Author: LEXPEEPS editor

The National Law University, Delhi is inviting applications for 10 Academic Fellows towards teaching and research in the following subjects:

• Public International Law
• Private International Law
• Environmental Law
• Law, Science and Technology
• Media and Communication Law
• International Trade Law
• Competition Law
• Jurisprudence
• Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
• Administrative Law
• Constitutional Law

Background:

The National Law University, Delhi is among India’s leading law universities, ranked second
in the National Institutional Ranking Framework for the last two years.

The University offers a five year integrated B.A., LL.B (Hons.) and one year postgraduate masters in law (LL.M), along with professional programs and certificate courses for nonlawyers. Through the All India Law Entrance Test, the university admits 120 students into the B.A., LL.B (Hons.) course and 80 students into the LL.M course.

The University has made tremendous contributions in public discourse on law through pedagogy and research. Over the last decade the university has established many specialised research centres and this includes the Centre for Communication Governance, Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition, Centre for Corporate Law and Governance, Centre for Criminology and Victimology, and Project 39A. Through its faculty, the University has made submissions, recommendations, and worked in advisory/consultant capacities with government entities, universities in India and abroad, think tanks, private sector organisations, and international organisations. As a leading institution of higher learning in India, the University is also keen to create interdisciplinary approaches as part of its commitment towards high quality education and research.

The Academic Fellowship is a flagship programme created by the University to nurture early
career academics in teaching and research. Academic Fellows are expected to contribute to
the intellectual growth of the University, and will be mentored by senior faculty members. In
this background, applications are invited from academics and early career scholars in law,
social sciences, humanities, technology and other allied disciplines.

Responsibilities:

Fellows are expected to assist in teaching & undertake research in relevant
areas in consultation with the University.

Eligibility:

• LL.M or relevant Masters degree in Social Sciences/ Humanities/ Science and Technology from a recognised Indian or foreign university with minimum 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), and a good academic record.
• For those applying with a relevant Masters degree in Social Sciences/ Humanities/Science and Technology/Engineering, there must be a clear and demonstrable track record of interdisciplinary research involving the law.
• Applicants in this category should not have qualified for their first undergraduate degree before 01-01-2016.

Requirements:

Demonstrable research track record in any one of the subjects mentioned in
this call. Interdisciplinary research will be considered as an advantage.

Pay Scale:

INR 50,000 per month

Nature of Appointment:

Contractual

Application Process:

The following materials need to be submitted digitally.

• Statement of Purpose (750 words)
• Resume, including publications authored or co-authored, if any
• Proposed research (750 words)
• Copy of undergraduate degree, clearly indicating date and year of graduation
• Copy of Master’s degree, clearly indicating date and year of graduation
• Any other document relevant to this application not already submitted above

Application Form

Please access the application form here.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Fi6bU1h_vwauhtkO9Z5RsujLlTFCedPUBwiFUKg9mkU/edit

Last date for submission:

23:59 Hrs/11.59 PM on 22nd August 2021.

Conditions:

• The application must be submitted through the online form specified in this
• advertisement. Physical/ email applications will not be considered.
• Candidates will be shortlisted based on an assessment of their application materials
• submitted through the online form, and only shortlisted candidates will be
• interviewed.
• Only those candidates selected for the interview will be contacted. If you do not hear
• from the University within 4 weeks after the deadline, please assume that your
• application has been unsuccessful.
• The eligibility criteria listed here do not guarantee an interview or a final offer.
• NLU Delhi reserves the right not to fill the positions advertised here.
• NLU Delhi is an equal opportunity employer.

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

On Monday the Supreme Court observed the plea which was filed by a petitioner the advocate Mr. Yadav claiming against the people who spread the unfair criticism on the vaccination policy on social media or in the public domain. And the petitioner left the entire burden of the petition of PIL to be cast by the court.

Concerning this, the bench of Justice Chandrachud and MR Shah stated that the petitioner should at least submit some products of the FIRs and some details related to the case to proceed further. That is not the court’s policy to take over the case by leaving behind the court to cast over the petition by the petitioner since he filed a general petition. It is in the litigant’s role to bring all the required products to bring before the court to support the claim and to provide some justice to the case.

Meanwhile, the bench asked the petitioner to tell about one person against whom such action was taken. In reply to this, the petitioner Yadav brought a case related to the Lakshadweep controversy which was filed in Delhi NCT and UP and the Kerala High Court granted them anticipatory bail. The bench responded that the Lakshadweep controversy is completely different as compared to this case so the petitioner can’t link that case to this, and let’s not confuse the matter that he is discussing the case that was been pending before the Kerala HC, we also read newspapers, Said the bench. On this, the petitioner replied and asked the police station to provide him the FIR copies but they failed to provide the copy so the petitioner requested the court to direct the police station to provide the copy.

The request of the petitioner was denied by the bench stating that we provide all support to your case as far as you provide some essential reading and evidence or research related to the case. And the bench also dismissed some PILs in Allahabad and Mumbai due to this reason. So the bench asked the petitioner to come back again on Friday with the essentials to precede the case further.

-Report by AJISHA

Former Supreme Court judges Aftab Alam, Madan B Lokur, Gopala Gowda, and Deepak Gupta came together for a webinar organized by the non-profit Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) on Saturday over the misuse of anti-terror legislation in India.

Justice Alam said, “When compared to the number of cases registered, the conviction rate drops to 2 percent, while the pendency rate rises to 98 percent.” He believes the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, UAPA has failed the country on two fronts: national security and constitutional liberty, and that such law should be repealed.

Justice Gupta agreed with Justice Alam and expounded on the overuse of the sedition law and UAPA, saying that it has become increasingly harsh over time and should be repealed as soon as possible. Dissent is necessary in a democracy, and draconian rules have no place. In recent years, laws have been utilized to suppress dissent and silence those who pose questions to the government. We need an anti-terror law that solely applies to acts of terrorism and It must not be abused.

According to Justice Gowda, rules like UAPA provide security agencies unrestrained power and the government the opportunity to abuse them. Noting that the UAPA limits judges’ ability to order a judicial review, Gowda claimed that a law that restricts the ability of the courts to issue bail is unconstitutional in itself.

Justice Lokur observed, “In addition to being imprisoned for no reason, the apprehended individuals are subject to “soft torture” in jail. What kind of a society do we seek to build?” He said. “Long incarceration, overcrowding in jails and solitary confinement, lack of sleep and space as well as lack of proper nutrition, sanitation, and medical facilities are the reality of our judicial system. I’ve visited children’s homes where 50 children share a single toilet. Adult correctional facilities may be preferable. Isn’t this, however, a form of torment?”

“The point is whether courts as protectors of human rights are failing in their duty to protect human rights,” said Justice Anjana Prakash, a former Patna High Court judge, and senior advocate. According to the UAPA, the court shall not grant bail. We’ve got an inverted pyramid of discretion. The Supreme Court has wide discretion in issuing orders, although the UAPA limits the discretion of the Supreme Court and High Court. “This is ridiculous,” She exclaimed.

This came after the recent death of Father Stan Swamy, accused in the Bhima Koregoan case. The retired judges were in consensus that the death of the tribal rights activist was an example of how the anti-terror statute was being exploited and it was high time to repeal the archaic law.

-Report by VANESSA RODRIGUES

About Vidhi

The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy is an independent think tank doing legal research and assisting the government in making better laws. Vidhi is committed to producing legal research of the highest standard with the aim of informing public debate and contributing to improved governance. Vidhi works with Ministries of the Government of India and State Governments, as well as other public institutions, providing research and drafting support at various stages of law-making. Vidhi also conducts and freely disseminates independent research in areas of legal reform which it believes is critical to India’s future. Vidhi is an equal opportunity employer and neither practices nor tolerates any kind of discriminatory behaviour.

Role Description

Vidhi is interested in hiring a Research Fellow for the Vidhi Maharashtra Office. Vidhi Maharashtra aims at conducting legal research and facilitating legal reforms at the state level, by providing research and drafting assistance to the state government offices, and also through independent legal research. The Fellow will primarily work on inter-disciplinary projects in the domain of legal policy work that is tied to state level reforms, and will be expected to:

• Undertake high quality legal research, analysis and legislative drafting for engaged government projects as well as independent projects taken on by Vidhi at its own behest;
• Prepare quality reports, research notes and presentations;
• Participate in meetings with government officials and other stakeholders, for presenting Vidhi’s research work.

Eligibility:

Essential Requirements:

• Undergraduate and/or postgraduate degree in Law;
• At least 1-2 years of demonstrable work experience in the domain of legal research;
• Fluency in Marathi;
• Excellent legal research and writing/drafting skills;
• Excellent communication/presentation skills.

