Month: July 2021

Remfry & Sagar, India’s premier Intellectual Property law firm, with over 275 personnel, is expanding its operations and looking to recruit a candidate for its patent prosecution practice. Strong technical knowledge, with the ability to quickly grasp and understand inventions, as well as strong command over written English are prerequisites.
 
The Firm offers a structured training and mentorship programme, excellent work-life balance and pay scales that are higher than industry benchmarks.

 
DETAILS

Location: Gurugram 
Profile: Patent Prosecution with a focus on Life Sciences, Pharma, Chemistry and allied fields
Qualifications: Patent Agent registration preferred
Work Experience: 1-4 years of work experience in Patents

 
HOW TO APPLY

Send your resumes to careers@remfry.com. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Krishnamurthy & Co. (K Law) is looking for a candidate with the following attributes. Apart from being well versed with the nuances of transactions, candidates should be self-starters and should have the ability to work with minimum supervision.

PQE                   

3 to 5 years

Designation       

Associate

Location             

Bengaluru

Role                    

• Candidate must have legal knowledge expertise in field of General Corporate domain experience.
• Must have strong client relations capabilities in nurturing existing and building new relationships.
• Must be able to integrate seamlessly into various professional environments and adapt to the culture of the organization.
• Must possess a professional and approachable demeanor resulting in solid team-working and team-management skills.
• Must strive to learn and dispense knowledge to juniors in the organization through a positive, professional and friendly approach.
• Must be ready to work independently

Professional competencies:

Candidate must have worked in and gained adequate experience in the following areas of law:

• General Corporate
• Drafting, negotiating and finalizing different categories of commercial contracts, including but not limited to software development agreements, technology transfer and license agreements, employment agreements, labor agreement, master service agreements, request for proposals etc.
• Coordinating and interacting with various departments of the clients to obtain their inputs and assistance for review of documentation.

How to Apply

Interested candidates please write in to bd@klaw.in and humanresources@klaw.in

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Advocate

Advocate Aman Madan is a practicing advocate in New Delhi. He is practicing at the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, NCLT, NCLAT, NCDRC & District Courts. The area of specialization primarily involves handling Criminal and Civil Laws with respect to Insolvency matters, Property disputes, Check bounce cases , Consumer Disputes etc

About the Internship

The intern would primarily be working on and drafting varieties of cases throughout the course of their Internship and would require preparing judgment briefs especially highlighting the legal point(s) decided by the Hon’ble Commission on a daily basis. Further, if need be, the interns will also be required to do some assigned research works.

Number of Interns Required

1 (One)

Location

Work from Home (Online Internship).

The interns are required to work remotely with flexible working hours.

Who can Apply?

– Law students currently enrolled in their 4rth Year & 5th Year and have previous experience of working in office of chamber lawyer.

Please do not apply if you are third-year or less. Such Applications will not entertained at all.

Duration of Internship

At least 1 month (4 weeks). Extensions may be made, on a request or by the employer, on a flexible basis.

Application Procedure

Interested candidates shall send their latest resume/CV through email at team@clslegal.in with the subject of the email as Internship Application: July-August 2021 – Name of Applying Candidate – Year of Study.

Perks

Internship Certificate

For further Query :-
Contact- Pranav Gupta , Advocate at +91 8851953920

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Case Number

41 L.J. Ex. 157

Equivalent Citation

(1872) L.R. 7 Ex. 218

Bench

Kelly, C.B. and Martin, B.

Decided on

1872

Relevant Act/ Section

Law of Partnership Act, 1865 – section 19 (Duty of a partner as an agent of the firm)

Brief Facts and Procedural History

The background of this case is that five people came together to form a partnership company for seven years. These people had decided that they will share the profit and the losses of the company with each other. They further agreed that in case of the death of any of the partners before the end of the seven years, the others would continue the business and their executors will get the profit on their behalf. Later, on the death of one of the partners, the others continued the business and the deceased’s executors were paid 1/5^th of the profits of the company, despite the fact that they never took part in the management of the business. A conflict arose between the plaintiff and the other partners and the plaintiff sued the executors of the deceased along with the other partners, regarding the performance of a contract entered by the other partners post the death of the deceased partner.

Issues Before the Court

The main issue before the Court was whether the deceased’s executors will be considered to the partners of the company?

