LEXPEEPS editor – Page 447

About Navrachana University

Navrachana University is a private university established under the Gujarat Private University Act, 2009. The university has five schools: School of Business and Law, School of Engineering and Technology, School of Liberal Studies and Education, School of Environmental Design and Architecture and School of Science.

About the School of Business and Law

Working in close association with the industry and the academic experts, right from the curriculum development stage to student’s projects, internships and work placements, School of Business and Law at NUV offers several unique undergraduate and postgraduate level programs in the field of Law (BBA-LLB 5 year Integrated) and Management (BBA and MBA).

About the FDP

Law and legal education has always been changing to fulfill smooth functioning of the governance and the society making sure that the goals are justified to maintain its existence. The changing times has brought about to encounter the different issues and challenges in which the legal teaching-learning process has responded in an innovative way to various concerns in the legal field.

Whether it be Constitutional Amendments, Legal Research, Intellectual Property, Environmental Law & Policy, Vulnerable groups concerns or Online Learning Platforms etc. The legal education has embraced immediate changes and has always responded with innovative ideas and goals to sustainability. In the times of pandemic, innovative response was given to the teaching-learning process of legal education through virtual modes making it defeat the tangled condition of non-responsive physical education.

Aim of the Programme

This Faculty Development Programme (Online) is an effort to study the recent changes which have taken place in the field of law, society and also to the legal education. The changes have been experienced by the teaching-learning process. This platform of the event will recognize various issues and challenges which have arisen due to the changes in law and the legal system.

The faculty development programme will allow us to have an innovative thought process leading to the resolving of the issues in the legal education. As the world is on the virtual platform making life innovative so also the legal is and never will be an exception to experience the changes and to react innovatively. The event will be covered under various sub-themes giving a vivid idea and innovative response to the problems in the law and legal education.

Target Audience

The Faculty Development Programme is open to academicians, research scholars, lawyers, whole of legal fraternity and socio-legal institutions.

Theme of the FDP

Contemporary challenges to the Constitutional Law education

Research methodology and innovation
Innovative teaching methods
IPR, issues and innovation
Emerging trends in environment law and policy
Innovative responses in Criminal Law
Child protection: issues, challenges and innovative responses
Changing dimensions of Media Law
MOOC and online innovative learning

Registration Details

Registration Fee: Rs. 1000/- per participant

Participation is on a first come first serve basis.

Registration will be confirmed within two days of the registration and fees payment.
There will be no refund of the registration fees.

Mode of Payment

Account Name: Navrachana University

Account Number: 451010100110525
IFSC: UTIB0000451
Bank Name: Axis Bank
Bank address: Amit Nagar, Karelibaug Branch, Vadodara

Certificate

The participants have to attend all the sessions and send the feedback forms timely after each session. E-Certificate will be provided to the participants after the completion of the DFP and will be issued electronically after 15 days of the said programme.

All participants are requested to fill the correct name, designation and institute/college name as to be printed on the e-certificate.

Important Dates

Last Date for Registration: 20th September 2020

Course Commencement Date: 21st September 2020
Course Completion Date: 27th September 2020

Contact Details

Email: lawfdp@gmail.com

Ms. Stella Joyce: +91 8320670818

Mr. Mahin Dabhoiwala: +91 8469010195

This article has been written by Pooja Lakshmi, pursuing law at Bennett University.

Case no.

Civil Appeal No. 3187-88 Of 1988 With SLP (Civil) No. 13080 Of 1988

Equivalent citations

1992 AIR 248, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 251

Decided On

April 5th 1989

Relevant Act

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136, 137, 139-A, 142, 145
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order XXIII, Rule 3B; Sections 112 and 114
Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985: Sections 3, 4, 9
Administrative Law: Principles of Natural Justice

Abstract

The Union Carbide Corporation applied to the Supreme Court concerning S. 155 of the CPC, in a claim for damages made by the Union of India against the order of the Bhopal District Court, on behalf of all the claimants under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act, 1985. The Union Carbide Corporation, and the Union of India, both filed discrete appeals in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, both of which were heard simultaneously.

Damages were sought on behalf of sufferers of the Bhopal gas leak disaster. The Court examined the prima facie material to quantify the damages, and also the question of domestication of the decree in the United States for execution.

It scrutinized the question regarding the amount of damages that would be “just, equitable and reasonable” for an over-all settlement. The Court referred to the M.C. Mehta v Union of India case, in which it was held that the measure of damages payable had to be correlated to the magnitude and the capacity of the enterprises because such reimbursement had to have a damper effect.

Facts of the Case

In 1934, Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) was consolidated in India. It manufactured chemicals, batteries, and pesticides. In 1970, in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, UCIL established a pesticide plant. On the night of 2-3^rd December 1984,very toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked from the plant. Although no official death count was undertaken, it is estimated that while the casualities were about 20000, the number of people who suffered unrecoverable physical damage was about 60000.

Procedural History

On 2^nd December 1984, an invisible gaseous ghost engulfed Bhopal leaving at least 3800 people dead and a massive flora and fauna affected. The street of the city were crowded with human corpses and carcasses of cattle, dogs, and birds. With the faint gasps out of swollen lungs and irritation in eyes, all eyes were on the pesticide plant, named Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), which was a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). UCC was 51% stakeholder, while the Union of India was 49%. The specific site on which the plant was constructed was zoned for light industrial and commercial utility, not for dangerous industry. The plant was initially approved only to formulate pesticides from component chemicals, such as methyl isocyanate (MIC) imported from the parent company, in relatively small quantities. However, pressure from competition in the chemical industry led UCIL to implement “backward integration” – manufacturing raw materials and intermediate products to formulate the final product within one facility. This was naturally a more sophisticated and high-risk process. Due to the economic impacts of a large employer like UCIL, the government was unwilling to implement strict safety, and pollution control burdens or charges on the struggling industry as the demand for pesticides declined due to extensively spread famines and crop failures in the 1980s. Around 11 P.M, on 2^nd December 1984, an operator observed a small scale leak of MIC gas which was kept at 75% of the storage capacity (where only 50% was permitted) and increasing pressure on the storage tank E610 and outstretched to the vent-gas scrubber that was designed to neutralize poison discharge from the MIC system.

Meanwhile, a faulty valve for cleaning internal pipes allowed one ton of water to mix with forty tonnes of MIC. A vigorous exothermic reaction took place due to the traces of iron ion from the rust, a vigorous exothermic reaction took place. The 30-ton refrigeration unit that provided a coolant for the MIC system was drained to use in the other area of the plant. The gas flare safety system was out of action for three months, entirely ignored. Pressure and heat from the reaction resulted in a loud rumbling that reverberated around the plant and made way for the MIC gas dissipated in the atmosphere. Within hours, local hospitals were crushed with the injured, a crisis further compounded by a lack of knowledge of exactly what gas was involved and its nature. Bhopal became similar to an industrial catastrophe.

Union of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which allowed the union government to be the sole representative of the injured party by virtue of parents’ patriae. The validity of the act was challenged in the Supreme Court in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India on the ground that the Union of India was a minority shareholder. They are also responsible for the catastrophe. But, the Court related Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, and held that the state is obliged to protect its citizens’ interests across the globe.

Union of India decided to litigate the case in foreign courts on the ground that the Indian legal system is not appropriate to entertain such a significant and heavy matter due to considerable solid backlogs of the cases, and as the Indian Law and lawyers are not well familiar with Law of Torts, there are possibilities that justice might not be delivered due to the gap in the Law. However, Keenan’s Court demobilized all the petitions on the grounds of forum non-conveniens. The American Court opined that all evidence is within India’s jurisdiction, and thus, the cases were brought back into Indian courts.

In September 1986, the Bhopal District Court ordered UCC to pay an interim indemnity of $350 million. The UCC appealed in High Court, where the Court ordered UCC to pay $250 million. Subsequently, the UCC and Union of India went on to appeal by special-leaves in the Supreme Court against the High Court order.

Issue before the Court

The validity of the agreement ordered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Arguments Raised

Appellants

The appellants challenged that whether in the suits for damages, tort courts in India have the jurisdiction to grant interim compensation or damages, and is it permissible to selectively incorporate and adapt in Indian parts of English Statutory Laws relating to the grant of interim compensation while ignoring safeguards specifically indicated in that Law?
The appellants questioned the observations of the judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which are per incuriam, and thus, not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the M.C. Mehta case had confined the doctrine of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher, and the newly introduced doctrine of absolute liability should not have retrospective effects.
The appellants argued the responsibility determination of a shareholder of a company (whatever his percentage of shareholding) for the so-called torts of a company limited by shares, this is contrary to the Scheme and specific provisions of the Companies Act 1956 (particularly S. 34 and S. 426). Did they maintain the same, given the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was holding UCC liable impermissible in Law?
The appellants contended that having held that interim compensation could not be awarded under S.151 of the Civil Procedure Code (as found by the District Judge). Was it permissible for the learned High Court Judge to summarize the entire issue of liability and hold that interim compensation was payable under the “substantive law of torts.”

UCC pointed out the absence of statutory procedure required to be followed under the Scheme, which was not observed even after two years had elapsed since the Scheme promulgation. It claimed that no credible information was there before the Court about the nature, category, and genuineness of the claims nor even any simple approximation about the injury and damage caused to the alleged claimants. In these circumstances submitted (in the written submission dated August 17, 1987), the formulation of proposals for further immediate relief that may be required was considerably hampered. It also pointed out that there was no material on record about any of the claimants’ present health status.

Respondents

The respondents furnished that the appellant was responsible to pay the interim compensation to gas victims under ‘substantive law of torts’ because the terms “other authority” used in Article 372 (1) of the Constitution of Indian, in the context of the said Law, included a competent Civil Court (which in this case is District Court of Bhopal) exercising jurisdiction under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. As a result, it was beyond doubt in the Bhopal suit, whichever was the enterprise occupied in the high-risk activity, be it UCC or UCIL, it was responsible to pay the damages as per the rules of absolute liability
Moreover, they withstood that even if the decision in M.C Mehta’s case was taken after the Bhopal gas tragedy, there was no reason to think that the principle of absolute liability laid in the case can not be used here.
The respondents reiterated that since the UCIL did not have sufficient assets to meet the claims of the magnitude of disaster injured parties and UCC held majority shares, thus, the Court was justified in raising the corporate veil of the Corporate entity of Indian Company, UCIL.
Concerning the interim payment, the respondents questioned that while the Indian Council of Medical Research is involved in epidemiological studies, can the gas injured parties survive till the time all the real data with correct preciseness is collected and proved and adjudged in refined forensic style in working out final amount of reimbursement with the precision of quantity and quality?
In response to the nature, category, and genuineness of the claims, the respondents responded that due to the enormous magnitude of filing of claims, the process of scrutinizing, categorizing, and ascertaining of their claims is bound to take time, and it was the responsibility of Government of India to provide relief and rehabilitation of the injured parties.

Ratio of the Case

The Supreme Court considered a compelling duty, both judicial and humane, to secure immediate relief to the injured parties. It ordered UCC to pay $470 million, which upon instant payment and interest over a decent period, would lump very nearly to $500 million or its rupee corresponding of approximate rupees 750 crores. A sum of approximately Rs.500 crores was allocated to the untreatable cases and 42,000 cases of such personal severe injuries like total or partial incapacitation, either of a permanent or temporary character. It allocated Rs.25 crores for treatment of cases that required expert medical attention, rehabilitation, and aftercare. A general allocation of Rs.225 crores was done for cases of less serious nature, loss of personal belongings, and loss of live-stock.
The Supreme Court clarified how it managed to reach a sum of $470 million. The Court considered the elements of the no. of persons treated at the hospital, an essential indicator, and depended on the High Court’s order upon the allegations and claims in the amended pleadings of the Union of India. It did not heed by the standards of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court took into the prima facie discovery of the High Court and estimated the number of fatal cases at 3,000 where remuneration could range from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.3 lakhs. This accounted for nearly Rs.70 crores, three times higher than what would otherwise be awarded in comparable motor vehicle accident claims.
The Court acknowledged arguments of the respondents over the compelling need for crucial need for relief. It identified thousands of persons who were rendered destitute by the ghastly tragedy . The Supreme Court instructed that all the civil proceedings associated to and arising out of the Bhopal Gas tragedy should be transferred to the apex court and shall stand concluded in terms of the settlement. All criminal proceedings related to and emerging out of disaster shall stand cancelled wherever these may be pending.
The apex court observed the need to evolve a national policy to protect national interests from such ultra-hazardous pursuits of economic gains and expected help of jurists, economists, environmentalists, sociologists, and futurologists to identify areas of common concern and establish criteria which may receive judicial recognition and legal sanction.

Decision of the Court

The Union Carbide Corporation should indemnify a sum of U.S. Dollars 470 million to the Union of India in full settlement of all rights, claims, and liabilities related to and appearing out of the Bhopal gas disaster.
The Union Carbide Corporation shall pay the sum described to the Union of India on or before March 31, 1989.
To enable the effectuation of the agreement, all civil proceedings related to and emerging out of the Bhopal gas tragedy shall thereby shall stand concluded in terms of the settlement and stand transferred to the Supreme Court. All criminal proceedings related to and arising out of the disaster shall stand cancelled, in wherever courts these may be pending.

Judgment

The Supreme Court ordered UCC to pay damages of 750 crores “in full settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities arising out and relating to of Bhopal Gas Tragedy disaster.” All all criminal proceedings quashed and civil proceedings were disposed of,. Later, several petitions were filed to resuscitate criminal charges.

The judgment has been criticized on several grounds, especially for quashing criminal proceedings in the first place. The pertinent delay and lack of responsibility have often raised the question “If lives in India are less valuable than the rest of the world?” because the people’s outrage and grievances would have been addressed if a dreadful act had taken place elsewhere,. The state would not have been permitted to escape the liability. However, if we ignore the downside, we will notice that several enactments like the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 have been enacted to introduce sustainable and responsible development.

Comments

The night of December 2, 1984, is considered as the most tragic and worst chemical disaster ever. Though plenty of blame goes around among UCC, UCIL, Governments of Madhya Pradesh, and India, the clouds over the legal responsibility remain unclear. While the blame ball keeps bouncing over the stones of negligence, poor management, and sabotage, there were still be many injured parties for whom justice was pronounced, but not served. The MIC leak revealed the inability in Indian laws and the institutions that claim to protect the rights and safeguard its citizens. The legislature’s lack of confidence in the judiciary was met with severe criticism in governance and jurisprudence.

The order passed by the judiciary lost the opportunity of setting an example. It failed to regulate a precedent over the fate of companies that would risk public health in their hunt to earn profits. The Court lost two opportunities to revise the quantum of reimbursement. Moreover, in 1991, it held that any deficiency in the amount of compensation would be tackled by state and central government. Its ignorance towards the thought that why tax-payer of the country should pay for a private entity’s mistakes was a question over which many minds dwelled.

However, the Court’s order worked as an encouragement for forming the Ministry of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, which assesses and protects public health from heavy multinational industries. Post-Bhopal tragedy, the British chemical company, Imperial Chemical Industry, was the initiator to increase attention on safety, health, and environmental issues.

Though there were positive impacts, justice was served according to state functionaries. The Bhopal Gas disaster acts as a constant reminder for the need stringent laws under which any disaster of this magnitude can be curbed. To ensure economic growth, public health, and safety simultaneously, the legislature should formulate laws that are responsibly enforced by the executive and liberally examined by the judiciary because catastrophe like the Bhopal incident exposes our potential to exist along the ways of sustainable development.

Latest Posts

This article is written by Aashika Aggarwal pursuing BBALLB (H) from Amity University, Gurgaon.

Judges Involved

M. Sikri
N. Grover
N. Ray
G. Palekar
R. Khanna
M. Shelat
K. Mathew
S. Hedge
H. Beg
Jaganmohan Reddy
N. Dwivedi
V. Chandrachud

Introduction

Keshvananda Bharti’s case is a landmark case and the decision taken by the Supreme Court outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution. The decision which was given by the bench in Keshvananda Bharti’s case was very unique and thoughtful. The judgment was of 700 pages which included a solution for both parliament’s right to amend laws and citizen’s right to protect their fundamental rights. It happened in 1973. This case is known as the case that saved our democracy.

The bench came up with the doctrine of basic structure in order to protect the interests of both citizens of India and parliament. The bench through this solution solved the questions which were left unanswered in the Golaknath case. The case overruled the decision given in the case of the GOLAKNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB case by putting the restriction on the parliament’s right to amend the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure was introduced to ensure that the amendments do not take away the rights of the citizens which were guaranteed to them by the fundamental rights.

The 24^th amendment was the first to gain supremacy in this case. 24^th amendment is the time of Indira Gandhi and if we compare the amending power of the Constitution or of parliament of the amending rate of it, we have in a time span of 27 years, we have almost 30+ amendments. During this time, the Indira Gandhi era, the rate increases sharply. The in 39^th amendment, the Election of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Speakers are beyond scrutiny. So, here the Supreme Court cannot review their election or scrutiny. Indira Gandhi was increasing her power to establish a one-party rule, instead of having democratic value we are leading to a one-party system.

Issues Involved

Whether Constitutional amendment as per Article 368 applicable to Fundamental Rights also?
Whether 24^th amendment act 1971 is valid?
Whether section-2(a), 2(b) and 3 of 25^th amendment are valid?
Whether 29^th amendment act 1971 is valid?

Judgment

Keshvananda Bharti involved six writ petitions by a number of petitioners who represented their propertied class, propertied land opposed to land ceiling laws, sugar companies in Maharashtra, coal mining companies, and former princes seeking to preserve their earlier privileges. The writ petitions questioned whether there were limitations on the power of parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly the Fundamental Rights, as decided in the case of Golaknath.

In February 1970, Keshvananda Bharti, head of Hindu matt challenged Kerala Government attempts under 2 state land reforms act to impose the restrictions.

This case has the highest number of judge bench on till date and that is 13 judge benches. This case outlined the doctrine of the basic structure. It says that no limitation on the power of parliament to amend, but no violation of the basic structure. Now, this particular case talks about the Article- 368 of the Constitution of India which is on the amending power of the Constitution, and again the article just mentions the word amendment in it and don’t put restrictions up to what extent you can amend the Constitution or at what rate you can amend the Constitution doesn’t talk about any such things. This particular case saves our democracy because it puts a restriction on the amending power of the parliament and it says that you can amend the Constitution but you cannot violate the basic structure. The first had stuck down bank nationalization, the second had annulled the abolition of privy purses of former rulers and the third had held that the amending power could not touch Fundamental Rights. Therefore, this case overruled the previous decision on Golaknath.

The effect of the 29^th amendment of the Constitution was that it inserted the following acts in the ninth-schedule to the Constitution:

The Kerala land reforms (amendment) act, 1969 (Kerala act 35 of 1969).
The Kerala land reforms (amendment) act, 1971 (Kerala act 25 of 1971).
The petitioner then moved an application for urging grounds and for amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the above Constitutional amendments.

The judgment refused to consider the right to property as Fundamental Right under basic structure doctrine. It was later deleted in the 44^th amendment. This case held the recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution and it was also held that judicial review cannot be stopped by any provision.

As a reaction to this judgment of this case, Indira Gandhi elevated A.N. RAY to CJI despite there being three more judges, who were senior to him, on the bench at that time, and during emergency, he set up a bench to review the Keshvananda Bharti case and after that, this case got dissolved.

Conclusion

Debates and discussions on the limits on a legislative body to amend a Constitution are neither novel nor unique. THOMAS JEFFERSON strongly believed that however great a written Constitution may be, experiences and changes in society would necessitate corresponding changes to the written text, with each generation having the right to determine the law under which they may live. Justices HEDGE and MUKHERJEA accepted the thought that no generation should bind the course of generations to come. Yet, opinion shave differed on what values and principles should constitute the basic structure, and therefore, whether value judgments formed in an era of unbridled socialism can be imposed upon future generations.

The CHIEF JUSTICE came to the conclusion that “as a matter of construction, there is no escape from the conclusion that Article-368 of the Constitution of India provides for the amendment of the provisions contained in part III without imposing on parliament an obligation to adopt the procedure prescribed by the proviso.

Latest Posts

About ISLR

Indian Society for Legal Research (ISLR) is a rapidly growing community of niche academicians, thinkers, activists, lawyers, professors, legal volunteers, paralegals and legal entrepreneurs. Previously, ISLR has conducted First Global Ambassadors Programme (2019-20) and An empirical survey ofthe judgments of the ICJ and the PCIJ. ISLR has also offered one month online certificate course for UG & PG students on International Courts & Tribunals, International Humanitarian Law and Merger & Acquisition. ISLR published first blog series titled “Mapping the Constitutions” where the authors have analysed the various aspects of almost 179 constitutions. recently, ISLR has conducted 5-day online summer school successfully and upcoming with webinar and blog series.

About Course

This course will focus on providing extensive knowledge to the students about the Company Law along with corporate restructuring and Partnership Act. The course will not only focus on the theory but also practical implications of the law by discussions and analysis of case studies and recent trends of the Corporate Law. The student after the complition of the course will have an all round knowledge of the Corporate law.

No. of Classes – 2 Classes Per Week READING MATERIAL WILL BE PROVIDED RECORDED LECTURE WILL BE GIVEN

MODULE 1

Meaning Nature
Key Concepts
Features of Company Law

MODULE 2

Concept of Shares (Issue and Allotment)-Classification of Share Capital
Understanding Debenture as a Debt instrument
Prospectus and its types
Further Issue of Share Capita
Right Issue
Employee stock option
Preferential basis Issue
Concept of sweat equity shares
Buy-back of Securities
Transfer and Transmission of Securities

MODULE 3

Who are members?
Modes of acquiring membership
Expulsion of membership
Rights of members
Concept of Shareholder’s Agreement

MODULE 4

Intercorporate Loans
Related Party Transactions
Nature of RPT
Arm’s Length Transaction

MODULE 5

Understanding Corporate
Restructuring
Merger
Acquisition
Takeover
Demerger
Role of Sectoral Regulators
Evaluation of Case studies

MODULE 6

Corporate Social Responsibility

MODULE 7

Role of Directors
Types of Directors
General Meetings
Key Managerial Personnel

MODULE 8

Indian Partnership Act, 1932

Certificate

All the participants will be given an e-certificate after the successful completion of course.

Duration

2 Months (10 Oct – 10 Dec 2020)

Eligibility

Undergraduate & Postgraduate students.

Registration Process

Click Here to fill the google form.

Course fee

The course fee is Rs. 999.

Last Date of Registration Oct 09, 2020

Contact us for queries

Avantika Banerjee: +91-8670403742 Email: islr288[at]gmail.com

ONLINE-COURSE-ON-CompanyLaw Download

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

Journal for Law Students and Researchers [JLSR] is an Online Journal with ISSN[O]: 2582-306X and 8 indexings, which is quarterly, Peer-Reviewed, published online and JLSR seeks to provide an interactive platform for the publication of Short Articles, Long Articles, Book Reviews, Case Comments, Research Papers, Essays in the field of Law.

JLSR welcomes contributions from all legal branches, as long as the work is original, unpublished, unplagiarized and is in consonance with the submission guidelines.

NATURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Articles: An article must conduct a complete analysis of the area of law, which the author seeks to highlight. It must contain a comprehensive study of the existing law with the suggestions and conclusions of the Author. Word Limit being 1,100 to 4,000 words.
Notes: A note is a relatively concise form of an argument advanced by the author. The focus of a note should be on a relatively new debate or controversy regarding the interpretation or implementation in the law. Notes shall primarily highlight contemporary issues, which need to be addressed, and the authors are expected to offer a solution. The maximum word limit for a manuscript in the form of note is 1,500-2,500 words.
Comments: A comment is where the author may decide to critique any recent/landmark judicial pronouncement or any recent legislation or bill before the Parliament or State Legislature. The word limit for a comment is 2,000-3,000 words.
Book Review: A Book Review is where the author identifies the central idea of the book, gives the reader indication of the author’s style, approach, or premises, and then offers an overall evaluation adding suggestions and latest amendments to the given laws in the book. The word limit is from 2,000-3,000 words.

DATES

Last date for full paper submission: 1st November , 2020 (Submissions should be made in Word Doc.)
Intimation of the selection of Full Paper: Within 2 days of submission.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Citation Format: The citation format to be followed is The Bluebook (19th Ed.)/Any Standard Format.
Abstract: Every submission should be accompanied by an abstract of 250-300 words describing the relevant conclusions drawn in the manuscript.
Papers with plagiarism less than 25% are only eligible for publication.
Font Style: Times New Roman and font size 12.

PUBLICATION FEE

Single Authored: 800/-

Co-Authored: 1000/-

MODE OF SUBMISSION

Submission of the full article/paper along shall be made by sending an e-mail at editor.jlsr@gmail.com.

CONTACT INFORMATION

9136804644

E-mail: jflsrjournal[at]gmail.com

The website link is here.(www.jlsrjournal.in)

Judges for Final

Mr. Durga Bose Gandham

Partner- Litigation at L&L Partners

Ms. Debolina Saha

Founder: Internship Bank

Adv. Jayant Bhatt

Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Mr. Ahmar Afaq

Assistant Professor

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

Ms. Pragya Parijat Singh

Assistant Professor: O.P. Jindal Global University

Managing trustee: Vidhivarenyam Foundation NGO

Judges for Semi-Final Round

Adv. Vikas Kabra

Advocate, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

Ms. Shivalaxmi

Research Scholar, Dept. of Criminology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Adv. Sakshi Shairwal

Additional Standing Counsel & Panel Advocate for Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Founder: Sakshar Law Associate

Mr. Vikash Kumar Bairagi

Associate- Singh and Associates: Advocates & Solicitors

Judges for Preliminary Round & Quarter Final Round

Adv. Vikas Kabra

Advocate, Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

Adv. Rahul Tiwari

Advocate, Delhi High Court & District Courts

Ms. Shivalaxmi

Research Scholar, Dept. of Criminology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Ms. Sonali Agnihotri

Assistant Professor

Indore Institute of Law, Indore

Adv. Sakshi Shairwal

Additional Standing Counsel & Panel Advocate for Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Founder: Sakshar Law Associate

Mr. Vikash Kumar Bairagi

Associate- Singh and Associates: Advocates & Solicitors

Ms. Samiksha Mathur

Assistant Professor

Jaipur National Law University

INTRODUCTION

On Thursday, the Supreme Court bench consisting Justice Ashok Bhushan, R. Shubhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, heard an appeal filed against the judgement of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dated 10.06.2020 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the notice issued by the appellant challenging the notice dated 04.06.2020 issued by Additional Tehsildar, District Indore as well as notice dated 04.06.2020 issued by Building officer, Zone no. 09, Municipal Corporation Indore has been dismissed.

Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior Counsel appeared for the appellant whereas Shri Tushar Mehta, Learned Solicitor General appeared on the behalf of the State. Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General, appeared for Municipal Corporation, Indore.

Appellant’s Contentions

Shri Kapil Sibal claims the order of the Addl. Tehsildar for the recovery of amount of Rs.8, 80, 9725/- as unjustified as the appellant after purchasing the property, deposited the amount of deficit stamp duty as well as postdated cheques covering the amount of the penalty of Rs. 12, 80, 97,025/- by letter dated 20.11.2019, accepted by the Collector Stamps and letter dated 23.11.2019, and hence, no stamp duty outstanding. It was submitted that by the date on which Addl. Tehsildar issued the notice out of above said cheques, two cheques of Rs. 2 crores each had already been encashed by the State Government.

Shri Kapil Sibal further claimed the action taken for cancelling the building permission as unjustified as the amount of penalty was duly submitted by the appellant and was accepted by the collector of Stamps. He further submitted that orders of Municipal corporation inspite of the stay order imposed by the Court on the auction proceeding by Municipal Corporation, as illegal and malafide. He submitted that the property was purchased by the appellant by registered sale deed dated 23.11.2019 and there is no question of Corporation or anyone else claiming any title in the property, and no determination of title was pending in any Court of law.

Hence, he submitted that subsequent letters and actions taken by the Corporation as well as by the State authorities are only with the intent to harass the appellant and all actions are beyond their jurisdiction and deserve to be set aside by accepting the IAs filed by the appellant.

Respondent’s Contention

Shri Tushar Mehta, submitted that there was no error committed by the Addl. Tehsildar in issuing the order of recovery as the amount of penalty was outstanding, as there is no procedure or provision for accepting the amount of penalty by the postdated cheques as it claimed by the appellant. And the amount of penalty being outstanding against the property, mutation in the name of the appellant against the property as well as building permission has rightly been rejected. He further submitted that subsequent actions including the notices and orders brought by the appellant by IA No. 72517 of 2020 are all actions which has no relation to issues which have been raised in this appeal.
Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, submitted that notices and actions taken by the Corporation and other authorities subsequent to the decision of the writ petition cannot be made subject matter of challenge in this appeal, remedy of the appellant if any is elsewhere. He supported the order of the Municipal Corporation by which building permission earlier granted has been cancelled.

Key Highlights

Case name: M/S. MSD REAL ESTATE LLP v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ANR.
This was Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2020 arising out of SLP(C) No. 7990 of 2020.
The Supreme Court was exercising its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.

Court’s Judgement

The Court observed that the High Court has rightly not with the order dated 04.06.2020 issued by the Addl. Tehsildar demanding an amount of Rs. 8, 80, 97,025/- which was outstanding on the above date, as postdated cheques cannot be approved as the facility to deposit the penalty.
The order of Collector of Stamps dated 22.09.2008 was modified to the extent that penalty imposed of ten times of Rs. 12, 80, 97,000/- was modified into five times the penalty i.e. Rs.6, 40, 48,500/-, and the appeals partly allowed to the above context. All the parties are to act in accordance with the said judgement.

In view the building permission being cancelled, the Court observed that the High Court had amply protected the rights of the appellant, as deposit being made by the appellant towards the penalty, the appellant is free to apply for building permission which is to be considered by the Municipal Corporation.
In the matter of the orders and notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and other State authorities subsequent to filing this appeal, those orders and notices issued have been brought on record by the IA No. 72517/2020 were all subsequent actions which were not subject matter of the writ petition before the High Court and cannot be taken into consideration in this appeal.
The Court gave the liberty to the parties to seek such remedy with regard to subsequent actions and orders as permissible by law.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

READ THE FULL TEXT HERE….

INTRODUCTION

The European Court of justice on Thursday, dismissed an appeal from Spanish cycling company Massi and the EU’s intellectual property office, EUIPO and ruled on Messi’s favour.

The Barcelona Footballer first applied to trademark his surname as a sportswear brand in 2011. After nine long years, Barcelona ace Lionel Messi has finally been granted the permission to trademark his last name ‘Messi’. The footballer faced a major setback when he sought to launch to launch a brand by his own name after Massi, a Spanish brand that sells cycling outfits and equipment, filed an appeal suggesting the similarity in name and logo between the two brands will create lot of confusion among consumers.

The Spanish cycling company was successful with its initial appeal in 2013. But it lost out when Lionel Messi brought an appeal to the General Court, which ruled in his favour, and claimed that he is too well known as a sporting icon for any claimed confusion to arise. The European Court of Justice said that the star player’s reputation could be taken into account when weighing up whether the public would be able to tell the difference between the two brands. In doing so, it upheld the ruling of EU’s General Court of 2018, thereby confirming that the Barcelona star can finally be able to launch his own brand by the name ‘Messi’. Lionel Messi, the 33 year old who wears the number 10 shirt, has been crowned world football player of the year a record six times and is the world’s highest-paid soccer player’ according to Forbes. His total earnings for 2020 is $126m. In August, he made headlines by sending a fax to his club declaring his intention to leave. Barcelona responded by insisting that any team that took him on would have to honour him 700 million buyout in full. The 33 year old avoided being pulled into legal stand-off with the club and confirmed that he will stay at Camp Nou for the 2020-21 season, saying he did not want to face “the club I love” in court.

REPORT BY-

ABHILASHA KUMARI

Decided On

5^TH November, 2004

Citation

CC. No. 4680 of 2004

Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu

Respondent

Suhas Katti

Bench

Anulrj (CCM), Egmore.

Relevant Law

Section 469, and 509 of IPC, and 67 of the IT Act 2000.