Desirable requirements:

• Experience in interacting with government officials, civil society groups, and concerned stakeholders;
• Prior experience in data gathering and empirical research methods; 
• Prior publications in legal journals and newspapers;

Location and Salary

• This is a full-time position based out of Mumbai (the Fellow will work remotely till further notice).
• The Fellow will be engaged in this position for a duration of one year, and renewal shall be subject to performance.
• Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Application Process

• Interested candidates should apply through our online portal and must submit the following documents merged in one document:

1. Latest Curriculum Vitae (CV) in not more than two A4 pages;
2. An original writing sample of not more than 1000 words with an in-depth analysis on any recent legal issue, that demonstrates the candidate’s legal analysis and writing skills;
3. A brief statement of motivation in applying for the position, in not more than 500 words;
4. Names and contact details of two professional referees who may be contacted for references.

• The deadline to submit applications is 31 August 2021.
• Queries may be sent only through e-mail, titled ‘Vidhi Maharashtra – Application for Research Fellow’ addressed to careers@vidhilegalpolicy.in. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

How to Apply?

https://vclp.kekahire.com/JobDetails/8958

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

DESCRIPTION

Amazon’s Legal Department is looking for a smart and talented business lawyer to support our rapidly growing and evolving marketplace business in India. This is an individual contributor position based in Bangalore. Some domestic and international travel may be required. The Corporate Counsel will report to the Senior Corporate Counsel.
In this role, you will counsel our seller services, brand relations, marketplace trust and tech businesses on a broad range of legal matters involving foreign direct investment, competition, product compliance, consumer protection, Legal Metrology, information technology and intellectual property laws. You will be primarily responsible for advising on cutting-edge business initiatives; providing day-to-day corporate and business law counseling; conducting legal review and structuring of business programs and products; advising on procedural, compliance matters; and resolving issues that arise in existing commercial relationships and pre-litigation legal disputes. You will also be involved in structuring, drafting and negotiating day to day as well as complex high value contracts. You will work independently with various business teams, serving as counsel for development and launch of key seller and brand programs for Amazon.in marketplace.
In doing your job, you will work in close coordination with global legal teams and external counsel. You will closely coordinate with the global legal teams and outside counsel. In addition to business teams, you will lead initiatives in liaison with tax, litigation, finance, public relations and public policy teams.

Estimated Bifurcation of Essential Functions
· Structure, draft and evaluate new engagement models for different business. Continuously work with business teams to review existing models with intent to simplify them on ongoing basis. (50%)
· Provides day-to-day legal advice on marketplace (seller and brand protection) business. (25%)
· Work with legal leadership and team members to develop practice standards and department processes, effectively communicate legal and policy issues in a timely and proactive manner. (10%)
· Lead and liaise on cross-functional initiatives with litigation, public policy, public relations and tax teams. (10%)
· Work with stakeholders to keep policies current and impart legal training to stakeholders. (5%)

BASIC QUALIFICATIONS

· Law degree (LLB) from a leading university or law school
· 8+ years of legal experience (with several years of experience at a leading law firm and/or in-house at a large organization employing large number of employees).
· Company Secretarial certification and practice experience in India

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS

· A mix of corporate law firm and in-house experience in India is a plus
· Experience in advising multi-national companies and businesses operating at scale
· Excellent organizational skills and the ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects, smartly prioritize and meet stringent deadlines.


Amazon is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, protected veteran status, disability, age, or other legally protected status.

https://account.amazon.jobs/en-US/login?job=1473556&relay=%2Fen-US%2Fjobs%2F1473556%2Fapply%3Fcmpid%3DSPLICX0248M%26ss%3Dpaid%26utm_campaign%3Dcxro%26utm_content%3Djob_posting%26utm_medium%3Dsocial_media%26utm_source%3Dlinkedin.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

Supreme Court on Friday Stated that India cannot have two parallel legal systems out of which one for the influential and rich people and another one for the poor.

This was stated by Supreme Court in a Murder case of Congress leader Devendra Chaurasia of Madhya Pradesh where the High Court has granted bail to the accused who is the husband of a Madhya Pradesh BSP legislator. The accused Mr. Govind Singh was arrested in the accusation Congress leader in March, there are also another 28 Criminal cases registered against him and Singh was granted bail by the High court.

When the apex court came to know about it took up the matter and the bench comprising of justices D Y Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy had observed the case. It has been noted that the accused has been protected by the police because of its power and influence and so put aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which has granted bail to Mr. Singh. Along with bench also said that existing of two different legal systems will decline the legality and validity of the law.

The apex court also jogs the court memory of the state that is not their duty to protect the politicians or come under their pressure just because they are influential.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

Recently, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice had notified parliament that there are in total 453 vacant seats of Judges in different High Courts across the Country.

The list of vacant seats of Judges goes like this Allahabad High Court has 66 vacancies, Bombay High court has 31, Calcutta High Court has 41, Delhi High Court 30, Madhya Pradesh has 24, and Gujarat High Court 24, Punjab & Haryana 39, and Rajasthan High court has 27 vacancies. The Himachal High Court has had no Justices since 1st July and whereas Sikkim, Manipur, and Meghalaya have no vacancy.

Justifying this situation Law Minister Kiren Rijiju stated in his reply to Rajya Sabha that filling up such vacancies is a continuous, integrated, and collaborative process and as it is a long process so it takes time. Efforts are been made to fill up these vacancies and always new vacancies are coming up and it’s also the reason for vacancies not been filled. It was also stated that various recommendation was made by Supreme court Collegium which was around 80 names out of which 45 have been appointed and rest are still pending in the process.

Supreme Court stated that various orders have been passed by a different bench to fill up this High Court never-ending vacancies still are pending and it is ordered to fill it up in reasonable time.

-Report by RIDDHI DUBEY

A petition to the Supreme Court has been filed to establish the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Appellate Tribunal. The case, which is expected to be heard soon, claims that the tribunal has not been established even though the Central Goods and Services Act has been in effect for four years.

It was stated that in the absence of a Tribunal, citizens who have been wronged are forced to contact their respective high courts, which is overburdening the work of the high courts. “In the absence of an Appellate Tribunal, litigants are unable to obtain justice within a reasonable timeframe, creating significant hardship to litigants across the country,” according to the PIL filed by advocate Amit Sahni.

It stated that the creation of national and other Appellate Tribunal benches has become an imperative necessity of the hour and that the respondents cannot delay its establishment indefinitely. It further stated that the period of limitation to file an appeal before the tribunal, which is 90 days, cannot be extended by the Centre by administrative order in violation of statutory rules, and that such an extension cannot be granted indefinitely.

In the plea, the following assertions are made:

• The petitioner pointed out that under the CGST Act, anyone who is dissatisfied by an order issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 or the Revisional Authority under Section 108 has three months to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112. Despite the presence of such a clear legal mandate, the Centre has taken no action to establish a National Bench or other Appellate Tribunal Benches.
• The petitioner also claimed that the Department of Revenue had stated in response to a catena of representations filed by aggrieved litigants that the reason for the delay in forming the Appellate Tribunal was because the Madras High Court had ordered the Central government to amend the CGST Act in the case of Revenue Bar Association v. Union Of India and Consider appointing lawyers with more than 10 years of experience as Judicial Members of the Tribunal’s National and Other Benches.

-Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

The Kerala High Court heard public interest litigation on Thursday, urging the Centre to reconsider the status of Muslims and Christians as minorities in the state. After hearing the petitioner’s arguments, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly reserved orders in the case.

Citizens Association for Secularism (CADETS), the petitioner, is a non-profit organization dedicated to end discrimination and promote equality among citizens. The petitioner was represented by attorneys C Rajendran and K Vijayan. CADETS (Democracy, Equality, Tranquility, and Secularism) is a non-profit organization that works to eliminate discrimination and promote equality among citizens. The petition sought that the Centre examines the status of Muslim and Christian minorities in Kerala to determine if they should be kept on the list of minority communities in the state, and so re-determine the list of minorities. The petitioner organization also requested that the National Commission for Minorities issue a directive to the Centre to assess the progress of these communities’ development in the state.

The petition’s main point was that Muslims and Christians no longer had any fear of the majority population dominating them or depriving them of their socioeconomic, educational, and political rights. It was said that, while being in fewer numbers than Hindus, they had evolved to a higher degree than Hindus in all aspects of life in the State over time.

To support their argument, CADETS cited the landmark decisions of Bal Patil & Anr v. Union of India & Ors [AIR 2005 SC 3172] and TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [2002 (8) SCC 481] that a community should be protected only if there is a fear that the majority community will dominate them and deprive them of their rights and interests in socioeconomic and educational fields.

-Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA