Author: LEXPEEPS editor

Nyaaya is a pioneering initiative of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy ideated by Rohini Nilekani that provides simple, actionable, reliable information on day-to-day legal problems.

With a view to expanding the reach of their blogs, they are inviting law students from institutions across the country to be contributing writers for the same. If selected, this could be a great opportunity for students to be contributors to one of the top law blogs of the country.

What are they looking for?

• Send us a 50 word brief on the topic you want to write about. Your proposed blog post must coincide with a topic already explained on nyaaya.org, and must present simple and actionable legal information in a creative manner.

• They only accept listicles and FAQ blog posts, for now, i.e. posts that aim to provide more legal information than opinions.
• If you have other creative ideas for disseminating information on laws through their blogs, do write to them. They would be happy to hear them.

How to pitch your idea?

Email your pitch to contact@nyaaya.in, with “Blog Pitch” as your email subject line. Please mention your name, university, year of study and phone number in the email along with your pitch.

Acceptance of topics

If they find your topic interesting, and if it meets the necessary criteria for the Nyaaya blog, they will reach out to you. Once your pitch has been accepted, you will be assigned to a Nyaaya team member, who will work with you for editing, review, submissions and deadlines.

Please note that the final call for publishing your blog post rests with the Nyaaya team.

The selection of your pitch does not guarantee publication.

Let’s get pitching!

Contact Information

Instructions on how to pitch for the same can be found in the attached poster. If you have any queries, please feel free to reach at contact@nyaaya.in.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court, in its judgment acquitting a man accused of raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed that misconception of fact arising out of promise to marry has to be in proximity if time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a long period of time coupled with a conscious positive action not to protest.

The allegation by the Prosecuterix in this case was that the accused Maheshwar Tigga has been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. It was also alleged that she had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with him. The trial Court convicted him under sections 376, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The Karnataka High Court dismissed his appeal. 

While considering his appeal, the bench comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee noted that in this case, the accused belonged to the Scheduled Tribe while the prosecutrix belonged to the Christian community. The court also said that the letters between them, which were produced as Exhibits, makes it apparent that their love for each other grew and matured over a sufficient period of time. The Court said that the couple was smitten by each other and passion of youth ruled over their minds and emotions. The physical relations that followed were not isolated or sporadic in nature, but regular over the years. The prosecutrix had even gone and resided in the house of the appellant. The delay of four years in lodgment of the FIR, at an opportune time of seven days prior to the appellant solemnizing his marriage with another girl, on the pretext of a promise to the prosecutrix raises serious doubts about the truth and veracity of the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix .

The Court said that, these letters would show that the accused was serious about the relationship desiring to culminate the same into marriage. But unfortunately for societal reasons, the marriage could not materialize as they belong to different communities, it said. The court said that the section 375 would apply only if the accused intentionally made a fraudulent misrepresentation from the very inception and the prosecutrix gave her consent on a misconception of fact.

The bench referred to two recent judgments: Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC 327 and in Promod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.

While acquitting the accused, the bench further observed that the prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. An engagement ceremony was also held in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be overcome, but unfortunately differences also arose whether the marriage was to solemnized in the church or in a temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold on the evidence available that the appellant right from the inception did not intend to marry the prosecutrix ever and had fraudulently misrepresented only in order to establish physical relation with her. The prosecutrix in her letters acknowledged that the appellant’s family was always very nice to her. The consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, because of her deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behavior are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love.

CASE NAME – Maheshwar Tigga vs. The State of Jharkhand

Introduction

The Apex Court on Monday set aside the conviction of the accused made by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, the appeal of which was dismissed at the High Court. The bench consisted of Justice R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee.

The appellant assailed his conviction under Sections 376,323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to seven years, one year and one moth respectively with fine and a default stipulation.

The prosecutrix, PW9 lodged FIR No. 25 of 1999 on 13.04.1999 alleging that four years ago the appellant had outraged her modesty at the point of a knife. He had since been promising to marry her and on that pretext continued to establish physical relations with her as husband and wife. She had also stayed at his house for fifteen days during which also he established physical relations with her. Five days prior to the lodging of FIR the appellant had established physical relations with her on 09.04.1999. The appellant had cheated her as now he was going to solemnize his marriage with another girl on 20.04.1999. All efforts at a compromise had failed.

