lexpeeps lexpeeps – Page 60

This article is written by Navneet Chandra, a student of the Central University of South Bihar, Gaya.

Introduction

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was enacted in 1958 to bring under control what the government of India considered ‘disturbed’ areas. The Tripura government on Thursday decided to lift the controversial law which according to a Press Trust of India report “was in effect for the last 18 years to curb insurgency. “The Act has often faced flak from human rights groups as it gave sweeping powers and immunity to the army in conflict-ridden areas.

More About AFSPA

Any law that empowers the state to act with impunity must be resisted by a democratic society. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) which is imposed in disturbed areas of the North East and Jammu and Kashmir has been contested by several civil society groups of this country. In Kashmir, several women are called half widows because their husbands have been abducted and secretly killed, all in the name of counter-insurgency. In disturbed areas, the army is brought in to tackle militancy. Under AFSPA the security forces enjoy immunity for causing death and for tortures they inflict in the name of countering insurgency. Very often the encounters are staged and suspects are killed because the higher-ups need quick results. Irom Sharmila of Manipur has been the longest non-violent protest against the AFSPA. She started her fast to protest against AFSPA in November 2000 and continues to be force-fed in jail. Successive governments have refused to take a call against this repressive colonial Act because the Defence Ministry would refuse to deploy the army if the AFSPA is withdrawn. Army officials claim that sending their men into an insurgency affected area without the backing of AFSPA is like sending them with their hands tied behind their backs.

Over the years, there have been several voices of protest. There is the 11-year-long fast of Irom Sharmila, a Manipur activist demanding a repeal of the law, which has recently received much media attention. In 2004, various civil society groups in Manipur launched an intense agitation after the death of Manorama Devi, a civilian, while in the custody of the Assam Rifles. In 2005, following her death, the then Union Home Minister visited Manipur and instituted a commission under Justice Jeevan Reddy, which also asked for the modification or repeal of the AFSPA. In 2011, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Omar Abdullah, too asked for the AFSPA to be lifted from the state. In March this year, the UN and other organisations, both nationally and internationally, have also jumped into the fray, asking for the repeal of AFSPA in the North East and Jammu and Kashmir.

Controversy on the implication of AFSPA, Act

The Act provides the security personnel with absolute powers without being accounted for. This leads to various atrocities and human rights violations by the security agencies.
AFSPA violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention against Torture( India is a signatory, but it has not ratified it).
BP Jeevan Reddy committee examining it in relation to the Northeast in 2005, and the Veerappa Moily report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission of 2007, recommended that the Act be repealed.
The reports of the Justice Verma Committee (2013) and the Justice Hegde Commission (2013) supported the need to address the abuses committed under the AFSPA and end the effective impunity enjoyed by security forces.
The Supreme Court-appointed Hegde Commission (2013) found that all seven deaths in the six cases it investigated were extrajudicial executions, and also said that the AFSPA was widely abused by security forces in Manipur.

Need for AFSPA

The Army is of the opinion that the AFSPA is absolutely essential to combat insurgency in the country and protect the borders.
In a virulent insurgency, security forces cannot operate without the cover of the AFSPA. Without it, there would be hesitation which would work to the advantage of insurgents.
Army officials also cite the need to protect the morale and integrity of the army as a reason not to scrutinize allegations against army personnel.

My suggestions

AFSPA should be amended to make it more comprehensive, with elaborate rules with respect to the manner of investigations of alleged human rights violations to reduce the possibility of it being abused.
The Army should view human rights violations as the biggest threat to its credibility and its stellar record in fighting insurgencies over the last 62 years. It must re-establish the credibility of its legal system to deal with the problem.
The Army should put in public domain details of all court-martials held with respect to human rights violations. It must sincerely carry out fresh investigations into all alleged cases of human rights violations in Manipur and elsewhere.
The government should try to resolve the long-running insurgency in North-eastern states through dialogue with insurgent groups.
Development deficit in the North-east region is also said to be a major reason for insurgency, Government thus should take urgent steps to create new avenues of growth through Industrialization and Infrastructural development.