The Ratio of the Case

In this case, the court said that though the defendants took the profit of the company, they did not involve in the process of the business and so they could be considered to be partners of the business. But when the court looked into the judicial precedents of this case, they said a testator cannot be a partner in a form, in which the deceased was a partner, unless there is an agreement or contract between the surviving partners and the testator, either expressly or impliedly.

The decision of the Court

Finally, the court held that the defendants are not the partners in the business because there is no agreement or contract between the defendants and surviving partners, conforming them as partners of the business. 

This case analysis is written by Santhiya V, pursuing BBA LLB (Hons.) at Alliance University.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

INTRODUCTION

The Indian economy was up for competition in the year 1990. And with competition, disputes and conflicts came. That requires quick decisions on disputes and proper negotiations to minimize the chances of disputes. To solve this problem, the Government of India enacted the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996(amended in 2015 by way of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015), Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. In 2001 Civil Procedure Code, Sec. 89 was enacted to provide ADR methods liked Mediation, Conciliation, Lok Adalats, and Arbitration.

Following this amendment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed that the courts must identify appropriate cases of mediation, conciliation, or Lok Adalat. According to the National Litigation Policy Of 2011, the average life of litigation in Indian courts is 15 years, and these policies planned to bring it down to 3 years by the end of 2020.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

ADR is a technique used to resolve conflicts and disputes between parties while delivering an agreeable experience for the parties involved. It can help reduce the burden of litigation on courts. The dispute resolution usually takes place in a private place in the presence of a neutral third party.

Types of ADR

• Arbitration

1. Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 establishes the process of Arbitration. If an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, before the dispute arises, then the party can take this option as a resolution. Section 7 of the act, states that such agreements must be in writing.
2. Any party can initiate the process of appointing an arbitrator. If the other party is not cooperating, they can approach the office of chief justice for the appointment of an arbitrator. 
3. Only on two grounds, The Party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator,

1. When there is reasonable doubt in the arbitrator’s neutrality
2. As per the Arbitration agreement, When there is a lack of proper qualifications of the arbitrator.

4. There is little scope of interventions of the judiciary in the process of Arbitration.
5.  If the period for filing an appeal for setting aside an award is over or such appeal is rejected. Then the award is binding on the parties and is considered as a decree of the court.
6. Trials are more formal than Arbitration, and rules of evidence are many times relaxed.

• Conciliation 

Part 2 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 establishes the process of conciliation. Under Article 62 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1. The party who initiates a conciliation shall send a written invitation briefly stating the subject of disputes in it.
2. When the other party in written accepts a written invitation, then only Conciliation proceedings shall start.

Under Section 30 of the Act, any party can initiate a conciliation process, even if the Arbitration process is going on. In conciliation, the parties to the dispute use conciliator who meets with them separately to settle their dispute and lower the tensions between the parties. There is no need for a prior agreement like in Arbitration. According to Conciliator, there is a settlement element, then he may list the terms of settlement and send it to parties. If both the parties sign the document mutually, it shall be final and binding on both parties.

• Mediation 

It aims to assist two or more parties in reaching an agreement. Rather than accepting something imposed by some other person, these parties themselves determine their settlement terms. Mediators help the parties to settle on the disputed matter. Mediation covered a variety of disputes such as legal, commercial, and family matters.

There are four stages in the process of mediation

1. Opening Statement
2. Joint session 
3. Separate session
4. Closing statement

• Negotiation

It is a nonbinding procedure. Without third-party intervention, discussions between the parties initiated with the object to arrive at a negotiated settlement. It is the primary method of alternate dispute resolution in India.

• Lok Adalats 

National and Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 constituted the Lok Adalat system. It is an exclusively Indian approach that is on Gandhian principles. Lok Adalats means “People’s Court” There is no Court fee and no need to follow procedures given under CPC and Evidence Act. Parties can directly approach judges. The main motive of these Adalats is to do a compromise between the parties. If the Compromise has not arrived, it goes back to the courts. But if the Compromise has attained, it became binding on both parties. You cannot appeal for these awards even under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Advantages of Alternate Dispute Resolution 

• People resolve their dispute in less time as compared to courts
• It saves a lot of money as compared to the litigation process.
• It is free from the technicalities of courts and has informal ways to resolve disputes.
• It prevents further conflict and maintains a good relationship between the parties as they discuss their issues together on the same platform.
• It preserves the best interest of both parties.

Landmark Judgments 

• Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy

In this case, The court held that under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, settlements were appealed only on limited grounds.

• Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. V. Kamachi Industrial Ltd.

In this case, both the parties consented to Bhubaneshwar as the venue for Arbitration proceedings. It shows the intention to exclude all the other jurisdictions. The apex court held that the Madras has no territorial jurisdiction in this case.

• Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

In this case, the apex court struck down Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act because it is arbitrary as article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

• Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar

In this case, the Apex court held that a mere simple allegation of fraud taints the effect of the Arbitration Agreement.

• Tulsi Narayan Garg v. The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Authority, Bhopal and Ors.

In this case, the court held that if the person is a party to an arbitration agreement, then he cannot become an arbitrator in his cause.

• Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India

In this case, the court upheld the constitutional validity of section 89 of CPC. Constituted a committee to frame rules for smooth implementation of section 89 of CPC.

• Venkatesh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

In this case, The court held that at the request of either of the party, the case can be referred to Lok Adalat.  

Conclusion 

Alternate Dispute Resolution is not substituted to the judicial system, is complementary to the court system. The main objective of ADR is to resolve the dispute in time and in a cost-effective manner. On the recommendation of Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee, discontent within the legal fraternity about the amendment in Section 89, was resolved. The present-day Indian Government wants the evolution of ADR by desiring to make India a global destination for Arbitration and other dispute resolution methods. 

Bibliography 

• https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/mediation-3 
• https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2021/224958.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjunbqut_3xAhXTmuYKHf68BY8QFjASegQIKBAC&usg=AOvVaw0r_TBW7XLQEkHDc8HLyz4t
• https://www.mondaq.com/advicecentre/content/4458/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-In-India-A-Brief-Overview
• https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scconline.com/post/2021/02/07/evolution-of-adr-mechanisms-in-india/%3famp
• https://niti.gov.in › sites › filesPDF

This article is written by Megha Patel, a 2^nd year Law Student at the Mody University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh, Rajasthan.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Book

Human rights is not a subject that can be studied at a distance. Students should not just learn about the Universal Declaration, about racial injustice, or about homelessness without also being challenged to think about what it all means for them personally. As human rights educators, we must ask our students and ourselves, “How does this all relate to the way we live our lives?” The answers to this question will tell us much about how effectively we have taught our students. Goal of the book is to help people understand human rights, value human rights, and take responsibility for respecting, defending, and promoting human rights. An important outcome of human rights education is empowerment, a process through which people and communities increase their control of their own lives and the decisions that affect them.   This book will include variety of Sub-themes which are necessary for today’s generation to grasp and overcome the hurdles of Human right instrument which are currently lagging behind the updating society, as being drafted and implemented by an older generation without consideration of evolution of technology.

About Editor

Dr. Ashu Dhiman is a Professor at Centre for Legal studies, Gitarattan international business school, Delhi. She is also the Editor in chief, LicitElite. She has authored and published “Hindu Law on Divorce” having ISBN 9781638732167. She has Edited First Edition of published book on “Changing Dimensions of Criminal Law” having ISBN No. 9788195211609. She has Co-Edited MediateGuru’s published book on “A pathway to the future of ADR” having ISBN 9781639747894. She has edited many journals and annual magazines. Her areas of expertise are Family Law and Criminal Law.

Theme

Gen-Z & Human Rights

Sub- Themes

1. Human Rights and Role of Artificial Intelligence
2. International Human Rights
3. Cyber Security as a Human Right
4. International Trade and Human Rights
5. Human rights & Covid-19
6. Role of Multilateral Organisation in Protection of Human Rights

For more details, visit brochure

https://bit.ly/3rnCYW5

Guidelines of Submission

1. The authors should use the ILI (Indian Law Institute) format of Footnoting and Times New Roman Font 12 with bold headings and space lining 1.5.

2. Co-Authorship is allowed. However, there can be maximum two co-author in one research paper.

3. The work submitted shall be ORIGINAL and UNPUBLISHED

4. All the manuscripts being contributed for the book are to be sent at: genzhumanrights@gmail.com 

5. Submit the Abstract latest by 20th August on the above mentioned mail.

6. Submit the full paper by 15th September 2021 (Provided that Abstract is selected)

7. In case revisions suggested, please send the revised paper before 27th September 2021. 

8. The manuscript must be accompanied with an abstract of paper in not more than 300 words.

9. The entries should reach the given email ID by 1st November 2021. 

10. Entry should be in either ‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’ format.

11. The subject of the mail should be: “Submission of Abstract/Draft/Revised Paper for GenZ & Human Rights Book”.

Perks

• Each Author with selected paper will be provided with an E-certificate and soft copy of the book.

• Availability of Book to be purchased over Amazon, Kindle (worldwide) & Flipkart.

• Acknowledgement and appreciation of Author in the Description of Book.

Word Limit:

The word limit for research paper (inclusive of abstract) is between 3000 words (minimum) to 6000 words (maximum) This word limit is inclusive of footnotes. However certain research piece of academic significance can be allowed to exceed the word limit.

Publication Fees

Their is no publication fees, whatsoever for the selected articles. However, if the author(s) wish to have a hard copy, they can acquire the same from the store.

Publication

The selected best quality papers will be sent for publication in ISBN numbered book.

Register at – https://bit.ly/3wUInoH  

Organizer

Janhvi Shirsat 

Ph. 9075001969

Param Bhamra

Ph. 9971087756

For any query kindly mail on genzhumanrights@gmail.com 

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

About the Custodial rape

Under section 376 of IPC, whoever commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Section 375 of IPC defines rape and Section 376 deals with the punishment for rape. Section 376C of IPC defines “sexual intercourse by a person in authority.” 

In 1983, the concept of custodial rape was given importance, and the term ‘custody’ was widened. Custodial rapes are committed by a public servant while performing his duty. Here the duty means “to take care of the person”. In the case of Omkar Prasad Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court defined “custody” as guardianship. The custody must be lawful. Custodial rape should have been in the superintendent jail, remand home, or other places of custody established by law. Custodial rape also includes the rape committed by the management or staff of a hospital, mental health care institutions, rehabilitation centers, juvenile homes, etc. 

Cases of custodial rape

During the 1970s and 1980s, three cases led to a campaign against custodial rape which led to the amendment of rape laws in 1983. But the amendment of 1983 was not sufficient. CrPC, IPC, and IEA Act were amended in 2013 and made substantial changes in sexual crime.

 The following three cases have changed the scenario of custodial rapes:

Sheo Kumar v. State of U.P. And Ors, in this case, the lady was arrested on fake charges. Maya Tyagi, who was six months pregnant, was dragged out of the car, beaten, and stripped. One of the cops from the group shoveled a lathi into her vagina. She was raped by cops in the Police station. Her spouse was shot by cops. He died because of the shot. The case was supported by politicians. This case has been protested by women’s organizations as well as politicians across the country. The six policemen were sentenced to death and four policemen were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Smt. Rameeza Bee v. D Armugam, in this case, lady Rameeza Bee, who was a 26-year-old woman, was arrested along with her husband. They were returning from the cinema. The police arrested them for loitering. To pay the fine her husband went home to get money. In the absence of her husband, three policemen raped her. Her husband had protested after returning from home. He was beaten to death. The Court found police officers guilty of rape-murder and assault. 

Tuka Ram And Anr v. State of Maharashtra,

 Mathura, who was a 16-year-old girl, was doing housework in Nunshi’s house. During work, she came in contact with Nunshi’s brother and she eloped with him. Her brother filed a case against Nunshi and her brother. The police found and arrested them. Mathura was in the police station, where she was raped by two policemen. Mathura has filed a case against policemen. The session court found insufficient evidence against policemen. But in the High Court decision, it was found that policemen were guilty.

The Challenges in Custodial Rape

Custodial rape typically takes place in police stations, jails and other places and the evidence is under the control of public servants. 

It is difficult to register FIR against police because:

• Police or other forces refuse to accept the complaint of the victim;
• There is political pressure to suppress crime statics, including statics about custodial rape.
• Police informal practices complaints are recorded in the form of Community Social Register (CSR) rather than FIR. So they can easily remove records of the offense.

 Section 197 CrPC prescribes that the public servant cannot be prosecuted for any act while discharging the official duty.

Category of Custodial Rape as an Offence

In the case, Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana and Anr, the women were raped and then murdered by policemen in the police station. 

Then the government has introduced an amendment in the law under rape and it also included the category of custodial rape. The punishment for custodial rape is not less than ten years and may also extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Law Reform

Custodial rape was increasing and, the process of prosecution is challenging. The women’s movement demanded the law related to custodial rape. And this led to series of reforms:

• Expansion of the term ‘custody’

The law has given broader meaning to custodial rape since 1983. Before 1983, it was rape by police officials in the police station. Now it includes:

1. Rape by police officers in the police station and the victim in his custody;
2. Rape by a public servant on a woman in the public servant’s custody;
3. Rape by Army man in an area where the forces are deployed;
4. Rape by management/staff in a jail, remand home, women’s home and other places where women are in custody.
5. Rape by hospital staff where a woman is in custody.

• Burden of proof

In Criminal Law, the burden of proof lies on the victim. They have to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused is innocent until he is not proven guilty. Cases of custodial rape were inspected under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the provision, if  prosecution manages to prove the act of sexual intercourse without her consent, then the court will presume the absence of the consent.

• Failure to perform the duty is a Punishable offence

After the 2013 amendment, if the government official has not registered a report of rape against the victim then it is recognized as he assisted the offender that is a punishable offence. If the police officer does not register the FIR then the person can file a case against him and he will be punished for the act with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Conclusion 

Many changes have to be done to provide justice and to stop custodial rapes. Law should be improved so the woman can easily register complaints. The punishment of rape is not less than ten years but in reality, in many cases, it has been given three to four years.

Many custodial rapes have not been reported because rapists are in authority. The victim experiences fear of rapists and humiliation. It is hard to file a case against a public servant. If the case has been filed then the evidence would remain within the public servants, so the evidence can be easily destroyed or either changed. The number of cases reported is less because there is government pressure to show fewer crime rate statistics. According to a report of the National Crimes Record Bureau Report in 2016, 26 custodial rape cases have been registered in India. Government should also provide facilities for counseling for victims because they are suffering from traumatic situations.

This article is written by Prachi Yadav, a 2^nd  Year student from Mody  University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh, Rajasthan.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Sedition Law and its Brief History

The Indian Penal Code came into force in 1860 under British India prepared by Lord Macaulay. In IPC’s 1st draft sedition was not included. It was introduced after 10 years from the enforcement of IPC in the year 1870. This was done to curb the practices of revolution, publications, spread hatred, dissatisfaction towards the British government. It is a non-bailable cognizable offence. Section 124(A) of IPC talks about sedition. It says that 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 attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in  India shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. With the introduction of this law publication against the government was made a punishable offence. 

The first case of sedition in India was Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chandra Bose. Later, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were charged for sedition, they both were imprisoned for the same. Not only them but many other revolutionaries were charged and imprisoned for protesting against the British government under sedition law.  In the year 1962, a landmark judgment was passed in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar. Where it was observed that constructive criticisms against the government will not be considered as a sedition. Moreover, such criticisms are the essence of democracy, and they cannot be held punishable. This case was referred recently in Vinod Dua’s case who is a journalist, where the court granted immunity to journalists for sedition. With this verdict, journalists will no longer be charged for sedition. In Shreya Singhal’s case the apex court again observed that a mere publication of criticism against government by a 14-year-old girl on Facebook could not be held to be the case of sedition as it did not provoke any protests or communal violence in the society. 

It has always been a debatable matter that sedition laws violate Article 19 of the constitution which talks about freedom of speech and expression. This right of freedom of speech and expression of course comes with some reasonable restrictions, but the basic structure of our constitution includes democracy which supports criticisms of democratically elected government. From this it can be clearly inferred that sedition is not in conformity with Article 19, and sedition is not mutually conclusive with article 19(1). 

Today Sedition law is not even existing from where it came i.e., the UK. The United Kingdom had abolished Sedition in 2009 itself. Sedition laws do not obey the modern-day values of democracy. It is a Victorian-era law and many modern-day scholars and law commission reports from around the world had suggested obsolescence and inconformity of sedition laws with the modern-day democracy. 

Statement issued by the Chief Justice of India on Sedition

Recently sedition law is in news because the Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana had asked the government of India for the reason of its retention and why this law is still not abolished. The CJI further stated that the law is prone to misuse by the government. There have been many cases reported under sedition but only one or two of them have been convicted in the past few years. The sedition law is against democracy. There have been instances of misuse of power by the executive agencies. Another criticism of this law by the CJI was that the conviction rate under this law is very less close to 1% and this wastes the time of the court and increases the expense of the government exchequer. These laws are outdated, stale, and should be abolished only then liberty can be justified. 

Pitfalls of Sedition law

There has been misuse of this law by the government agencies for their personal grudges and biases. It has been observed that in the last 75 years sedition holds negligible validity and conviction rate. Sedition law has created a fear among citizens that if they would dissent against the elected government, they can be prosecuted under S. 124A of IPC.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme court by retired army general S.G. Vombatkere to quash sec. 124A of IPC. The SC will look into this matter. Attorney general of India Mr. KK Venugopal had submitted that the court need not strike down Section 124A of IPC.

Conclusion

The commonwealth resolution had recommended the abolition of sedition. Mr Ruddock had pointed out sedition as obsolescent law. In Australia and New Zealand other commonwealth countries the law has been long abolished. Therefore, India today should consider abolishing sedition law to gain the confidence of its citizens and to protect the fundamental right of its citizens granted under Article 19(1) of the constitution. The law not only instils fear among the citizens but also is time consuming for the judiciary as pointed out by the Chief Justice of India. Nevertheless, the petition filed by retd. army general S.G. Vombatkere will most probably declare sedition law unconstitutional and against the fundamental rights as conferred upon citizens by the constitution of India.     

This article is written by Aakarsh Chandranahu, a student of Alliance School of Law.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION: 

Legis Scriptor is a transpiring team of ardent & fervent people across all the strata of the legal field, promoting academic excellence & ameliorating realms of knowledge to contribute in building skillful society. We endeavor to provide quality contemporary legal content concerning from tangled minute issues to issues of international concerns. We provide a platform to students across the length & breadth of the country to enhance their research & writing skills, which is the uttermost requirement of the today’s fast-evolving & zestful legal field. 

ABOUT THE COMPETITION: 

Mooting is one of the most important skills for any legal professional to have. Mock Trials or Moot Courts are typically focused on hypothetical cases concerning new or unresolved areas of law. Participants in these programs have the opportunity to hone their research, legal writing, and oral advocacy abilities in a simulated courtroom setting. Furthermore, moot court presentations instill professional legal etiquettes in students, preparing them to adjust to courtroom customs. 

In order to improve the research and advocacy skills of the next generation of lawyers, the 1st Legis Scriptor National Moot Court Competition has been launched to students taking law courses during these times. This moot will help students improve their research and mooting skills, and our goal is to continue the chain of law learning process even during the epidemic. 

MODE OF THE COMPETITION: Online 

THEME: Related to Criminal Law

LANGUAGE: English 

ELIGIBILITY: 

• The students currently enrolled in either five years or three years LL.B. courses or LL.M. programs from any recognized University/ Law College/ College/ Institution are eligible for participation in the competition. 
• There is no restriction on the number of entries from any college or university. 

TEAM COMPOSITION: 

• Each team shall consist of two individuals (two mooters) or maximum three individuals (one researcher & two mooters) to qualify the eligibility criteria. 

• If there are two individuals in a team then one of them can be a researcher for the purpose of researcher’s test to be conducted on 30th August, 2021. 
• Multiple teams and cross institutional teams are allowed from different University/ Law School/ College/ Departments. 

IMPORTANT DATES

LAST DATE OF REGISTRATION: 08:00 p.m. IST, 21st August, 2021 

LAST DATE FOR MEMORIAL SUBMISSION: 08:00 p.m. IST, 29th August, 2021 

RESEARCHER’S TEST: 05:00 p.m. IST, 30th August, 2021 

LAST DATE TO SEND AUDIO/VIDEO FOR PRELIMINARY ROUND: 08:00 p.m. IST, 1st September, 2021 

SEMI-FINAL ROUND: 5th September, 2021 

FINAL ROUND: 5th September, 2021 

DATE FOR ANNOUNCING RESULT: 08:00 p.m. IST 5th September, 2021

REGISTRATION: 

• There shall be a nominal registration fee of Rs. 1599/-. 
• Registration Link is given below- 

https://forms.gle/LYyPJsyxJnALkCVa8

• The registration fee shall be non-refundable and non-transferable in any circumstance. 
• The last date for registration is 08:00 p.m. IST, 21st August, 2021. 
• Only 30 teams will be allowed to register in the competition on first-come- first serve basis. 
• Team Code shall be assigned to every team and they will receive the team code by 23rd August, 2021. 

Note: No approval from the respective institute of the participants is required for participation. 

PAYMENT METHOD: 

UPI Id & Paytm 

Paytm UPI ID: 8851267359@paytm 

Phone Pe UPI ID: 8851267359@ybl 

Google Pay- 8851267359 

Paytm- 8851267359 

Or you can do bank transfer, 

Bank Details: 

Account Holder’s Name: Pathoj Tripathi 

Account Number: 5010092115121 

Bank Name: HDFC Bank 

IFSC Code: HDFC0002092 

After the payment all participants are required to upload screenshots of the same on the Google form given for registration.

ROUNDS: 

There shall be three rounds of this competition and are as follows: 

1) Researcher’s Test: Researcher’s test of all the researchers will be conducted via google form at 5:00 pm on 30th August 2021. In case there are only two members in a team, then one of them is supposed to give the researcher’s test on the above-mentioned date at the specified time. 

2) Preliminary Round: Preliminary round will be held through Audio/Video submission. Participants are required to make Audio/Video on the given moot problem and have to submit their Audio/Video through google form till 1st September, 2021 @ 8:00P.M. Top 4 teams shall be marked & selected on the basis of the content of their Audio/video and carried forward to the next round i.e., Semi Finals.

3) Semi Final- Semi Final will be done on Zoom meeting/WebEx/google meet. Top 4 teams which qualifies the preliminary round shall compete against each other and out of which 2 teams shall be carried forward to the final round. 

4) Final Round- Final Round will be done on Zoom meeting/WebEx/google meet. Top 2 teams from Semi-Final Round shall compete against each other and the winner and the runners up shall be declared from them. 

AWARDS: Worth Rs. 25, 000/-

BEST TEAM (1st Position) – Prize money of Rs. 2500/- + Certificate of Excellence 

+ Rs. 1500/- Voucher of Certificate Course of Memo Pundits + Free Publication in our Journal. 

Runner up Team (2nd Position) – Prize money of Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Excellence + Rs. 1000/- Voucher (Certificate Course of Memo Pundits). Free Publication in our Journal. 

3rd Position – 10th Position- Certificate of Merit + 50% Discount on Publication in our journal + Rs. 200/- Voucher (Certificate Course of Memo Pundits). 

All the participants who will register for this event, will receive “CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION” 

Note: All the participants will also get 25% off on publication in our journal. 

For More Information, Click on the link given below- 

https://www.legisscriptor.com

For Brochure, Click on the link given below

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1na9maXMnVY28bwXWhLujxl9ZkZsGWCdr/view?usp=sharing

Contact us for any query: 

E-mail: info.legisscriptor@gmail.com 

WhatsApp number: 8851264387 (WHATSAPP ONLY) 

Note: If in case of any query, participant can drop a message on WhatsApp on the number given above and they will receive a call from concerned authority in 24 hours to resolve their query.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/KPrsJcjTDqjIGDX3zVVNLM

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Justice was served in the form of a Karnataka High Court order on the maintainability of Twitter employee Manish Maheshwari’s appeal against the Uttar Pradesh Police’s notice, even though it took a long time.

Justice G Narendra had reserved the verdict on July 9 after hearings in the case. It was supposed to be announced on July 13, but it was postponed after the judge stated that he wanted to go over the cited precedents again to ensure that the verdict was free of errors. The length of time it took to pronounce the order reflected this meticulousness. The order on the maintainability of the plea took more than five hours to issue, spread out over two days.

The Court sifted through various issues in the case, including the extent of Twitter India’s control over the content on the social media platform, whether Maheshwari was a Managing Director of the company and the use of criminal law provisions by the UP Police. Finally, the Court determined that the conditions for invoking Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with notice to appear before a police officer, were not met.

The Court went so far as to say that the notice was used fraudulently, noting that “The provisions of the statute must not be ever used as a tool for the harassment.” The respondent (UP Police) has not produced a shred of evidence to show even prima facie that the petitioner (Maheshwari) was involved.”

The order on Manish Maheshwari’s plea’s maintainability took over five hours to issue, spread out over two days. Since the case consumed a significant amount of Justice Narendra’s time over the last two days, he was seen adjourning other matters to a later date.

At one point during the hearing, it appeared that the judge was aware of how long the decision was taken. “I will need a rest for my vocal cords tomorrow,” he said before adjourning the pronouncement into the second day. Following the announcement of the verdict, Maheshwari’s lawyer, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, thanked the judge for his time and patience. Nagesh also expressed regret for taking up so much of the Court’s time.

Honorable Justice Narendra responded, “We’re just doing our job.”

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA