Committees and National Governing Bodies of Sports, which regulate the sporting industry of a particular country. Anti-Doping agencies have also been established at the national and the international level to ensure the conformation of the various drug and substance abuse laws. Anti-Doping laws are substantial to ensure that the integrity of the sport is not hampered. World Anti-Doping Agency is the highest authority of anti-doping laws which works at the international level. It works in partnership with the National Doping agencies of various countries which are obligated to follow the rules and guidelines set by WADA.[iii]

Requirement of Governance of Sports in India

Indian Sports industry has witnessed a manifold growth over the past few decades as it has become the prioritised venue for major sporting leagues like Asian games, Pro Kabaddi league, Indian Premiere League and Indian Super League. Along with the substantial increase in capability to organise these major sporting events, many scandals have surfaced in the Indian Sporting Industry. Doping scandals have not been limited to a single sport as athletes from different sports have indulged in illegal doping activities, which makes it a collective issue of the sports industry as a whole. Indian cricket witnessed a recent doping violation as the BCCI handed over an eight month ban to the Indian Cricketer Prithvi Shaw. Narsingh Yadav, an Indian wrestler was banned for four years before the 2016 Olympic games at Rio De Janeiro.   Regulation of the sporting industry would be essential in the post covid era as reports of increased doping among sportspersons due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, have been surfacing time and again.[iv] Moreover, there have been substantial efforts towards industrialisation of sports in India. However, it lacks an efficient and effective framework for governance.[v]

Governance of Sports Law in India

Sports is included in the 7th schedule of the Indian Constitution and comes under the state list. It restricts the absolute nature of the sports regulatory bodies such as BCCI, Indian Olympic Association and Hockey India, as it gives the state government the power to regulate the sporting industry. Sports law in India is governed by policies, legislations and associations like National Sport Policy 1984/2001, Sports law and Welfare Association of India, Sports Authority of India, The Sport Broadcasting laws and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

  1. National Sports Policy 1984/ 2001:

National Sports Policy of 1984 was passed by both the houses of the parliament with the objective encouraging and promoting sports in the country. It was stated to be reviewed after every five years. This policy lacked the regulatory frameworks and provisions for better propagation of sporting activities. As a result, the objectives of the policy were not completely fulfilled. National Sports Policy of 2001 was implemented as a corrective measure for the loopholes in the 1984 policy. It established the procedures and regulations that must be followed by the sport federation to get government sponsorship and representation grants. It also defined the responsibilities of various authorities which encourages and promotes better standards of sporting activities in India. It laid down the eligibility criteria which must be considered while providing government grants to the sporting federations. The 2001 policy pursue the inclusion of ‘Sports’ in the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution as sporting must be encouraged on national level with the central government playing a major role in the same.

  • Sports Law and Welfare Association of India

Sports Law and Welfare Association of India lays down a framework which integrates the legal industry with the sports industry. It is a not-for-profit organisation which promotes ethical practice of sports law in India at the national level. It coordinates between legal practitioners and sports persons to facilitate legal awareness and provide advice on various legal issues within the sport industry.[vi] It also lays down regulatory guidelines for sports associations and federations in order ensure conformation to the laws of the land. The association also facilitates establishment of a forum of legal practitioners who represent sports persons, associations, organisation and federations which ensures the sporting activities are not in contravention of the sports law. The association also promotes the discussion of various legal problems affecting the sports industry of India.[vii]

  • Sports Authority of India

Sports Authority of India is the apex body of sports regulations established in 1984, by Ministry of youth affairs and sports in pursuant of the 9th Asian Games held in New Delhi in 1982. After successful organisation of major sporting events, the authority extended its scope to promote broad-based sports. It laid down policies to encourage youth to channelise the energy towards achieving excellence in sports. It also provided scholarships and integration of sports with academic disciplines by introducing physical education in the curriculum. It also coordinates the numerous sporting activities of the sporting industry.[viii]

4.      Sports Broadcasting Legislation

The broadcasting guidelines have been laid down by Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act of 2007. The Act provides that any “content right owner or holder television or radio broadcasting service provider shall not broadcast live television on any cable or Direct-to-Home network or radio commentary broadcast in India of sporting events of national importance, unless it simultaneously shares the live broadcasting signal, without its advertisements, with the Prasar Bharati to enable them to re-transmit the same on its terrestrial networks and Direct-to-Home networks in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be specified.”[ix] The objective of this act was to attract large percentage of the population to watch the various sporting events and as a result spread sports awareness.