Facts

The accused was a family friend of the complainant. The accused posted annoying, defamatory, and obscene messages about the complainant. The victim was a divorcee woman on social media platforms, and messenger apps. Yahoo messenger app was used by the accused to post such rumours about the women. The main problem behind all of this is that the accused in interested in the women. He also wanted to marry her, but she got married with another man. After her divorce, the accused again started forcing her to marry him, but she rejected him again. After being rejected twice, he started posting defamatory messages about her and also shared her personal mobile number on the social media.

After all this, mails were also forwarded to the women for giving her the information about the accused. The accused has opened a false e-mail account on the name of the victim. Because of all this, the victim received many disrespectful and obscene calls. After suffering such defamation by the acts of the accused, the women filed a complaint against the accused. Based on the complaint registered by the women, the accused was arrested by the police after some days. A charge sheet was filed on 24^th March, 2004 under Section 67 of the IT Act 2000, and Section 469 of the IPC.

Issues

Was the accused liable for the charges under section 509, and 469 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000?

Judgment

On 5^th November 2004, judgement was delivered by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which states that, “under Section 509, and 469 of the IPC, and section 67 of the IT Act the accused was found guilty for all the offenses done by him, and for which he must be sentenced and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years, and also a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 509, and 469 of the IPC accused is sentenced for 1 year of simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500. ”

And under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 the accused has to undergo a fine of Rs. 4000 with rigorous imprisonment of 2 years.

Conclusion

In the 21^st generation era, every domain of one’s life whirl around cyberspace, which gives birth to both sides, i.e. the advantages that the internet provides and also the crimes which occur. Now it seems that it has become a major task to handle these internet crimes. The internet had started to appear recently in the Indian context and the laws for it were hardly rigorous since not much harm was caused or reported till then. However, the IT act and its implementation, in this case, made a historic impression and helped both the courts and the public as it sets a benchmark for the courts and influence people and gave them strength to lodge cases against the wrongs of harassment and defamation, etc. on the internet. This case became the first case where conviction happened under section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000 in India.

Latest Posts

The article has been written by Yash Mittal, pursuing LLB-1 year from Mewar Law Institute. Picture credits to wpart.org

AI refers to the ability of machines to perform cognitive tasks like thinking, perceiving, learning, problem-solving, and decision making. Initially conceived as a technology that could mimic human intelligence, AI has evolved in ways that far exceed its original conception. With incredible advances made in data collection, processing, and computation power, intelligent systems can now be deployed to take over a variety of tasks, enable connectivity, and enhance productivity. As AI’s capabilities have dramatically expanded, so have its utility in a growing number of fields.

History

1) In Greek mythology, Talos was a giant animated warrior programmed to guard the island of Crete created by Hephaestus.

2) In 1950, Alan Turing proposed the Turing test, it is proposed to see whether the machine can think like humans or not. Turing test was the first proposal in the artificial intelligence.

3) In 1951, this period was also known as Game Artificial intelligence. Christopher Strachey wrote a checkers program and Dietrich Prinz wrote one for chess.

4) In 1956, it is the most important year for Artificial intelligence. This year John Mc Carthy first coined the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ in 1956 at the Dartmouth conference.

5) In 1959, the first artificial intelligence laboratory, MIT artificial intelligence Lab was set up and the research began.

6) In 1960, the first robot was introduced to the General Motors assembly line.

7) In 1961, the first Artificial intelligence chatbot was introduced called ELIZA.

8) In 1997, IBM Deep blue beats world champion Garry Kasparov in the game of chess.

9) In 2005, an autonomous robotic car called Stanley wins the 2005 DARPA grand challenge.

10) In 2011, IBM question-answering machine, Watson defeated the two greatest champions, Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings.

This history shows the evolution of artificial intelligence over time.

Stages of Artificial Intelligence

There are three stages of Artificial intelligence.

1) Artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)

ANI also is known as Weak Artificial intelligence refers to a computer’s ability to perform a single task very well, whether it’s checking the weather, playing chess, or analyzing raw data to write journalistic reports. Weak AI is the one that exists in our world today. Every machine that was present around us is narrow AI. Google Assistant, Siri, and other natural language processing tools are examples of Artificial narrow intelligence.

2) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – AGI is also known as Strong Artificial intelligence, it is the stage where the machine has the ability to think and make decisions just like humans. AGI can perform any intellectual task that human beings can do. Currently, there is no example of AGI, but AGI can solve problems, innovative and creative. Steven Hawking quoted that the development of artificial intelligence could end the human race.

3) Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) -ASI am the stage of Artificial intelligence in which the machines will surpass the capability of human beings. This is the stage that can threaten human existence. Elon Musk thinks that it will lead to the extinction of the human race. Currently, there is no machine that can have the same capability or ability as humans.

Types of Artificial Intelligence

There are 4 types of Artificial intelligence.

1) Reactive Machine -The basic type of AI is purely reactive, it includes machines that operate solely based on the current or present data, they don’t use past memories to perform current situations.

Deep Blue IBM chess-playing machine, which beat international grandmaster Garry Kasparov, is the greatest example of a Reactive Machine.

2) Limited Memory Artificial Intelligence – Limited memory AI can use the past data from its memories to make informed and improved decisions.

Self-driving cars are the best example as they observe other cars, speed, and direction. A car using sensors to identify people that are crossing the roads and identifying traffic signals. Such an AI has short-lived or temporary memory.

3) Theory of Mind Artificial Intelligences – If machines are equipped with the Theory of Mind artificial intelligence, it will able to understand emotions. It focuses mainly on emotional intelligence and it will help the machine to differentiate between different emotions of different people. The machine will adjust their actions accordingly.

4) Self Aware Artificial Intelligence – It includes the machine that has their own consciousness and becomes self-aware. But we are probably far from creating a machine that is self-aware.

How can Artificial intelligence be used for National Security?

Logistics and supply chain management. This is arguably the lowest of the low-hanging fruits available to the Indian military. Substantial work has already been done in deploying AI for logistics and supply chain management in the civilian sector, with several Indian companies also having built considerable expertise in this area. It would, therefore, not require much effort to transfer the technology, knowledge and expertise already present in the civilian space to meet the military’s needs.

An efficient logistics system lies at the heart of any well-functioning military, and this is especially complicated for the Indian Armed Forces given the diverse environments and conditions they operate in. AI-backed systems could go a long way in increasing efficiencies, reducing wastage and overall costs in the military’s logistics management.

Cyber-operations. As cyber warfare becomes faster, more sophisticated and more dangerous, it becomes necessary to develop both offensive and defensive cyber-war capabilities both to protect the military’s own assets and communication links, and to attack similar assets of opposing militaries. Specifically trained AI systems could actually prove to be far more efficient and effective than humans for such tasks.

The scale and speed of the responses necessary in evolving cyber-operation domains make it unlikely that humans will be able to tackle evolving threats in an effective manner by themselves. A number of cybersecurity experts and commentators believe that AI is the future of cyber-operations, with machine-on-machine engagements increasingly becoming the norm, especially to counter low-order or routine threats.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). This has already been put into practice by various countries, including the US, and, possibly, China. Using AI for ISR tasks can take two different forms. The first is the use of AI in unmanned vehicles and systems, whether on air, land, or on and under water. This includes increasingly ubiquitous drones but also unmanned ships and submersibles and ground vehicles. Such “intelligent” unmanned systems could be used for patrolling in harsh terrains and weather conditions, providing harbour protection, and allowing the deploying force to scout the battlefield or conflict zone with no danger to human soldiers.

The second use is for data analysis and interpretation. An AI system could, for instance, be trained to pick out predetermined suspicious behaviour from the video footage of a surveillance drone, and thereby identify potential targets. Much of this work is currently done by humans, but the time taken and possible data under-analysed is immense. AI could do in a few hours what would have taken a human days to do, and in a significantly more efficient manner. This fact has led the US to develop and deploy an experimental system called Project Maven, which analyses video footage from drones to identify potential threats in the US’ fight against the Islamic State (IS).

4. One of the potential applications of AI in cyber defence may be to enable the setting up of self-configuring networks. It would mean that AI systems could detect vulnerabilities (software bugs) and perform response actions like self-patching. This opens new ways to strengthening communications and information systems security by providing network resilience, prevention and protection against cyber threats.

5. Another aspect relevant in building an AI enabled cyber defence could be the future implications of Quantum computing or high processing computers. This enhancement to support data-processing may increase the efficiency of algorithms. Algorithms are key components of running AI and may be tailored to counter complex cyber threats.

6. AI infused autonomous weapon systems would become field level force multipliers in the future wars. AI would have a major role in the functioning of every major

offensive or defensive weapon system of the military.

7. Using AI enabled weapon systems such as drones would selectively target the militia without collateral damage, leaving hardly any space for them to operate.

8. The ministry established a high-level Defence AI Council (DAIC) under the chairmanship of the Minister of Defence assigned with the task of providing strategic direction towards the adoption of AI in defence. The DAIC will guide the partnership between the government and industry and also review the recommendations concerning the acquisition of technology and start-ups.

The task force recognized AI as a ‘force multiplier’ and emphasized that all the defence organizations lay down their strategies of AI appropriation. The Centre of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has also developed autonomous technology-based products.

9. It has focused on the net-centric communication systems for tactical command control. For surveillance and reconnaissance purposes, CAIR has developed intriguing probes like snake robots, Hexa-bots, and sentries. It has a comprehensive library for AI-based algorithms and data mining toolboxes that can potentially be used for image/video recognition, NLP, swarming.

However, in a data-based approach to artificial intelligence, efficient learner algorithms can only serve a limited purpose without the hardware that can collect and process a large amount of data.

10. Humanoid robots, armed with lethal weapons, to guard the long borders with Pakistan and China? Or, unmanned tanks, submarines, and aircraft to take the battle to the enemy? Well, all this as of now maybe in the realm of pure science fiction for India, which does not even have aerial combat drones. But India does not want to miss the bus in the new global arms race to develop artificial intelligence(AI)-powered weapon and surveillance systems for futuristic wars.

11. The country’s defence establishment is now working towards harnessing the expertise of the information technology industry and academia in this arena, taking a cue from countries like the US and China that are focusing on AI and MI (machine learning) to develop lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)The critical need to be prepared for this new revolution in military affairs was even stressed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the DefExpo in Chennai last month. “New and emerging technologies like AI and Robotics will perhaps be the most important determinants of defensive and offensive capabilities for any defence force in the future.

India, with its leadership in the information technology domain would strive to use this technology tilt to its advantage,” he said.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence has a great scope ahead if used wisely and strategically. Adoption of AI in various realms would offer Its more scope and credibility.

The accountability debate on AI, which in most of the cases today is aimed at ascertaining the liability, needs to be shifted to objectively identifying the component that failed and how to prevent that in the future.

AI must be coded in such a way that it must not overpower the human race. It must be within the control of the encoder.

The stage of artificial super intelligence (ASI) can become a threat in the future if this type of machine came into existence. The machine should not surpass all human abilities which can become a threat to the human race. As we see in sci-fi movies that how robots and machines invade earth and conquered it.

So, artificial intelligence must be developed within limits and should be tested from time to time to avoid its ill results.

Latest Posts