Conclusion

The AFSPA was first enforced in the North East in 1958; due to the extreme law and order situation, the central government classified the North East as a “disturbed area.” After 1958, the AFSPA has been incrementally applied to cover the seven states in the North East. The law has also been in force in large parts of Jammu and Kashmir from the 1990s. It grants the army “special powers” which have to be used with extreme care. The law gives the army powers to shoot to kill, destroy property and temporarily detain suspects. Army personnel acting under the AFSPA are immune from all actions taken under other laws of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and civil suits, unless otherwise sanctioned by the central government.

The army is called in only when secessionist violence crosses the threshold of being a law-and-order problem that the police cannot handle. The armed forces are trained to be aggressive, to fire for effect, to be lethal; it is this training that makes the army more successful than the police in counter-insurgency operations.

Latest Posts

Archives

This article has been written by Yash Mittal, pursuing LLB-1 year from Mewar Law University.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Bench

M.Hameedullah , Y.V.Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer & N.L. Untwalia, S.M. Fazalal, & P.S. Kailasam. (7 judge bench)

Petitioner

Maneka Gandhi

Respondent

Union of India

Citation

1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

Introduction

This case is a landmark judgment which played the most significant role towards the transformation of the judicial review on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights from article 21. This case is always read and linked with the AK Gopalan v State of Madras, because the case revolves around the concept of personal liberty which came up for consideration in the AK Gopalan case.

Facts of the case

1) The petitioner Maneka Gandhi was a journalist whose passport was issued on June 1, 1976 under the Passport Act 1976.

2) The regional passport officer, New Delhi issued a letter dated July 7, 1977 addressed to Maneka Gandhi in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c) of the act in the public interest. Within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

3) When the reasons were asked for the confiscation of her passport, The ministry of external affairs declined to produce any reasons in the interest of the general public.

4) The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the government for impounding her passport and declining to give reasons for doing so.

Under article 32 of the Constitution of India stating the seizure of her passport as a violation of fundamental rights. Specifically Article 14 (Right to equality), Article 19 (Right to freedom of speech and expression), and Article 21 (Right to life and liberty) guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Issues before the Court

1) Whether the right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty under article 21.

2) Whether the fundamental rights are conditional or absolute and what is the extent of such fundamental rights provided to the citizens of India by the Constitution.

3) Whether the passport act prescribes a procedure as required by article 21 before depriving a person of the right guaranteed under the said article.

4) Whether the provisions laid down in section 10(3)(c) of the passport act 1967 is violative of fundamental rights Article 14, 19(1), and 21 of the Constitution.

5) Whether the impugned order of the regional passport officer is in contravention of the principal of natural justice.

Arguments of the petitioners

1) The right to go abroad is a part of personal liberty used in article 21 and no one can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure prescribed by law. Passport Act 1967 does not prescribe any procedure for revoking or impounding a passport. So it is unreasonable and arbitrary.

2) Section 10(3)(c) is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,19(1), (a) and (g) and 21.

3) Any procedure established by law is required to be free from arbitrariness and must comply with the principle of natural justice.

4) An essential constituent of Natural Justice is “Audi Alteram Partem” i.e., given a chance to be heard, was not granted to the petitioner.

5) In order that a passport may be impounded under section 10(3)(c) of the passport act 1967, public interest must actually exist in present and the mere likelihood of public interest arising in the future would be no ground for impounding the passport.

Contentions of the Respondent

1) The respondent stated that since the petitioner was required to appear before a committee for inquiry, hence her passport was impounded.

2) The respondent asserted that the word law under article 21 can’t be understood as reflected in the fundamental rules of natural justice, Emphasising the principle laid down in AK Gopalan case.

3) Article 21 contains the phrase “procedure established by law” & such procedure does not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in consonance with the Articles 14 & 19.

4) The framers of our Constitution had long debates on the American “due process of law” versus the British “procedure established by law”. The marked absence of the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers’ intentions.

Judgment

To the extent to which Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 authorizes the passport authority to impound a passport in the interests of the general public, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority

Section 10(3)(c) is void as conferring an arbitrary power since it does not provide for a hearing to the holder of the passport before the passport is impounded.

Section 10(3)(c) is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution since it does not prescribe ‘procedure within the meaning of that article and the procedure practised is worst.

Section 10(3)(c) is against Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) since it permits restrictions to be imposed on the rights guaranteed by these articles even though such restrictions cannot be imposed under Articles 19(2) and 19(6).

A new doctrine of Post Decisional theory was evolved.

CONCLUSION

It may be said that Maneka Gandhi’s case, gave the term personal liberty widest possible interpretation and gave effect to the intention of the drafters of the Constitution. This case, while adding a whole new dimension to the concept of personal liberty”, extended the protection of Art. 14 to the personal liberty of every person and additional protection of Art. 19 to the personal liberty of every citizen.

In this case, the Hon’ble court interpreted different Articles of the Constitution very brilliantly. But the post decisional doctrine, which was given in this case, According to Scholars it was not good. A person should be given the chance of defending himself, before the decision. And in this case, the petitioner should be compensated.

Latest Posts

Archives

About the Organizers

Students for Liberty is the largest pro-liberty movement of students in the world with a presence in more than 100 countries and every inhabited continent. Lives for Literacy is a newly formed grassroots organization from Canada that is building bridges between people across the globe and raising literacy awareness.

What is Samvad?

E-samvad is a curation of critical intellectual discourse that helps you manifest your thoughts in the form of a dialogue and encourages discussion with other individuals.

The samvad on Liberty and Literacy is going to be a discussion on proving that literacy is a pathway to freedom, the yearning an individual gets enlightened with, and how this largely focuses on the freedom that comes with educating oneself. There is a crossover between these two terms and this is why we need to establish a dialogue to understand the importance. Furthermore, we will be exploring the role of globalization and how it has played a role in increasing the standards of literacy.

Details of the Event

Registrations are open. Registration is free and required.

Apply before 13th October 2020.

Time: 8:00 PM IST

Date: 18th October 2020

Contact Information

Dyuti Pandya: dpandya@studentsforliberty.org
Yasmin Farah Peer: livesforliteracy@gmail.com

About the Institution

The School of Law, Governance and Citizenship (SLGC) at Ambedkar University Delhi offers an interdisciplinary approach to the productive and complex interaction of law, culture, politics and social structures. Rather than treating law and social sciences as two separate and strictly compartmentalized disciplines, the School envisions the same to be a contested terrain of knowledge and practice that is best investigated in a creative and collaborative manner across disciplines.

About the Course

The M.A. Programme in Law, Society and Politics at the SLGC is designed with the premise that a focus on the intersection of law and politics is of crucial importance in shaping a better understanding of modern India. That law is both living and dynamic as against something static is evidenced in the way courts and the judiciary has constantly re-interpreted texts of the law as well as the Constitution.

Duration: 2 Years

Seats: 53

Last date to apply: 10th October 2020.

Eligibility

Applicants need to have a Bachelors degree in any discipline with minimum 45% marks or equivalent grade from a recognised university (Relaxation of 5% marks for SC/ST/PwBD/D-OBC (NCL)/Defence/KM).

Selection Process

Entrance Test (weightage 75%) and Interview (weightage 25%)

Important Links

CLICK HERE FOR THE DETAILS OF THE COURSE.

CLICK HERE TO APPLY FOR THE COURSE.

CLICK HERE FOR THE BROCHURE.

About SLS, Hyderabad

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad (SLS-H) is a constituent of Symbiosis International (Deemed) University, Pune (India). SLS has students from 85 different countries around the world.

University Grants Commission (UGC) of India re-accredited Symbiosis International (Deemed University) with Grade ‘A’ and CGPA of 3.58 on a four-point scale.

Recently, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development granted autonomous status to Symbiosis International (Deemed University) under Category–I.

About the Organizers

International Cell, SLS-H is the International Relations office of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

It aims at encouraging global education through various International Collaborations. The main agenda of the cell is to form International Partnerships with various universities and conduct various educational programs to foster Global Education and open the door of opportunities for the students.

Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice or CCCJ, is one of the many centers of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

CCCJ was established in March 2018 to gain more knowledge about criminology and its sister branches.

The Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice is engaged in activities to develop and strengthen the existing Criminal Justice system of the state and benefit of the society for smooth functioning.

About the Webinar

SLS-H and the other organizers mentioned above are organizing a webinar on the topic “Child victims and First responders – An overview on Victim assistance and Mental health issues” in collaboration with our Outreach Partners IDP Education India and Media and Knowledge Partners Lawctopus.

The webinar is scheduled to be held on October 9, 2020, from 5 PM to 7:30 PM.

Speakers

Dr. George Edward Richards is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice, Anthropology and Forensic Studies at the Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Surendra Kumar, IPS currently serves as the Inspector General of Police (IGP), CID, Assam. He belongs to the Indian Police Service batch of 1998 from the Assam-Meghalaya cadre.

Ms. Harleen Walia, the Deputy Director of Childline India Foundation (which anchors the 1098 child helpline, the only helpline exclusively for children in crisis in India), has a demonstrated history of working in the development and non-profit organisation management industry. She is skilled in Policy Analysis, Capacity Building, Donor management, Government relations, and Civil Society Engagement.

Eligibility

All professionals and students of the legal, Criminology, Political Science fraternity.

Perks

Certificate to the participants

Platform

CISCO WebEx

A link for the same will be sent post registration.

Date & Time

Date: October 9, 2020

Time: 5:00 PM – 7:30 PM

Registration

Use the link here to register for the webinar.

Deadline

Last Date for Registration: October 7, 2020

Contact Information

For queries, write to ic@slsh.edu.in

Or contact:

Ms. Ankita Mohanty: (+91) 91337 97629

Ms. Nivetha Ravikumar: (+91) 79934 08848

This case analysis is written by Prithiv Raj Sahu, a student of KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar (4th year).

Court

Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal No’s

9367-9369 of 2011

Citation

MANU/SC/0194/2020

Date of Judgement

17th February 2020

Bench

Dr DY Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

Subject

Defense Law, Constitutional Law

Introduction

Gender stereotypes always create barriers for third gender and women in the professional spaces and it also deepens gender discrimination at work. One of the many gender discriminations from which women were battling ended in their favour as the Supreme Court of India in a landmark, and extremely laudable judgment named The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. Ordered the grant of permanent commission (hereinafter PC) in 10 non-combat service units at three months and held them to be eligible to hold command posts by enervating the existing ceiling. It also provides equal opportunity for women in the Indian Army by providing them long-term job security, and the judgment is regarded as the watershed moment in the history of the Indian army. In various countries, these positions were granted a long time before like Norway allowed women in all combat battles in 1985, Pakistan also inducted its first women fighter pilot in 2013, the USA also allowed all ground combat roles for women in 2016, etc. Further, we will discuss the major events, facts, issues raised, and the judgment in detail to get a logical conclusion about this noteworthy case.

Facts

In February 2003, a PIL under the watchful eye of the Delhi High Court looked for permanent commission for women officials enlisted through the Short Service Commission (SSC) in the military compared to their male associates. As in Strategy amendment in 2006 permitted them to serve for a limit of 14 years as an SSC official. The Centre chose in September 2008 to concede the permanent commission to SSC ladies officials in the Judge Advocate General office and Army Education Corps and their comparing branches in the Air Force and Navy. In March 2010, a Delhi High Court Bench admitted the appeal of such petitions and guided the Defence Ministry to stretch out permanent commission advantages to the SSC women officials of the Air Force and Army who had decided on permanent commission yet not conceded the equivalent. In July, the Army tested the request. It was on September 2, 2011 that the case arrived at the Apex Court in advance. The Apex Court held that the activity of the denounced judgment hasn’t remained in any way. In May 2018, Centre disclosed to Apex Court that it is thinking about giving permanent commission to women officials enrolled through SSC in the Army. In August, PM Modi reported a significant move by announcing that women officials will have the option to decide on changeless commission in parts of the military separated from existing ones like law and instruction. In February 2019, the legislature brought a notification reporting permanent commission of women officials yet tentatively made it appropriate just to those women officials dispatched after this request. The serving officials were kept out of the ambit of this notification. In the same month, the Centre issued a request for an award of perpetual commission to new SSC officials in eight battle bolster arms/administrations.