Interplay of Competition and Sports Law in India

The Competition Act of 2002 replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 to rectify the loophole of singular focus towards preventing monopolies rather than promoting competition. Currently, competition law in India is governed by the Competition Commission of India. Section 3 & 4 of the Competition Act provides for scrutiny in cases of violations. Section 3 prohibits anti-competitive agreements “in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India.”[x] Section 4 prohibits “abuse of dominant position in the country, through unfair purchase conditions, discriminatory pricing, conduct amounting to denial of market access, tying agreements etc.”[xi]

The interpretation of competition law in context with sports law in India is currently in its native stage with only a limited amount of jurisprudence. It is evident that certain dominating sports bodies in India resort to restrictive policies in order to restrict the entry of new competition into the particular sport. This was evidently portrayed when Indian Cricket League was launched by ZEE. The extreme reaction from the BCCI attracted violation under the Competition Law of India as BCCI sacked Kapil Dev as the chairman of the National Cricket academy and banned the 44 defected IPL players from playing for India. These kinds of restrictive malpractices have been recently included within the ambit of competition law as the industrialisation of Sports continues. However, The Competition Commission has decided some of the major cases providing a better understanding of the applicability of Competition law in the sports Industry. [xii]

In the case Department of Sports, MYAS v. Athletics Federation of India, the AFI was accused to have violated section 4 of the competition act 2002 as it decided to act against it members including athletes and office bearers who promote marathons which are not authorised by the AFI. The competition commission in the instant case, held that AFI was not guilty of violating the section 4 of the competition act as the decisions of meeting were not implemented and the actions were merely advisory in nature. The commission observed that while AFI is the Apex body governing marathons in India and exercises a significant monopoly over the said industry, various private organisations have organised number of marathons in the past which were not authorised by the AFI. Therefore, it was stated that there was no restrictive practice on the part of AFI and the athletes can continue to participate in marathons not authorised by the AFI.[xiii]

In another case between ICL and BCCI, the competition commission of India held BCCI, prima facie guilty of violating section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 as it restricted the players and office bearers from participating in the Indian Cricket League. The restrictive measures included sacking of office bearers and ban on the defected players. In the case titled Pan India Infra projects Private Limited v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), it was contended that BCCI was, “putting pressure on corporates and Public Sector Undertakings to cease employment to players participating in ICL.” BCCI also offered ‘amnesty’ to the participating players on the condition that they cut all ties with the Indian cricket league. At an earlier instance, BCCI was fined Rs. 52.25 crores for anti-competitive behaviour. [xiv]The final decision by CCI in the case after the investigation of DG is yet to by pronounced. However, the case, provides for reason to believe that regulatory bodies use monopolistic practices within the sports industry by implementing restrictive policies and deterring fair competition.

In another significant case titled Hemant Sharma v. AICF, Competition commission held AICF guilty of anti-competition practices. It was alleged that AICF prevented the players from participating in CAI authorised competitions, which was a rival association of AICF. The allegations included ban on players for participation in CAI authorised competition, signing of declarations by the players that they must not participate in any competition which is not authorised by AICF. Moreover, a yearlong ban along with relinquishment of 50% of the pay in case the players participate in unauthorised competitions. The commission also referred to its previous judgements while pronouncing this judgement.[xv]

In all these major cases, the competition commission considered the pyramid like competition within the sporting industry as one regulatory authority exercises some kind of a monopoly in a particular sport. However, that authority cannot implemented restrictive policy which adversely affects the entry of a new rival association. It is evident that interplay of competition law and sports law is in an early stage of development in India. With the rise in popularity of different sports and increased levels of competition, this interplay will play a significant role in ensuring the ethical nature of the sporting activities.