After being aggrieved by the decision given by the Trial Court the appeal reached the High Court, where the same was dismissed opining that the letters written by the appellant to the prosecutrix, their photographs together, and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Hence, the case reached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Decision

The Court after hearing both the sides, opined while acquitting the accused:

• The Court reemphasized the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the bench contended that the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were very casual and perfunctory, leading to denial of proper opportunity of defence causing serious prejudice to him by denial of the right to a fair trial. The Court referred to Naval Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 502 said that it stands well settled that circumstances not put an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the 6 principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusations without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has time and again, has emphasized the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
• The Court considered the opinion that the appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties. The prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. The attempt to overcome this obstacle engagement ceremony was also held but differences arose whether marriage was solemnized in Church or Temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold on the evidence available that the appellant right from the inception did not intend to marry the prosecutrix ever and had fraudulently misrepresented only in order to establish physical relation with her. The prosecutrix in her letters acknowledged that the appellant’s family was always very nice to her.
• The Court concluded that the consent of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and which opportunity was available to her, because of her deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly permit him liberties with her body, which according to normal human behavior are permitted only to a person with whom one is deeply in love.
• The Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 420 and 504 IPC and said there is no medical evidence on record to sustain the conviction under Section 323 IPC. No offence is made out against the appellant under Section 341 IPC considering the statement of prosecutrix that she had gone to live with the appellant for 15 days of her own volition.

Key Highlights

• Case name: Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand
• This was Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020

Counsel: Sr. Advocate V. Mohana, Advocate Pragya Baghel

This article has been written by pursuing BBA.LLB from FIMT, IP University. In the below-given article, you’ll get to know the necessary information about “Fundamental Right to Privacy”, its beginning, background and impacts. Picture Credits to iab.com

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India in a memorable judgment announced the privilege to security as a central right ensured under the Indian Constitution. In announcing that this correct stems from the principal right to life and freedom, the Court’s choice has sweeping results.

A nine-judge seat of the Supreme Court on account of Puttuswamy v. Association of India has pronounced that the privilege to security is an essential right ensured under Part III of the Constitution of India. While basically cantered around the person’s privilege against the State for infringement of their security, this milestone judgment will have repercussions across both State and non-State entertainers and will probably bring about the authorization of a complete law on protection.

Background

The judgment was articulated because of a reference made regarding the lawful test to India’s public personality venture – Aadhaar – during which the Advocate General of India contended that the Indian Constitution does exclude inside it a basic right to security. His contentions depended on two cases chose by the Supreme Court – one, MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra chose by an eight appointed authority seat in 1954 and the other, Kharak Singh v. Province of Uttar Pradesh, by six adjudicators in 1962. The two cases had held, in various conditions, that the Constitution of India doesn’t explicitly ensure the privilege to protection. In the 55 years that have gone since these cases were chosen, there hasn’t been a bigger seat of Supreme Court that has thought about this issue, and hence these decisions were all the while official.MP Sharma managed the privilege against self-implication and, while it referenced the privilege to security in passing, obviously these remarks were stray perceptions, best case scenario. Kharak Singh was a confounding choice that held, from one perspective, that any interruption into an individual’s house is an infringement of freedom (depending on a US judgment on the privilege to security), however proceeded to express that there was no privilege to protection contained in our Constitution. Since these were eight and six appointed authority seats of the Supreme Court, each resulting court needed to manage this disarray admirably well. In the resulting instance of Gobind v. Territory of Madhya Pradesh, a three-judge seat, aware of its failure to upset a judgment of a bigger seat, evaded around the irregularity by ‘expecting’ that the privilege to security was ensured under the constitution – depending on the initial segment of the Kharak Singh judgment without explicitly getting out it’s irregularity with the second. Numerous littler seats went with the same pattern expanding on these standards to express a crucial right of protection with regards to clinical security, wedding security, reputational security, protection of sexual direction and some more. Notwithstanding, given that this statute had been on dubious establishments, it was consistently powerless to challenge. The assignment under the watchful eye of the nine-judge seat in the current case was to settle the law unequivocally. They did so decidedly – over-administering both MP Singh and Kharak Singh to the degree that those choices had held that there was no crucial right to protection. They additionally over-controlled the ADM Jabalpur case – a choice that considered central rights to be suspended during a State pronounced crisis and raised doubt about the legal thinking in the Naz Foundation case that had recommended that the ‘infinitesimal minority’ LGBTQ people group was not qualified for a privilege to security. This choice has associated our protection law throughout the years with our global duties and set up our similarity with near laws around the globe.

Key Factors in the Judgment

The judgment was consistent with each of the nine appointed authorities agreeing with the last request. Notwithstanding, six adjudicators – Justice Chandrachud, Justice Nariman, Justice Chimaleshwar, Justice Kaul, Justice Sapre and Justice Bobde, composed separate sentiments covering a wide scope of issues.

 (a) Right to Privacy – A Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court affirmed that the privilege to protection is a major right that shouldn’t be independently expressed however can be gotten from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a characteristic right that remains alive as a necessary part to one side to life and freedom. It is a central and natural right and joins to the individual covering all data about that individual and the decisions that he/she makes. It shields a person from the examination of the State in their home, of their developments and over their regenerative decisions, selection of accomplices, food propensities, and so on. Accordingly, any activity by the State that outcomes in an encroachment of the privilege to security is dependent upon legal audit.

(b) Not an Absolute Right – Subject to Reasonable Restrictions

The Supreme Court was making careful effort to explain that the major right to security isn’t outright and will consistently be dependent upon sensible limitations. It held that the State can force limitations on the privilege to security to ensure genuine State interests however it can just do as such by following the three-pronged test summed up beneath: Presence of a law that legitimizes an infringement on security; A real State point or need that guarantees that the nature or the substance of this law falls inside the zone of sensibility and works to prepare for subjective State activity; and The methods received by the State are corresponding to the articles and needs tried to be satisfied by the law. Thus, all State activity that could affect security will currently must be estimated against this three-overlap test. This is probably going to affect a few continuous activities including above all, the Aadhaar personality venture.

(c) Other Incidental Implications

There are a few extra ramifications of this judgment on issues coincidental to the chief issue chose by the Court: By explicitly perceiving a person’s entitlement to protection with respect to his sexual decisions, the judgment is probably going to affect the request forthcoming under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court on the de-criminalization of homosexuality in India. To the degree that the judgment has expressed that the State can’t meddle in the food decisions of an individual it will affect the different cases fighting the prohibition on meat forced by specific States. The judgment has additionally mentioned a few objective facts on the unpredictable connection between close to home security and large information, especially with regards to how the prudent utilization of these advancements can bring about the State accomplishing its real advantages with more noteworthy efficiencies. It has additionally perceived the effect that non-State entertainers can have on close to home protection especially with regards to instructive security on the Internet. While essential rights are customarily just upheld against activities of the State, given the wide language of the judgment and the degree to which enlightening security has been alluded to in the judgment, there is worry among specific specialists that these standards will stretch out to the private segment too. Perceiving the multifaceted nature of every one of these issues, the Court featured the need to institute an extensive enactment on security and noticed that the legislature has just selected a board of trustees under the chairmanship of resigned Justice BN Srikrishna to investigate these issues. Provided this solid guidance from the Supreme Court, all things considered, the Government of India will twofold down on its endeavors to authorize an extensive security enactment.

Effect of the Judgment

The quick effect of this judgment on organizations is probably going to be restricted. The choice was given so as to set very still an agitated situation in law that had a heading on various cases presently under the watchful eye of different courts of the land. Since this has been done, every one of those cases will be chosen their benefits depending on the abundance of sentiments communicated in the current judgment. Thusly, sooner rather than later, we are probably going to get a progression of decisions on a wide scope of issues that have an orientation on various parts of security which will offer more prominent clearness on the way in which Indian courts will take a gander at these issues. It is additionally clear, given the express bearings of the Supreme Court in such manner, that the administration is probably going to order a complete protection law dependent on the suggestions of the Justice Srikrishna advisory group. With this, the security commitments of enterprises towards their clients and workers are probably going to be explained and another system for the insurance of individual protection set up.

Latest Posts

• Job opportunity at EXO Edge, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Vishwas Advisors, Kalyan, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Internship opportunity at Kulfi Collective, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!
• Job opportunity at The Neotia University, Diamond Harbour, West Bengal, India: Apply Now !!
• Job opportunity at Morgan Stanley, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at VISA INTELLIGENCE CONSULTANCY LLP, New Delhi, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!  
• Job opportunity at Amazon Web Services (AWS), Gurugram, Haryana, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Stelcore Management Services Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Zscaler, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at Irish Expert, Delhi, India: Apply Now!!
• Job opportunity at UnitedLex · Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Apply Now!
• Internship opportunity at Vineforce · Nabha, Punjab, India: Apply Now!!

---

• ACEDY (1)
• CLAT-Peeps! (10)
  • Current Affairs (2)
• competitions (132)
• Conferences and Seminars (201)
  • Webinar (1)
• Course and Workshops (107)
• Debates (46)
• DEGY (1)
• Eassy Competitions (69)
• Fellowships & Scholarships (56)
• Guest Blogs (6)
• important (29)
• Internships and Jobs (2,317)
• interviews (8)
• LEGY (1)
• moot court (180)
• Opportuintes (2,731)
  • Job Opportunity (1,191)
• opportunity (2,559)
  • Call for papers (475)
  • Quizes,fests and others (298)
  • Work Opportunity (836)
• Our Blog (1,049)
  • Administrative Law (17)
  • ADR (13)
  • Arms Act (2)
  • Case Analysis (205)
  • Company law (36)
  • Constitutional Law (143)
  • Consumer Protection Act (17)
  • Contract Law (62)
  • CPC (10)
  • Criminal Law (140)
  • Cyber Law (13)
  • Environmental Laws (30)
  • Evidence Act (20)
  • Family Law (12)
  • General (205)
  • International Humanitarian Law (8)
  • International law (23)
  • IPR (10)
  • Jurisprudence (13)
  • labor laws (7)
  • Maritime Laws (1)
  • Partnership Act (2)
  • personal law (33)
  • Taxation (10)
  • Tort (64)
  • Transfer of Property (2)
• Our Services (11)
  • career advice (2)
  • others (6)
• Top Stories (524)
• Uncategorized (720)

• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• July 2023
• June 2023
• May 2023
• April 2023
• March 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• July 2022
• June 2022
• May 2022
• April 2022
• March 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• July 2021
• June 2021
• May 2021
• April 2021
• March 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• July 2020
• June 2020
• May 2020
• April 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• November 2019

INTRODUCTION

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision dated 17.09.2020 stated that a premature compulsory retirement is within the statutory guidelines of the state in order to regulate efficiency in work regime and terminate the services of employees either if they have attained  age of 55 years or have completed their 20 years of service. The hearing took place through video conferencing with the bench consisting Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Meenakshi Mehta.

The appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal to challenge order dated 28.07.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of the Court whereby his appeal was dismissed, as he was retired prematurely at the age of 55.

Key Highlights

• Case name: Hawa Singh Bhambhu v. State of Haryana and another.
• This was LPA No.593 of 2020.
• Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Jindal representing the appellant and Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana representing the respondents.

Court’s Decision

The Court held that as per the State regulations it is completely lawful to terminate the services of employee, as in to retire the employee in two conditions-

• If the employee has completed 20 years of service;
• If the employee has attained the age of 55 years.

Court observed that the statutory guidelines framed by State permitting premature retirement aims at providing clean administration, attaining efficiency, strengthening administrative machinery at all levels and weeding out deadwood where integrity was doubtful.

Moreover, the Court pointed out a precedent wherein the set proposition of law in order to ascertain the premature retirement is justified or not, the competent authority need to access the capacity of the employee prematurely, if the employee is no more fit and capable to carry the service in hand efficiently then premature retirement will be completely valid and justified under the regulations.

However, while hearing the appeal the bench held a contrary view and emphasized on the objective test required to validate and justify the premature retirement rather than the set of conditions expressly stated under the regulations. In the present case, the appellant, Tehsildar had good conduct during the course of his employment and evidently there is no such record reflecting any such conduct which favors his premature retirement and thus appeal was allowed.

The Court held that though premature retirement is permissible under the State regulations, however one cannot execute the same without proper assessment and application of mind by the competent authority and the same should be in the interest of the public and justified by the following precedents- Union of India v. ME Reddy and another and Balikuntha Nath Dass and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj.

Introduction

U.S President Trump on Saturday, announced Amy Coney Barrett, 48, as his selection to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18 at the age of 87. This was announced at the White House Garden ceremony. Barrett is a devout Roman Catholic who earned her law degree and taught at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. She was appointed by Trump to the Chicago-based 7^th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

Trump urged Republicans, who hold a 53-47 Senate majority, to confirm Barrett, a federal appeals court judge and a favorite of religious conservatives, by November 3 election. He said he expects the justices to have to resolve the election in which he faces Democratic challenger Joe Biden. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made confirming Trump’s judicial appointments a paramount priority stated,

“I look forward to meeting with the nominee next week and will carefully study her record and credentials”.

Barrett is expected to begin meetings with individual senators on Tuesday. Trump said the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by his ally Senator Lindsey Graham, would begin confirmation hearings from October 12.

Criticism

However, Trump’s decision was opposed by his Democratic Challenger Biden and Biden’s vice presidential running mate Kamala Harris, a member of the Judiciary Committee, focusing on the threat they said she would pose to the healthcare of millions of Americans. Biden noted that even as Trump’s administration seeks to strike down Obamacare in a case the Supreme Court is due to hear on November 10, Barrett has a “written track record” criticizing a pivotal 2012 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts preserving the healthcare law formally known as the Affordable Care Act. Barrett could be on the bench to hear that case if she’s quickly confirmed.

Democrats also brooded that Barrett could result in overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, a goal of religious conservatives.

Harris tweeted, “Trump’s hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat makes it clear that they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act and to overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade. This selection would move the court further right for a generation and harm millions of Americans”

About the Faculty

Ms. Priya Garg teaches subjects revolving around corporate/commercial laws at Jindal. She undertook the Bachelor of Civil Law programme (LL.M.) at the University of Oxford as a scholar with the Oxford-India Centre for Sustainable Development.  She has also received various grants for her research work, one of which was given under the Catherine Hughes Fund. She has completed her BA LLB (H) from National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, again on scholarship. She has worked at Khaitan & Co. as an Associate. Further, she also gained first-hand experience at teaching and mentoring law students as a Teaching Assistant at NUJS. Ms. Garg has written extensively on corporate/commercial law issues, among other areas of law. Her profile is available on the Oxford website and JGLS website.

Number of Vacancies

• Company Law/Corporate Insolvency Law: 2
• Human Rights Law: 3

Duration

• 3 months initially (starting October), can be extended depending upon the researcher’s performance.
• The researcher would be expected to dedicate 40-50 hours/month. There would be reasonableflexibility to allow the accommodation of the researcher’s own professional commitments.

Work Location

Remote Working

Eligibility

Law students pursuing BA LLB or LLB and fresh law graduates.

Desired Skills

• Comfort with the use of IT.

• Good communication skills.
• Academic merit, knowledge and aptitude in the given area(s) of research.

Process of Selection

The candidates may submit their application on pgarg[at]jgu.edu.in with their resume by 10 October 2020. The application may preferably be submitted either with a video clipping (of about 2 minutes) or a cover letter, introducing themselves and why they should be selected.

Other Information

• Perks for the vacancies are non-monetary in nature, at least for the initial three months.
• Benefits may be sought such as authorship/co-authorship credits, law-school and corporate law mentorship, and possibly an academic/professional letter of recommendation.

Contact Information

Contact Ms. Priya Garg at pgarg[at]jgu.edu.in for any further queries.

Ex Gratia Law Journal is double-blind peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary Online journal. The Ex Gratia Law Journal is an Open Online Journal. The Law Journal strives to provide a platform for discussion of International as well as National Developments in the Field of Law. It aims at educating the majority population of India, who are unaware of their right and duties and are subjected to exploitation.

Call for Blogs

Ex Gratia Law Journal is now accepting blog posts. Ex Gratia Law Journal welcomes original pieces and editorials on contemporary issues related to different domains of law relevant to the mission of the Blog. Students, academicians, advocates, and other stakeholders associated with the field of law are invited to contribute to this blog.The Ex Gratia Law Journal – BLawG showcases contemporary issues and challenges specific to law, with an interdisciplinary approach towards assimilating knowledge. The BLawG shall accept submissions from academicians, students, and professionals on a rolling basis. The main focus of the BLawG is to create a forum to share analytical views on contemporary legal issues.

Theme

Any legal topic.

Note: The theme for the blog is open; one can write on any topic related to contemporary legal issues that we face on a day-to-day basis. Our main objective is to provide analytical views and new insight to the readers.

How to Submit?

All submissions for The EGLJ Blog must be uploaded via the Googe Form. Kindly do not send submissions via email.

If possible also add the suggested category in the submission.

Authors are expected to adhere to the following submission guidelines:

• Blogs must contain content that is both original and unpublished.

• Submissions can be in the form of articles, opinions, case comments and short notes on the aforementioned topics.
• The manuscript shall not exceed more than 20% of Plagiarism.
• The articles should be analytical rather than descriptive.
• Please ensure that the title of the submission is not more than ten words long.
• Articles should be submitted in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx).
• We encourage the use of hyperlinks as opposed to footnotes. However, if your article contains sources that cannot be linked, please use Bluebook 19 edn. or 20 edn. style in the footnotes.
• Except under extreme circumstances, we do not publish articles beyond 700-1300 words (excluding citations). Lengthier articles can be published in the form of Blog series with the permission of the editors.
• We evaluate articles on three chief criteria: relevancy of the article, content of the article and language employed in the article. We tend to publish perspectives that are not adequately covered on other fora.
• Formatting: Please use British English. To add emphasis, please italicise the text.

Submission Process:

• All submissions for The EGLJ Blog must be uploaded via the Googe Form (Click here). Kindly DO NOT send submissions via email.

• If possible also add the suggested category in the submission.
• EGLJ Blog conducts a strict blind-peer review of the submissions received and holds absolute discretion in determining whether to accept a submission or not. We will send an email receipt upon acceptance as soon as possible.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.

Public Concern for Governance Trust (PCGT) in association with Vaze Model United Nations, 2020 and SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law

In a historic move, an entire bench of the Supreme Court of India conducted its first ever paperless hearing on June 1. It was a rare sight as three judges sat in a virtual court, with laptops instead of bulky case files. Lawyers were seen giving presentations via video link, with the judges typing notes.

Virtual courts in India have been an emergency, temporary response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but a section of judges and lawyers wants to include virtual courts in normal court proceedings even after the health crisis is over.

We invite you to this webinar on ” COVID-19 and Courts “

Speaker: Adv. Maneka Guruswamy

Date: 2nd October, 2020 (Friday)

Time: 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm

Venue: Zoom Communications App

Please join this group for further communications:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://chat.whatsapp.com/EHH0QlPQ2SF0WDr7ba4fA2&sa=D&ust=1601296643458000&usg=AFQjCNGvbUQKOF-aJz-wjZzMU6qs7KiZCA

In case of any queries,

Please contact,

Campus Ambassador, PCGT

Manas Patil

+91 9967127887

Socio Legal Literary is an online platform that brings to every person, a composite platform of knowledge and information. It is an Intersection of Law, literature and Social Issues. The aim is, to provide a platform to express and explore!

About the Blog

Submission can be made in any language on social, legal and literary issues. The Primacy in publication will be given to the manuscript which is highly analytical and deals with novel argument. With the aim to remove language barriers we suggest to submit manuscripts not only in English but also in Hindi and other regional languages.

How to Submit and General Guidelines

1. Submit your Blog at submissionssll[at]gmail.com.

2. Submission should be made in .docx only.
3. References are compulsory. Any statistical data, fact or any other informative text when being used, need to have references to it in the form of footnotes/bibliography. References should be authentic to be reliable.
4. Submissions that are plagiarized to a level of more than 15% will not be accepted.
5. Submissions will be accepted on a rolling basis.
6. Please save the name of the file as the “Title-Name”. As Anonymity is our policy, please don’t mention your name or institution or organization’s name in the file. Please enter all your details in the body of the mail.

Eligibility

Anyone from any field can send in their blogs.

Themes

The blog can be on any topic of Law, literature or Social issue. Blogs on recent topics will be appreciated, even though that’s not the sole criteria. The writing should be innovative and highlight one’s research.

Fee Details

There is no registration and processing fee.

Deadlines

No deadline. Early Posts would be appreciated. Submissions would be accepted on a rolling basis.

Word Limit

1000-1500 words (exclusive of footnotes).

Formatting Guidelines

1. Font Style: Times New Roman

2. Heading: 12, Bold
3. Subheading: 12, Bold
4. Body Text: 12.
5. Footnotes: 10
6. Hyperlink the relevant sources.

Contact Information

In case of a query, you can contact us at submissionssll[at]gmail.com.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.