Month: September 2022

About the Organization

A global British firm that manufactures consumer goods, Unilever plc is based in London. Food, condiments, ice cream, cleaning supplies, cosmetics, and personal care items are all produced by Unilever. The largest soap manufacturer in the world, Unilever, with products sold in almost 190 nations.

About the Responsibilities  

For an internship that will last between three and six months, Unilever is hiring legal interns for the Chennai Regional Office.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  sanjukta.venkatesh@unilever.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

INTRODUCTION

In India, marriage is considered a sacred union between two bodies of opposite sexes. Sharing a common room, their life, and the commitment to live with each other makes it unbreakable bondage not only for one life but for seven lives. It is believed that when two souls will unite in every sense that is physical, mental, and psychological, a new soul will come into existence which is termed “PROGENY” which is very important and that is how life will move ahead. It is believed that this relationship is built by God in Heaven and no one should question this, even the “Husband and Wife”. But what if one of the spouses isn’t happy with this sacramental knot and wants to break it? Is he or she allowed to do so?

The answer changes with time. Before this century, even the thought of separation was deemed to be a very sinful thing but today it is not. The main reason behind this is that people are now more advanced. The development in the field of communication, education, understanding, and societal norms has developed the social strata of society. People have now started giving importance to their mental health and that is good in every sense.

BACKGROUND

Historically, there is no proper law that considers the ground of “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” for the ground of Divorce. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 deals with the various ground on which divorce can be obtained. They are:

Fault Ground [Section 13(1)]

1. Desertion, Adultery, Cruelty, Insanity, Leprosy, and Venereal Disease¹.
2. Apart from this, Conversion and Renunciation of the world can also be used as a valid ground for Divorce in Hindu Religion. Under this case, 2 conditions should be met and they are:
3. The spouse has ceased to be a Hindu, and
4. He or she has converted to another religion².

In the case of Teesta Chattoraj vs. Union of India³, the court held that conversion of religion by one spouse can be used as a valid ground for divorce. Similarly, in the case of Sital Das vs. Sant Ram⁴, the court held that if someone undergoes the traditions, rites, and ceremonies of religion, that person will be considered to have entered the religious order but if that individual cohabits then it cannot be considered a valid ground because he or she has no longer renounced the world.

Divorce by Mutual Consent [13B (1)]⁵

According to this section, if the spouses are not happy with each other and want to separate and lead a new life away from each other, they can file for divorce based on the ground of “Divorce by Mutual Consent”.

Customary Divorce [Section 29 (2)]⁶

Proceeding further, Section 27 and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954⁷ also deals with the grounds of divorce in a solemnized marriage. But nowhere it is explicitly mentioned that the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown of Marriage” is a valid ground. In this respect only, the Law Commission of India in its 71^st Report recommended that the ground of “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” should be explicitly mentioned and stated in the Hindu Law. But this lapsed as there was a high level of resistance and lack of support from some major women-led NGOs. The reason which was put forthwith was that the ground of “mutual consent” already covers this and a new addition will only complicate things further.

In the case of Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar⁸, the court itself expressed that a dead letter marriage would only create a strenuous relationship between the spouses. It would be better if they split and move ahead in their lives “as the recognition of the futility of a completely failed marriage being continued only on paper….”

That is why, in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli⁹, the Supreme Court itself stated that adding the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown” in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is reasonable. The individuals are right if they go with this option.

LEGAL FACET

Though there is no specific provision present in the current judicial system, there are instances where the Supreme Court has collapsed the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under the power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

In the case of Pramod Kumar Mittal and Another vs. Kanchan Devi¹⁰, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Here, there were 4 daughters also who were born out of wedlock but the Court maintained that the husband is maintaining them till now and he will continue to do so. A reasonable opportunity will be given to the wife to meet her daughters if she has any intentions or desire for doing so.

Similarly, in the cases of Sanghmita Ghosh vs. Kajal Ghosh¹¹, Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh¹², K Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa¹³, Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee¹⁴, the court exercised its power under Article 142 and dissolved the marriage on the ground of “Irretrievable Breakdown”.

And, the recent case in this regard is R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha¹⁵. Here, the petitioner claimed that he suffered mental cruelty because of the respondent and that is why he filed for divorce under the Section 13(1)(i-a) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed in the Family Court as the husband failed to prove the ground of cruelty. When he then appealed to the Higher Court, it was again dismissed. After this, he moved to the Supreme Court and presented his case where it was mentioned that both the spouses are not living with each other for the past 22 years and this should be considered as a ground for an “Irretrievable Breakdown” of marriage. Then, the SC exercised his power under Article 142 and granted Divorce.

Sometimes, there are situations like when the spouses cannot bear each other in a matrimonial relationship for even the time period of 1 year or 6 months. In that case, the SC did exercise its power again and dissolved the marriage. This was done in the case of Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel¹⁶, where the court held that “the court is competent to waive of the statutory period of six months in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.” This case is also important from the view that, in this case, the Court passed an order contrary to another law. Generally, no court has the power to issue a direction that is in contravention of the statutory provisions because courts are the institutions that are meant to enforce the rule of law and not pass an order which is in contravention of that. But in the case of, Laxmidas Morarji (dead) by L.Rs. v. Behrose Darab Madan¹⁷, the Court has held that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is constitutional and therefore, cannot be restricted by any statutory enactments. This doesn’t mean that now the Court can act or pass an order which is inconsistent with the statutory enactments about the case. The power has to be exercised only in cases where existing provisions of the law are not able to bring complete justice between the parties.