Arbitration in Sports Law in India

Arbitration in India is governed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 which is divided into two parts. The first part deals with arbitration held in India and the Second part deals with arbitration held outside India as governed by Geneva and New York conventions. The arbitration is first referred to the respective sports federation at the national level and then proceeds to international federations which govern the particular sport at the international level. There has been a significant rise in the number of legal disputes in the sports industry, which essentially calls for a more robust and fast-tracked framework of legal resolutions.

Court of Arbitration for Sports is an international forum for amicably resolving the legal disputes within the sports industry. It was set up by International Olympic Committee in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1983. The composition of the court consists of over 150 arbitrators from 37 countries appointed by the International Council of Arbitration for sports for a renewable term of 4 years. ICAS replaced the role of the IOC after the Switzerland Supreme Court rule that CAS was a true court of arbitration. In order to avoid biased ruling in favour of the IOC, the Supreme Court of Switzerland laid down the establishment of ICAS who took over the role of foreseeing the functioning of CAS and its funding. Some of the non-Olympic sports have their own established tribunals for settling the disputes arising within that sport. The court oversees both commercial and disciplinary disputes arising within sports. Commercial disputes often include contractual agreements such as sponsorship, funding, broadcasting and media rights and also include the competition law violations. Disciplinary disputes include cases of doping violations, sexual harassment and other behavioural violations by the sportsperson. The IOC established the Indian Court of Arbitration for Sports in 2011. It is however, a fairly new tribunal with a limited history of adjudication but going forth into an era of increased popularity and competition within sports, the tribunal will have to play a significant role in ensuring amicable fast tracked dispute settlement.[xvi]       

[i]  International Olympic Committee – History, Principles & Financing. (2021, May 18). International Olympic Committee. https://olympics.com/ioc/overview

[ii] B. (n.d.). GAISF » MISSION AND VISION. GAISF. Retrieved June 8, 2021, from https://gaisf.sport/mission-and-vision/

[iii] Baron, D. A., Martin, D. M., & Magd, S. A. (2007, June). Doping in sports and its spread to at-risk populations: an international review. NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219897/

[iv] Chandran, P. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 Lockdown Could Lead to a Rise in Doping Among Sportspeople. The Wire. https://thewire.in/sport/covid-19-lockdown-doping

[v] Dabholkar, S. (2020, August 6). The Case for Industrialising Sports in India. The Wire. https://thewire.in/sport/sport-khelo-india-olympics

[vi] Verma, A. (2021, January 9). Everything you need to know about sports law in India. IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/everything-need-know-sports-law-india/#Various_associations_that_govern_the_sports_law

[vii] Kanth, G. (n.d.). Emergence of Sports Law in India. Indian Law Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume3/issue_2/article_by_Gaurang.html

[viii] Kanth, G. (n.d.). Emergence of Sports Law in India. Indian Law Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume3/issue_2/article_by_Gaurang.html

[ix] Verma, A. (2021, January 9). Everything you need to know about sports law in India. IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/everything-need-know-sports-law-india/#Various_associations_that_govern_the_sports_law

[x] S.3, The Competition Act, 2002

[xi] S.4, The Competition Act, 2002

[xii] Kanth, G. (n.d.). Emergence of Sports Law in India. Indian Law Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume3/issue_2/article_by_Gaurang.html

[xiii] Re Department of Sports, MYAS v. Athletics Federation of India, Reference Case No. 01 of 2015, 2016 (Competition Commission of India)

[xiv] Re Surinder Singh Barmi v. Board of Control of Cricket in India, Case No. 61/2010 (Competition Commission of India)

[xv] Hemant Sharma v. All India Chess Federation, Case No. 79 of 2011 (Competition Commission of India)

[xvi] Gupta, S. Y. A. H. (2020, April 29). Arbitration in the Realm of Sports Law – Need of the Hour or Not? JURIST – Commentary – Legal News & Commentary. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/04/yadav-gupta-sports-arbitration/

Latest Posts

Archives

Sedition Laws in India

Posted on

This article is written by SANJANA SUMAN, a student of Amity law School, Amity University Jharkhand Ranchi. This article is a critical analysis of the Sedition Laws in India. The concept of sedition as given in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and major supreme court decisions.

INTRODUCTION 

In 2016, three students from Jawaharlal Nehru University (Kanhaiya Kumar, Omar Khalid, and Anirban Bhattacharya) were arrested by Delhi police for chanting anti-national slogans for bringing the sedition law to light. The state and the centre frequently use sedition accusations against reformers, artists, and dissenters in order to silence their political disagreement and bring the rest of the country into line.

During the period of independence, the law of sedition was frequently debated. Recent claims of sedition levelled against CAA and NRC demonstrators have generated debate. Amulya was imprisoned in pre-trial custody for 14 days after yelling “Pakistan Zindabad” at an anti-CAA rally in Bangalore. On January 2020, the state police arrested the mother of a pupil and the administrator of a school in Karnataka on treason allegations. Then one of his students delivered a project that allegedly violated the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Registry of Citizenship (NRC).

The Sedition Law in India

Section – 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code explains “Sedition” in vast and broad terms. It reads: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or aims to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”[1] While it covers the crimes that come under the law it does not give a precise definition of the term ‘sedition’ itself.

Sedition Meaning

In the common definition, sedition refers to inciting people to rebel against the government. Sedition encompasses any acts and behaviours that aim to incite dissatisfaction or disloyalty against the Constitution, the Government, or Parliament in order to cause a public disturbance or lead to civil war, as well as all efforts to encourage public conflict or disorder in general. In Rex v. Adler[2] the court defined the law of sedition in the following words, “Nothing is clearer than the law on this head – namely, that whoever by language, either written or speaking in a way that incites or encourages others to use physical force or violence in some public matter related to the State is considered seditious libel. The word “sedition” signifies a disturbance, an insurgency, a public commotion, or an outrage in its ordinary natural sense; it involves violence or illegality in some manner…”

Punishment for the Offence of Sedition

  • Sedition is a crime that cannot be punished with a fine. The penalty under Section 124A can vary from a three-year jail sentence to a life sentence, plus a fine. 
  • A person accused under this statute is prohibited from working for the government. They are forced to live without their passports and must appear in court whenever they are summoned.

Historical Background of Sedition Law

  • Sedition laws were created in 17th-century England, when legislators felt that only positive government beliefs should be allowed to exist, as negative beliefs were harmful to the government and monarchy. 
  • The law was enacted in 1837 by British historian-politician Thomas Macaulay, but it was mysteriously omitted from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860.
  • Section 124A was added in 1870 as a result of an amendment proposed by Sir James Stephen, who saw the necessity for a special section to deal with the infraction. 
  • It was one of several harsh laws adopted at the period to silence any dissenting voices.

Constitutionality of Sedition in India

The first case that tackled the constitutionality of Section 124-A was Ram Nandan v. State of U.P[3]. The Allahabad High court held that section 124-A of the IPC is ultra vires as it violates Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Section 124-A was believed to limit freedom of speech and strike at the constitution’s core foundations.

However, this was overruled in the case of Kedarnath Das vs State of Bihar[4]. The court in this case held that this section should limit acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement of violence. This part, however, is in violation of Article 19 if it is utilised arbitrarily.