Likewise, there are a series of Judgments where the Supreme Court pronounced judgments in the exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and granted divorce to the spouses who no longer wanted to live with each other in a matrimonial relationship because it continuity will only prove to be fruitless and further cause emotional roller coastal ride on the lives of the individuals involved. The sooner it ends, the better it would be for both parties as there is no reason of continuing or be tied in a sacramental knot that has no sense in reality.

CONCLUSION

No doubt marriage is an institution that is very pious and sacramental in its own sense. When it happens, there is a birth of a new soul in this world which only brings happiness and happiness. Not only that, but it also grants individuals some legal rights which are not in place when the individual is single. It is only extended to married people that are:

1. Right to inherit spouse’s property upon death
2. Right to receive spouse’s social security, pension, worker’s compensation, or disability benefits
3. Right to receive “marriage” or “family rate” on health, car, and/or liability insurance.

But still, that does not mean keeping two people in a relationship where both parties or even one party is unhappy. If the marriage proves to be meaningless and pointless, it should be dissolved. Apart from this, our legal judicial system cannot turn a blind eye when one or both parties find it laborious to continue in a relationship. It is a very miserable situation where only quarreling, bickering, bitterness, and many other things reside. And in that case, it cannot be said as an immoral activity when one party tries to break it. Because all the responsibilities and duties come after humanity. It is to be noted that “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” is not a recognized ground for Divorce under the actual Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any law. It has been only accepted as a ground-based on precedents.

---

REFERENCES

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1).
2. ibid
3. Teesta Chattoraj vs, Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1949 
4. Sital Das vs. Sant Ram, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 681
5. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 (B) (1)
6. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 29 (2)
7. Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 27 and 28
8. Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar, (2020) 14 SCC 657
9. Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (4) SCC 558
10. Kanchan Devi vs. Promod Kumar Mittal, (1996) 8 SCC 90
11. Sanghamita Ghosh vs. Kajal Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220
12. Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511
13. K.Srinivas Rao vs. D. A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226
14. Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee, (2017) 9 SCC 632
15. R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha, AIR 2019 SC 4919
16. Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393
17. Laxmidas Morarji (DEAD) by LRS. vs. Behrose Darab Madan, (2009) 10 SCC 425

This article is written by Deeksha Singh, from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.

INTRODUCTION

Water is indispensable to life. Human beings can survive for 3 weeks without food, but only three days without water. Moreover, there may be no food cultivation without water. Conceptually, therefore, the right to life, considered the foremost basic and fundamental of all rights, must include within it a right to water. The right to water evolved from initial references to water in numerous international treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All types of Discrimination against Women, 1979, the Convention on the Rights of the kid, 1990, and therefore the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2008. Ultimately, in 2010, the international organization (“U.N.”) General Assembly adopted resolutions on the “Human Right to Water and Sanitation” and on the “Human Rights and Access to Safe beverage and Sanitation” emphasizing recognition of the “right to water”. We now have a separate right to water. In 2002, the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“E.S.C.R”.) adopted General Comment 15 noting that “The right to water is indispensable for leading a life with human dignity”. The Committee also defined the core content of the “right to water” to incorporate “everyone’s right to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for private and domestic uses”.

BACKGROUND

Historically, Dalits have sought integration and respect within mainstream Hindu caste society which has been denied to them for hundreds of years, in accordance with the dominant development paradigm. On the opposite hand, Adivasis have sought development on their terms outside mainstream Indian society. As a result, Dalit articulation of the “right to water” seeks not only to secure state provisioning of water within the traditional vertical exercise of their rights against the state but also to make sure enforcement of access to it water provision through the horizontal application of the correct in legal code against upper castes that block such access. For Adivasis, however, articulation of the “right to water” is inextricably linked to their rights to land and forest, seen as a part of one indivisible ecosystem.

Apart from the judicial articulation of a generally applicable “right to water”, I also describe the articulation of this right on behalf of two marginalized groups. the primary group includes Dalits or Scheduled Castes that constitute 16% of India’s population, who have historically faced systematic discrimination within mainstream Hindu society supported their caste. Originating in ancient India, and transformed by medieval elites, and later by British colonial rule, the class structure in India was a system of conditions that consigned people in several castes to different hereditary occupations, positions, and ways of life. Dalits or untouchables were placed outside the societal hierarchy and were denied access to common sources like food and water. The other group includes Adivasis or indigenous peoples which includes 8.6% of India’s population, who are historically marginalized because they need to live largely in geographical isolation in hills and forests with distinct cultures outside the society.

The right to life is continuously expanded, which has the proper to possess a clean environment and also the right to health, and after your time court mentioned that it also includes the correct to water. after we analyze various judgments of the Indian court, we will find that they need not only considered the correct to urge water as a fundamental right, but the court has also mentioned that water should be social asset.

Right to water was added to the extended interpretation of the proper to life under article 21 of the Indian constitution within the judgment of the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (Civil) No. 196 / 2001. This judgment created a precedent that seeped all the way down to rock bottom levels of court.

The country of India hosts a large population that further creates a large demand for basic life necessities like water. However, this demand goes with major disappointment for people because of the severe scarcity of water. consistent with the 2017 UNICEF report, India’s two-thirds districts among the 718 districts, were reported to be under-supplied with water, with groundwater becoming scarcer a day

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is the primary enacted by the parliament in relevance to the protection and preservation of the environment. The water act came into force to make sure the restoration of the water, where the domestic and industrial effluents pollute water with no precautionary measures. The Constitution of the Central Pollution Board and State Pollution control panel is empowered under the act to perform various functions like establishing the standard, research, and investigation of the bodies creating pollution to the water bodies. The awareness about promoting the cleanliness of water streams, well and rivers is also raised by this Act. And also, one every of the most purpose of building this act was to stop and control the pollution of water.

One of the provisions of this act provides that nobody can establish any industry which discharges sewages or trades effluents into the water bodies without the permission of the state board. But within the case of Province Pollution board II v. Prof. M. V. Nayudu it had been held by Supreme Court that Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 doesn’t provide an exemption to the state for exempting the establishment of personal body or polluting industries creating pollution to the water bodies.

PROVISIONS OF ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986

Environment Protection Act has got force on19th of November 1986. The name environment protect act itself provides the most objective of the act as protection of the environment. This act provides power to the Central Government to require appropriate measures so as to shield and improve the environment.

INDIAN EASEMENT ACT, 1882

The Indian Easement Act came into force on the 1st day of July 1882. Under this Act, the word Easement is defined in Section 4. But normally term easement means “right to enjoyment”. The rights of Riparian owners are recognized under this Act. A riparian owner is the one who has his land nearby the river or a stream.

Even after various legislations are passed the river water in India are continuously polluted River Ganga despite being worshiped by almost a billion people of this country is included among the foremost polluted river of the identical, variant liters of chemical waste is disposed of in these waters by the industries including the pollutants like cyanide, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, and mercury including sewage waters also which is that the biggest pollutant These pollutants are so poisonous that they not only kill fishes instantly but other animals also. When these poisonous pollutants are disposed of in water it reduces the standard of water and makes them useless for drinking.

In the case of M C Mehta vs. State of Orrisa and Ors, a writ petition was filed for shielding the health of thousands of individuals living within town Cuttack and therefore the other areas which were adjacent thereto, which were plagued by the pollution caused by disposition discharged into the river by a municipal committee of Cuttack and SCB Medical Collage Hospital, also the State Pollution Board in its report concluded that the water within the city wasn’t fit human consumption and even bathing, The Apex court ordered to require immediate steps to manage the present situation and a responsible municipal corporation was formulated by the court for effective management of pollutants within the city’s beverage.

The government also because the Boards established under the legislation should attend to those matters not just by providing fines to the individuals polluting water but through imprisonment.

The case of Vikash Bansal vs Delhi pollution control committee marks an exceptional judgment given by the supreme court because, during this case of Haryana Paneer Bhandar, an offender was imprisoned for a period of 1 year with 1 Lakh Rupees fine together with 2.5 lakhs Rupees to tend to the PM relief fund, but what must be noticed during this judgment is that this case isn’t associated with any criminal offense like rape, murder, robbery or assault whereas it had been a case associated with the environment that’s polluting the river of Yamuna.

These types of convictions are seen as very rare and in line with me, the court must make such convictions more frequently so as to safeguard the environment from degrading further.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Not only a private can approach through the provisions of the legislations associated with the Environment but also through filing a Public Interest Litigation Now, pollution of water is worried to a bigger public, and any dispute associated with water may be settled through filing a Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation is filed through Article 32 of the Constitution of India which provides about the proper Constitutional Remedies and thru Article 226 of the Constitution of India which provides about the ability of the court to issue certain writ Public Interest Litigation may be filed through Section 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides about common nuisance. Public Interest Litigation will be converted into writ and the other way around.

CASE DECISION

Right to induce clean water isn’t an enumerated right under the Constitution of India. This right was brought to light through various judicial pronouncements and has become an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. And also, in the case of Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the court is guaranteed to bear in mind Article 21 which offers about Right to life and private liberty, and Article 48A which provides the basic duties and Article 51A. (g) which provides about the Directive Principles of State Policy whenever a case associated with environmental problem is brought before such court.

CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION

Central Water Commission was established to perform various functions including the initiation, coordination, and consultation of the authorities within the matter associated with the preservation, control, utilization, and distribution of water resources to the citizens of India. The central water commission is now part of the state of India. It makes sure the utilization of water resources appropriately so as to regulate floods, and droughts, maintain irrigation, and provide potable, etc.

In recent time, thanks to Covid-19, there has been large control on the pollution not only to the water bodies but also control of pollution, noise, pollution, etc. the govt. must take this as a chance to stop any more pollution of the water bodies by bringing various other legislation or simply by improving the provisions of the present legislation. The provisions of current legislation shall be made stricter which creates fear within the minds of individuals from further polluting the environment.

CONCLUSION

Water isn’t a personal asset and is the main essential ingredient for the survival of the people. It’s important to regulate pollution caused to the river water, streams, wells, etc. because India includes a total of only 4% of the world’s H2O, uses 80% of that merely for farming, and using polluted water for farming will adversely affect the health of people. The second most populated country within the world is additionally home to thousands of ethnic and tribal groups which survive on the character or jungle for his or her food and water including the little streams of water from major rivers, the presence of chemical pollutants are incredibly harmful moreover as deadly in some cases. And also, the right to induce clean water isn’t an enumerated right but could be a right enforced under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 Hence Right to induce a clean beverages is additionally considered a a fundamental right and no one can deprive of such a right. If this right is empty a person, the one that has been aggrieved of those rights contains a right to approach under different provisions provided under the varied legislations. Different reasonable protection must even be given to major rivers and their connecting tanneries because these pollutants are directly affecting the habitat prospering around these rivers.

This article is written by Ashutosh Banshwar, a student of School of Law, Sharda University.

Introduction

A prostitute is a person who engages in sexual activity with customers in exchange for financial gain. Different countries and even different parts of the same country have different views on prostitution, which can range from being illegal to be legalized and even regulated in some cases. The rules apply the same to business as they do to sexual entertainment. The changing legal and social climate surrounding prostitution has led to a wide range of conclusions across the globe. Prostitution has been viewed very differently by different people. Some see it as a form of cruelty or barbarism towards women and children that contributes to the emerging crime of human trafficking, while others have a very different view. India is home to the second-oldest prostitute industry in the world (after farming). Records from the past attest to its existence.

Whether or not sex workers have any rights and are instead treated as sexual objects is an open question. India has failed to adequately defend the rights of sex workers, despite being a member of various international accords on human rights, including women’s rights, and despite the Indian Constitution guaranteeing people’s rights against discrimination. In light of this, the article will discuss the human rights of sex workers in India and whether or not the Indian legal system recognizes these workers’ rights. Our discussion will also include an examination of the differences and similarities between the prostitution laws of various nations.

Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal & Others

Budhadev Karmaskar was charged with the heinous murder of a prostitute who refused to engage in sexual activity with him. In 2004, Calcutta High Court ruled that the appellant was guilty of murder, bringing an end to the proceedings. With the proclamation of the judgment of conviction, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the punishment imposed on him. In 2010, Criminal Appeal No. 135 was dismissed due to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Calcutta High Court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s Suo Motto action of converting the appeal into Public Interest Litigation.

Case Facts

In 1999, the appellant Budhadev Karmaskar severely beat the head of a diseased sex worker in Calcutta’s red-light district when she refused to have a sexual encounter with him. In order to protect her sanity and dignity, the decedent’s head was repeatedly struck against the floor of a room, which resulted in her brutal death. Due to this act, the appellant was found guilty of the heinous crime of murdering a sex worker on charges of assault leading to death. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the basis that sex workers should not be looked down upon, but should be able to engage in prostitution with dignity and free will, and not through coercion or deception.

The Supreme Court has also taken corrective measures to reinstate the current prostitutes who were forced to engage in prostitution against their will by constituting a panel led by Senior Advocate Mr. Pradip Ghosh, with 4 other panel members and other staff members assisting them. For this, the panel has proposed that the Central Government, the State Government, and the Union Territories each contribute Rs. 10,000,000/-, subject to approval by the Supreme Court, in order to teach vocational and technical skills to sex workers so that they can earn a living and be rehabilitated into society with dignity.

Issues

1. How should Article 21’s reach and its definition of “life” be applied to guarantee that sex worker and their progeny have access to the right to live with dignity?
2. To choose a location for the panel’s accommodations.
3. How can sex workers be rehired, saved, and rehabbed into a safer setting?

Justice Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, who made up the judicial bench, made their decisions on the issues raised in this order.

The institution of SC validates the sex labour industry

Sexual servitude is not illegal in India. Sexual service workers should be treated with respect and given the same legal protections as everyone else. This is what a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) ruled here. It is a historic ruling. It’s a huge relief for the sexual service providers who endure extreme exploitation

Paid sex work is not illegal in India

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that sexual labour is not among the activities that are prohibited by Indian law. Operating a brothel, soliciting in a public place, benefiting financially from the labour of a sex worker, and keeping or frequently associating with a sex worker are all illegal under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act or ITPA. As has been widely reported in the media, the SC does not consider sex work to be a legitimate occupation. What the Supreme Court of India is saying is that everyone, regardless of occupation, has a right to live a dignified life under the Indian Constitution and that this constitutional protection must be taken into account by authorities as they enforce immoral traffic prevention laws.

What it proposes is that people should not verbally or physically abuse sex workers or coerce them into performing sexual acts, even though they are widely reviled and stigmatized by society. The Supreme Court rules that people who work in the sex industry should be treated with respect. The court ordered that law enforcement officers refrain from interfering with or prosecuting sex workers who are adults and who have given their informed consent. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a life worthy of his or her profession.

The law should treat sex workers the same as any other profession. A uniform application of criminal law is required, regardless of age or level of consent. Since sex work is not yet illegal in India, the police should not interfere or take any criminal action against the worker if they are an adult and have given their informed consent.

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision stands

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling from Budhadev Karmaskar (2011), which held that sex workers have the same basic human rights as anyone else. In 2011, SC convened a panel to investigate how best to protect sex workers from exploitation, help those who have been trafficked recover, and create a supportive environment for those who want to keep working in the sex industry.

The government has published a bill titled “The Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Care and Rehabilitation) Bill” in 2016, 2918, and 2021, but has taken no further action on it despite having reservations about four of the panel’s ten recommendations. So, until new legislation is introduced on the subject, the court issued an order mandating the immediate implementation of the six recommendations with which the central government has no objections.

Rights of Sex Workers

1. The law should treat sex workers the same as any other worker. Both the age of majority and the presence of informed consent must be treated equally under the law. The police have no right to intervene or undertake any kind of illegal activity if it is obvious that the sex worker is an adult and is giving informed consent.
2. Many people fear that police have a biased attitude toward sex workers. When a sex worker reports a crime, sexual assault, or other violation, the police must investigate the allegation thoroughly and take appropriate action.
3. According to “Guidelines and Protocols: Medico-legal care for survivor/victims of sexual violence,” Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any sex worker who is a victim of sexual assault should be provided with all facilities available to a survivor of sexual assault, including immediate medical assistance (March 2014).
4. Since voluntary sex work is not illegal and only the operation of a brothel is illegal, sex workers should not be arrested during a brothel raid.
5. State governments may be asked to survey all ITPA Protective Homes, with the goal of expediting the review and release of cases involving women held against their will as adults.
6. It’s been reported that law enforcement’s treatment of sex workers is frequently violent and hostile. As if they belong to some unrecognized group whose rights are ignored. All sex workers have the same constitutionally protected rights as any other citizen, and the police and other law enforcement agencies should be trained to respect those rights. The police should not verbally or physically abuse sex workers, force them to engage in sexual activity, or subject them to any form of violence.
7. The Press Council of India should be urged to issue guidelines urging the media to exercise extreme caution when reporting on sex workers’ identities in the wake of the arrest, raid, and rescue operations, whether the workers are victims or suspects, and when publishing or airing photographs that could reveal their identities. In addition, the media should be punished for broadcasting photos of sex workers with their clients under the guise of documenting a rescue operation in violation of the recently enacted Section 354C, IPC, which makes voyeurism a criminal offence.
8. Precautions taken by sex workers to ensure their own safety on the job (such as the use of condoms, etc.) must not be considered illegal or evidence of criminal behavior.
9. When making decisions about sex work, the federal and state governments should consult with sex workers and/or their representatives. This includes the creation of new policies and programs for sex workers as well as the revision or overhaul of existing legislation. They can be consulted before any decision that could affect them is made, or they can be given a voice on the decision-making panel.
10. Workshops should be held by the Central Government and the State Governments through the National Legal Services Authority, State Legal Services Authority, and District Legal Services Authority in order to educate sex workers about their rights regarding the legality of sex work, the rights and obligations of the police, and what is permitted/prohibited under the law. Sexual service providers should be made aware of their legal rights and how to exercise them to protect themselves from exploitation by traffickers and police.
11. No child of a sex worker should be separated from the mother on the sole basis that she is in the sex trade, as was already recommended in the 6th interim Report dated 22.03.2012. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that a minor who is living in a brothel or with sex workers has been trafficked.
12. If the sex worker claims the minor is her son or daughter, the child should not be forcibly separated from the sex worker pending the results of DNA testing. Mr. Jayant Sud, the learned ASG, has presented evidence that the Government of India has some reservations about the panel’s recommendations (with the exception of paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). In addition to implementing the panel’s recommendations as mentioned above, the competent authorities under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are directed to comply with the provisions of the Act. This includes acting in strict compliance with the recommendations made in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
13. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a dignified life, regardless of one’s occupation. Authorities tasked with enforcing the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 must do so with respect for the constitutional rights guaranteed to every citizen. After the summer break, we’ll get to work on the rest of the panel’s suggestions.

Conclusion

It is time to realize that getting rid of people who work in prostitution and outlawing prostitution practices won’t end the plight of people who work in prostitution; instead, it will only make their conditions worse because they will be forced to work in secret and will be mistreated in all situations because the act of prostitution won’t be recognized by the law. Since the act of prostitution won’t be recognized by the law, there is no legal status that will facilitate benefiting from and correcting the wrongs, in conclusion, the rehiring of people who have been exploited in the sex industry, whether they are prostitutes, sex workers, or victims of the sex trade, is a matter of right and not of sympathy or privilege.

This article is written by Uddeshya Tiwari, 3rd Year LLB student from Bharati Vidyapeeth University (New law College), Pune.

Background

In the areas of social, economic, political, and cultural transformation, India has seen ongoing social and structural changes. There have been several law reforms that have sparked both negative and positive responses from the public. Homosexuality and gays are usually seen as in the minority and in an unfavorable position in our society since India has always placed a strong emphasis on upholding the traditions and morality of its culture. One such topic, homosexuality, has been treated diplomatically in relation to Indian culture but has always received unfavorable media and public attention.

Despite the fact that sex-based discrimination is prohibited by the Indian Constitution, LGBT Indians have just lately received this protection. The constitutional prohibition against “discrimination on the basis of sex” was gradually expanded by the Supreme Court of India in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India in 2014 to encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court noted that such discrimination against those who don’t fit traditional assumptions of binary genders violates the Constitution’s protection of the basic right to equality. Four years later, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the capacity and freedom to select a self-defined sexual orientation and gender expression, including dress and language, are at the foundation of one’s identity.

Protection Against Discrimination At the Workplace

According to a 2016 LGBT workplace poll, more than 40% of LGBT individuals in India have experienced harassment at work due to their gender or sexual orientation. Many LGBT persons frequently have to conceal their sexual orientation out of concern about possible discrimination or job loss. Therefore, the LGBTQIA+ population continues to face difficulties with regard to employment access and workplace discrimination.

A “strong and fair” profession, according to the Law Council of Australia, “includes, accommodates, encourages, and respects a diverse range of individuals and views.” However, current research suggests that Australian legal professionals do not yet believe that the profession is truly inclusive of LGBTQI+ people. For instance, a 2017 study by Thomson Reuters of 653 Australian attorneys revealed that a resounding majority of the LGBTQI+ respondents felt the industry as a whole needed to do more to increase diversity and inclusion for LGBTQI+ persons.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act of 2013 recognizes exclusively women as victims of sexual harassment and ignores the fact that harassment can occur to anybody, regardless of gender. In other words, the party who feels wronged might also be a man, a transgender person, or any other member of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Crucial Issues faced by the LBGTQIA+ community

As per survey reports conducted in the UK, Two-fifths of LGBT+ respondents (38%) identified coming out to clients as a significant issue, while one-third (34%) of LGBT+ legal professionals named microaggressions (indirect, subtle, or inadvertent slights or insults) as a problem. Nearly half (42%) of respondents claimed that being LGBT+ has no impact on their ability to do their jobs. Some lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) respondents made the statement that they didn’t view their sexual orientation as their “identity” and that they didn’t think they went about their jobs any differently than other people.

Businesses need to take into account more than simply the potential talent drain. Important customer connections may also be in danger. Increasingly, large corporations and financial institutions want their legal teams to mirror the diversity of their own workforces. These highly sought-after clients have a lot of options, so a business might lose out if it doesn’t have a diverse team that includes LGBT people. According to Stonewall statistics, the productivity of LGBT attorneys drops by 30% when they aren’t openly present at work. Additionally, according to a study from Harvard Business Review, those who aren’t out are 73% more likely to quit their job in the next three years. Therefore, non-LGBT legal firms run the danger of underutilizing their LGBT staff and losing potentially profitable talent.

Workspace Experience in the UK

Workplaces must be inclusive, allowing individuals to be themselves, share ideas, and contribute from a variety of views, in order to realize the full potential of diversity. The majority of LGBT+ respondents to the study (97%) said they felt free to be themselves at work, either occasionally (44%) or always (53%).

Legal professionals who identify as LGBT+ were also more likely to report positive than negative workplace experiences. Positive workplace experiences were frequently attributed to the availability of formal and informal networks, whereas negative workplace experiences were linked to a lack of openly visible LGBT+ mentorship.

Workplace Experience in India

Mingle (Mission for Indian Gay & Lesbian Empowerment) successfully finished its first annual LGBT Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Survey in 2012 to provide an employee viewpoint. The poll included 455 LGBT professionals from 17 prestigious organizations (in engineering, software and IT services, and finance), of whom 65% identified as gay males, 25% as lesbians, and 10% as bisexual. A third of the interviewees mentioned workplace harassment, and 80% admitted to overhearing homophobic remarks in their workplaces. Positively, the poll discovered that open LGBT professionals performed better in this area than closeted workers.

Up to 90% of study respondents said that while deciding whether to join a firm, diversity and inclusion policies had a role. For their LGBT employees in India, several corporations, including Google, Infosys, and Goldman Sachs, have taken concrete action. It’s interesting to note that IBM addressed LGBTs in their equal opportunity policy after including it in the manager’s manual as early as 1984. By founding EAGLE (Employee Alliance for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Empowerment), a networking group that aims to provide senior employees with reverse mentoring benefits on a variety of issues ranging from alternative sexuality to career advancement, the company has already made a successful move.

IGLU, or Infosys Gay Lesbian Employees and You, is a project that works to establish a courteous and secure work environment for LGBT employees by holding special events and awareness activities to promote an inclusive culture.

Workspace Experience caused by harassment and discrimination

At some time in their careers, more than 40% of LGBT employees (45.5%) said they have encountered workplace discrimination or harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. LGBT workers reported facing a variety of forms of verbal, physical, and sexual harassment at work, as well as being dismissed or turned down for employment due to their gender identity or sexual orientation.

At least one kind of workplace discrimination, such as being fired or not being recruited because of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity, was reported by more than one in four (29.8%) LGBT workers at some point in their careers. At least one kind of workplace harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity was experienced by 37.7% of LGBT workers at some point in the year.

Why does Representation matter?

The foundation of Section 377 is gender stereotypes, which lead to discrimination based on sex. As Justice Chandrachud in his speech stated, “Statutes like Section 377 offer people justification to declare, ‘This is what a man is,’ by providing them a legislation that says, ‘This is what a man is not.’ The normative notion that certain behaviors, such as having sex with women, are proper for members of one sex but not for members of the other sex, is the basis for regulations that impact non-heterosexuals. Additionally, LGBTQ people’s rights cannot be limited to private areas. The right to sexual privacy, which is based on the autonomy of a free person, must include the community’s members’ ability to use public spaces as they see fit without interference from the government, as stated in Justice Chandrachud’s ruling in the Navtej Johar case. The right to privacy must thus be defined in terms of decisional autonomy rather than a limited definition of geographical privacy.

Significance of workplace diversity

The workforce of today is more varied than ever. Companies are becoming more conscious of the advantages of recruiting individuals from diverse backgrounds and the enormous value these workers add to the workplace. Companies that employ a diverse staff have 35 percent higher financial returns than national averages, according to a McKinsey analysis on workplace diversity. A well-managed diverse workforce will both decrease expenses and produce a greater profit. This exemplifies the value of diversity in the workplace for a company’s culture as well as its financial health. Employing LGBTQ people and fostering a supportive environment for them to thrive are two ways that businesses may profit from diversity. Diversity does not just imply including women and people from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds.

Benefits of Workplace Diversity for Queer People

LGBTQ-supportive policies will first and foremost have an immediate impact on specific workers, resulting in less workplace discrimination and more comfort with coming out as LGBTQ at work. The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies, a poll by the Williams Institute, found that LGBTQ individuals who feel the need to conceal their identity at work frequently experience higher levels of stress and anxiety, leading to health problems and job-related complaints. Businesses may enhance their LGBTQ employees’ health, increase job happiness, and foster better connections with coworkers and managers by fostering an LGBTQ-friendly workplace culture.

How important is it being “out” at work?

The fact that 83% of respondents said LGBTQI+ legal professionals could be themselves among their immediate peers and colleagues was a positive result of the 2020 study. However, the study did not reveal if LGBTQI+ respondents, who made up just 41% of the sample, felt otherwise than non-LGBTQI+ respondents. Our study reveals, however, that LGBTQI+ legal students feel less confident in their ability to be themselves at work. Several interviewees felt the need to self-censor their gender identity and/or sexuality in the job, despite their optimism for change in the industry. This is essential because it is obvious that working in a setting that is viewed as dangerous or unwelcoming can have a detrimental impact on the productivity, organizational culture, and well-being of LGBTQI+ employees. A significant number of respondents stressed the value of working in a supportive and accepting workplace where they do not feel the need to self-censor.

Conclusion

Therefore, gender-neutral regulations are what we need when it comes to workplace harassment. However, there is another very significant point that can be made here, namely that the LGBTQIA+ population may interpret sexually charged words or unwanted behavior differently. Gender-neutral harassment laws must be complemented with robust anti-discrimination regulations in light of the pervasive transphobia and homophobia in order to avoid abuse of such laws against the LGBTQIA+ population. It has been noted that for the LGBTQA community to feel safe and protected as citizens of India, we as members of society must embrace them for who they are. Discriminating against someone because of their identity is cruel; we need to change and be accepting of it. Regardless of their sexual orientation, their rights should be recognized as basic human rights. The LGBTQ community needs its own set of laws to defend itself against crimes like lynching, workplace discrimination, and sexual offenses, and the laws should be gender neutral to prevent them from violating their fundamental rights.

---

References

1. Naz Foundation Govt. v. NCT of Delhi, 2009
2. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law, 2018
3. UK Workplace Equality Index, n.d.
4. Diversity wins: How inclusion matters, 2020
5. 303 Creative v. Elenis: Amicus Brief, 2022

This article is written by Puneet Kaur, a second-year student at Amity University Punjab.

ABOUT THE FIRM

LPJ & PARTNERS LLP is one of the fast emerging and leading law firms in Delhi with a nationwide presence through its channel partners. LPJ was founded as a dynamic law firm that strives to be its client’s one-stop shop for any and all legal requirements. Their philosophy is to provide effective, efficient & creative legal solutions vide the active involvement of our learned team of lawyers and associates. Some of their areas of expertise include Debt Recovery, Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Mergers & Acquisitions, Contract Management and Employment Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Policy & Regulatory Advice, Due Diligence, Deal Management, Consumer Protection, Labour Law Incorporations, Certifications, Compliances, etc.

The firm is well conversant with the drafting of representations and initiating, defending, and pursuing litigation on the original and appellate sides in civil, criminal, consumer protection and service matters in District Courts, Commissions/Forums/Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court. They pride themselves on servicing all their clients, from different strata and backgrounds, with the same level of excellence, dedication and care that they deserve. LPJ has worked with a diverse range of clientele including well-known MNCs, Public Sector Undertakings, Media and Telecommunications, e-Commerce, Technology, Entrepreneurs, High Net Worth Individuals, NGOs and Foreign Law Firms.

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

LPJ & PARTNERS LLP is looking for interns looking to pursue litigation after graduation. Promising interns will be offered long-term internships along with a stipend.

HOW TO APPLY?

Interested candidates can send their applications to office@lpjpartners.com

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

ABOUT THE COMMISSION

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has been constituted under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005. It is the statutory watchdog of the Government of Delhi on matters of child rights. Some of the child rights the Commission works on are:

1. Protection of children from exploitation, abuse, labour, trafficking, and violence.
2. Protection of children from sexual offences;
3. Protection of children from child marriage;
4. Right to Education;
5. Right to Health with emphasis on pregnancy care, infant care, nutritional standards, immunisation, protection against malnutrition, etc;
6. Protection of rights of children with special needs;
7. Protection of children from substance abuse;
8. Enforcement of legal protections for children in case they commit offences and the necessary safeguards associated therein;
9. Right to play

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

1. Eligibility: Bachelors in Law, Social Work, Sociology, Education, Psychology
2. Stipend: Minimal Stipend
3. Duration: Minimum 2 Months
4. Mode: Physical/Offline

HOW TO APPLY?

Interested candidates can send their application to  advsuyashtripathi@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR LAW & ECONOMICS is organizing Workshop on Law & Economics.

ABOUT

The Centre for Law & Economics (CLE) is a center of excellence for research and training in the discipline of Law & Economics (also referred to as the Economic Analysis of Law). The Centre values rigorous work in the discipline and aims to promote awareness of and research in the field. It carries out courses and conferences for scholars, practitioners and students apart from publications on the economic analysis of contemporary legal issues. It aims to produce quality prescriptions for legislators, regulators and government departments and provide clear explanations
and guidance to businesses and ordinary citizens alike. Centre for Law and Economics has always tried to reach out to bright and young minds who have keen interest in employing economic tools and theories for legal analysis. Some of these efforts can be seen at GNLU Centre for Law and Economics page for Past Events. GNLU also offers a Ph.D. degree course in Economics to promote academic skill and research vigor in economics and law.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

• Click here to be redirected to payment portal
• Select ‘3rd GNLU Workshop on Law and Economics: Theories and Applications.’ in ‘Event Name’
• Fill in all the details and make the payment
• Post payment, kindly register yourself by clicking here. Kindly keep checking GNLU Centre for Law and Economics’ website for further updates: Click here for the website link.
• Students and Research Scholars – 1000/- (INR) –
• Academicians and Professionals – 1500/- (INR)

CONTACT DETAILS

9033821018

https://gnlu.ac.in//Document/content-docs/6020a1fa-9cb4-4816-b9a6-1ff4103b402e.pdf

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

His Highness Maharajas Government Law College, Ernakulam, India is organizing Global Bioethics Collective’s International Virtual Symposium.

ABOUT

Global Bioethics Collective (GBC) was conceptualized by Anamika Krishnan, an attorney, and a published author in the field of Feminist Bioethics. The initiative is expected to be a learning experience for students in Philosophy, Medicine, and Law. The platform encourages alternate approaches to the discipline of bioethics and legal scholarship. The Center for Law, Governance and Policy (CLGPS) is a think tank of His Highness Maharajas Government Law College, Ernakulam, India. It is a platform to forge ties between the college and civil society for a purposive dialogue regarding law and policy matters. His Highness Maharajas Government Law College, Ernakulam is a premier, public institution of legal learning, more than a century old, which has walked alongside the momentous and critical phases of the socio-economic-political journey of the State of Kerala.

EVENT DETAILS

The event has been divided into five, comprehensive sessions:

• Session 1: The Pandemic and Our Public Health Structures
• Session 2: The Onslaught on Reproductive Rights during the Pandemic
• Session 3: Climate Crisis and the Pandemic
• Session 4: Discrimination in Healthcare and the Pandemic
• Session 5: The Emergence of Alternate Approaches to Bioethics

This symposium has speakers from various countries in the world who are icons and trailblazers in their respective fields. This is an opportunity and an international learning experience for students and academics alike.

REGISTRATIONS

• Click here to Register for the symposium
• The registration is provided free of cost to all the attendees as we believe in disseminating the power of knowledge to everyone equitably. All the participants shall be provided with e-certificates. You are required to attend all the sessions. The deadline for registration is September 07, 2022, 4:00 pm IST.

BROCHURE

CONTACT DETAILS

globalbioethicscollective@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

The Journal of the Department of Labour Law and Administrative Law, TNDALU is making a call for papers.

ABOUT

The Department of Labour Law and Administrative Law in the School for Excellence in Law from the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai is pleased to invite original, unpublished manuscripts for publication in the First Volume of the Journal of the Department of Labour Law and Administrative Law (JDLAL), 2022-2023 in the field of Labour Law and Administrative Law.

ELIGIBILITY

The Editorial Board of the JDLAL is pleased to invite original, unpublished manuscripts from law students, researchers, legal practitioners, academicians and others in the field of Labour Law and Administrative Law.

SUBMISSION CATEGORIES

Authors are requested to strictly adhere to the given word limit. Word count is exclusive of footnotes:

• Research Papers: 4000 – 6000 words
• Articles: 4000 – 5000 Words
• Case comments and Book reviews: 1000 – 2000 words

Note – All manuscripts shall require five to six keywords and an abstract of not more than 250 words.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• All manuscripts are to be made in the electronic form to the following Email id dept.laljournal@gmail.com on or before 20th September, 2022. Submissions made through any other mode will not be accepted.
• Co- authorship is allowed only up to a maximum of 2 authors.
• The authors shall be required to submit a separate title page mentioning the title of the manuscript, category of the manuscript, author(s) name, affiliation, name of the institution, postal address, author’s contact details such as e-mail and contact number of the author designated to receive correspondence.
• The authors shall also be required to submit a declaration to the effect that the submitted work is the original and it does not violate copyright of any person.
• The manuscript must be original work of the author and free from grammatical and spelling errors. It must not contain any defamatory words or statements.
• The manuscript submitted to the journal mail-id shall be acknowledged within 7 days and will be sent for Initial screening.
• The manuscript clearing the initial screening stage shall be subjected to plagiarism check in Urkund software available with the University. Manuscripts exceeding plagiarism of 20% shall be rejected in this stage. A rejection mail shall be sent to the authors in this regard.
• The manuscript submitted to the journal must not be previously published or currently under review at any other journal/conference/book and should not be submitted to any other journal/conference/book while under review with us.
• Submission must be accompanied with an abstract of not more than 250 words. No paper will be accepted without an abstract.
• The final decision as to acceptance and publication of the manuscript rests with the Editorial board.
• NO FEE are to be paid at any stage for publication in the journal.
• Author/s are required to submit the manuscripts in Microsoft word document.
• The name of the document shall be the title of the manuscript.
• All submissions must be made online via email to E-mail ID: dept.laljournal@gmail.com.
• The subject of E-mail shall be “Submission for Volume 1 in JDLAL”.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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