It should also be noted that in 1951, Article 19(2) was amended to add the expressions “in the interest of” and “public order.” This amendment put a statutory limit on freedom of opinion and speech. In Kedarnath Das vs. State of Bihar, the Court held that the phrase “in the interest of public order” has a broader meaning and can be read to cover not just conduct that are likely to disturb public order, but also Section 124 – A. It was also decided that any legislation adopted in the sake of public order can be protected from being declared unconstitutional. The Court further decided that the right provided by Article 19 (1) (a) is subject to the limit set forth in Article 19 (2), which includes the following: First and foremost, state security. Second, there are cordial contacts with other countries. The third point is public order. Fourth, morality or decency. Article 124 – A of the IPC falls under the category of security of the state and public order because it punishes any spoken or written words or visible representation that has the effect of inciting or attempting to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection against “the Government established by law.”

Major Supreme Court Decisions on Sedition Law

  • The SC highlighted debates over sedition in 1950 in its decisions in Brij Bhushan vs the State of Delhi and Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras.
  • The court ruled that a regulation restricting speech on the grounds that it might disrupt public order was unconstitutional in certain situations.
  • It also stated that disturbing public order is tantamount to undermining the State’s foundations or threatening its overthrow.
  • Thus, these decisions prompted the First Constitution Amendment, where Article 19 (2) was rewritten to replace “undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public order”.
  • In 1962, the SC decided on the constitutionality of Section 124A in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar.
  • It affirmed sedition’s legitimacy, but only applied it to “acts involving the intent or tendency to cause disruption, disturbance of law and order, or encouragement to violence.”
  • These were distinguished from “extremely forceful speech” or the employment of “vigorous language” critical of the administration.
  • In 1995, the SC, in Balwant Singh v’s State of Punja, held that mere sloganeering which evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.

Short term measures

  • All speech-related offences should be made bailable, as this would reduce the negative impact of utilising arrest and incarceration to harass people exercising their rights under Article 19(1). (a).
  • The offences should be rendered non-cognizable so that the police can be held accountable if they act on politically influenced allegations.
  • In the case of violations of Sections 153A (“promoting hatred between different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and committing acts harmful to maintaining harmony”), and under Section 196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to acquire prior government sanction before taking cognizance of the offences under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be extended to the offence of sedition under Section 124A.
  • In the case of hate speech, it is critical to place the burden of proof on people who claim their feelings have been wounded rather than taking their claims at face value. Finally, courts must begin to take action against people who file malicious charges against free speech actions.

Conclusion

Democracy is meaningless without freedoms and sedition as defined and administered by the police and governments, is a denial of it. However, before the law loses its significance, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of citizens’ fundamental rights, must intervene and assess the law, perhaps declaring Section 124A illegal. The term “sedition” should be used cautiously. It’s like a cannon that shouldn’t be used to fire a mouse, yet cannons are required by the arsenal, usually as a deterrent and occasionally for firing.

REFERENCES

[1] Section 124(A) of The Indian Penal Code, 1872

[2] Rex. v. Adler (1909) 22 CCLC

[3] Ram Nandan v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 All 101

[4] Kedarnath Das vs State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/use-and-misuse-of-sedition-law-section-124a-of-ipc-divd-1607533-2019-10-09

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4929-critical-study-on-sedition-laws-in-india.html

https://abhipedia.abhimanu.com/Article/State/NTEyOTQEEQQVV/Sedition-laws-in-India-Bihar-State

https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sedition-law-2

http://ijlljs.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Essay.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342503880_An_analysis_of_sedition_law_in_India

Latest Posts

Archives

Internship Opportunity: Legal Internship Opportunity at Sigma Legal Group: Apply by June 13, 2021

Posted on

Sigma Legal Group ,a renowned Consultancy firm, engaged in CS, Legal (Civil, Criminal), IPR, IBC and NCLT matters is looking for 2 (two) Law Interns for its Delhi office at Netaji Subhash Place.

About Sigma Legal Group:

Sigma Legal Group, a distinguished and reputed organisation formed with the objective of providing specialized and dedicated professional services to the Corporate entities in the field of Legal litigation, Corporate advisory and Secretarial & IPR Services.

At present, ‘Sigma Legal’ has become a brand which has three major divisions viz. Legal Corporate Division in which the team of “Corporate Advocates” is there to deal with Corporate Restructuring, Mergers, Oppression Mismanagement, Insolvency, Intellectual Property matters (Trademark, Copyrights, Patent), Foreign Collaborations matters etc. The other division of Sigma Legal Group is Legal Litigation Division in which we have well known senior Advocates, some Litigation Advocates which primarily deals with all kinds of Court Litigations including Property Disputes, Criminal Litigation, Civil Suits, Matrimonial matters etc. The third and an important division of this group is Secretarial Division in which we have a team of Company Secretaries who are looking after the secretarial work under the Companies Act, FEMA, Stock Exchange, NBFC Matters etc.

Mr. U K Singhal, Advocate is the head of Legal Corporate & Legal Litigation Divisions and the Company Secretarial Department is headed by Mr. Akshit Gupta, Company Secretary. SIGMA LEGAL, under one roof, provides complete package for all the legal and secretarial work. It is a one window solution for all the corporate problems.

How to Apply?

Send your CV at trainee@sigmalegal.in on or before 13th June, 2021

Official Website Link: 

http://sigmalegal.in/

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BQ3gYzs6H9Z5SoRYq718zN

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/

Internship Opportunity: Content Writer – Legal Intern at N.C. Jain Advocate & Associates, Jaipur: Applications Open!

Posted on

About N.C. Jain Advocates & Associates:

Key Practice Areas:

Civil & Commercial Dispute Resolution (Arbitration & Litigation), Startups & MSME Advisory, Consumer Protection, Debt Recovery, Transfer of Property, Rajasthan State Tenancy laws, Family & Inheritance, Contracts & Transactions (Commercial & Infrastructure)

About the job

Law student with basic knowledge of the following laws:

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • IPR (Trademarks & Copyright)
  • Technology Law

Platform

Will be working remotely through MS Teams

Duration:

4 weeks (may be extended on the basis of performance and willingness of the candidate)

Nature of work:

Legal Research and writing articles and post on legal subjects

Skills required:

  • Excellent writing and drafting skills (English)
  • MS Office
  • Technologically Sound
  • Canva
  • SEO writing (would be a bonus)

Official Notification:

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2589719953/

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/BQ3gYzs6H9Z5SoRYq718zN

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/

Qualified Homeopathic Doctors can treat Covid patients: Kerala High Court

Posted on

Homeopathic practitioner Jayaprasad filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He contended that the Kerala State Health Department was intimidated to take action against him under the Disaster Management Act if he treats Covid 19 patients, which was a violation of his right under Article 19(1)(g).

The Kerala High Court ruled that qualified homeopathic doctors can prescribe immunity booster medicines for Covid-19 patients as well as preventive medicines. Moreover, it was held that there is no prohibition imposed by the Government of India on Homoeopathy for the treatment of patients in its AYUSH recommendations. AYUSH is the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homoeopathy is purposed with developing education, research, and propagation of indigenous alternative medicine systems in India.

The State Medical Protocol issued by the Centre invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act directing that Covid-19 affected persons should only be treated by the Government and those hospitals authorized by the Government. The petition contended that nothing was prohibiting qualified medical AYUSH practitioners to prescribe an immunity booster mixture or tablets suggested by the Ministry of AYUSH, which also includes homeopathy practitioners.

This came after the petitioner highlighted that the Apex Court has upheld the right of Homoeopathic Practitioners to treat Covid-19 patients. Justice N Nagaresh ruled in favor of allopathic medical practitioners deciding that a qualified homeopathic physician can dispense preventive and prophylactic homeopathic medicines for Covid-19. It was also held that they are permitted to prescribe add-on medicines authorized by the Guidelines with the approval of the concerned authorities and the consent of the patient/guardian. The advertisements of homeopathic treatment for Covid are prohibited.

-Report by Muskan Chanda