Issues

Whether women should be granted Permanent Commission in the Indian Army?
Whether the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 15th February 2019 should be implemented?
What are the conditions governing the Women Officers in the Indian Army?

The Specific Argument Points of the Union Government was:

Grant of PC
Pensionary Benefits
Policy considerations
Occupational hazards
Discrimination
SSC as a support cadre
Employment in staff appointments

The Specific Argument Points of the Respondent was:

Battlefield Scenario
Unit cohesion
National security

Judgment

The court held that a plain reading of section 12 of the Army Act asserts that the policy decision of UOI dated 25 February 2019 allows for PC of women officers in ten streams. This policy decision of UOI recognizes the right of women officers to equality of opportunity. This right has facets Principle of non-discrimination on the ground of sex which is embodied in Article 15(1) of the Constitution and Equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment Under Article 16(1). The court regarded the submissions given to it by UOI as one promoting sex stereotypes and gender discrimination. It is assumed that domestic responsibility rests solely on women. The idea that there is an inherent psychological difference between men and women is constitutionally flawed as assumes that women are the weaker sex.

Conclusion

This decision by the Supreme Court no doubt is appreciable and commendable and should be admired by all of us. It ensures the women’s position in the Indian Army and also prevails in gender justice in the Army also. It removed the blanket restrictions imposed on the women officers for holding higher rank posts. It is rightly observed by the decision given by the bench headed by Justice Chandrachud that it is an insult to women officers and to the Indian Army also when aspersion is cast on women, their potential, ability, and achievements in the army.

Reference

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117198144
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/20695/20695_2010_8_1501_20635Judgement_17-Feb-2020

Latest Posts

Archives

About Delhi Law Review (Student Edition)

The Delhi Law Review (Student Edition) is an annual, double-blind, student-reviewed and edited journal.The objective of DLR is to involve students in promoting academic research and facilitating debate on contemporary legal issues in India. The journal includes national and international legal and policy-based issues within its sweep. As of 2020, seven volumes of the journal have been made available online which can be accessed on the Faculty of Law website.

About the Opportunity

Volume VIII of the journal invites original and unpublished manuscripts from all academicians, authors, legal professionals and students from India and abroad in the following categories (with their respective word limits):

Long Articles: 6,500 to 8,500 words
Essays/Short Articles: 3,500 to 6,000 words
Case Notes and Legislative Comments: 1,500 to 2,500 words
Book Review: 1,000 to1,500 words

Submission Guidelines

Check the detailed submission guidelines here.

How to Submit

Volume VIII will only accept electronic submissions.

E-mail the submissions to: student.delhilawreview@gmail.com under the subject heading ‘Delhi Law Review (Student Edition) Vol. VIII Submission’.

Deadline

November 01, 2020 by 11:59 PM IST.

Contact Information

For all correspondence and queries, write to:

student.delhilawreview@gmail.com

The Editorial Board

Delhi Law Review (Student Edition)

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.

About Legal Aid Society, NLU Odisha

National Law University Odisha (NLU Odisha) was established in the year 2008 by the Odisha government, as a Centre of Excellence in Legal Education.

In furtherance of the same, the Legal Aid Society of NLU Odisha was established in the year 2012 with a mission to implement the mandate of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

About Sarkari School

Sarkari School works with an initiative to build a platform for those working in the field of school education, to uplift the future of the younger generation through their hard work. Find more information about it here.

About the Conference

Article 21-A of the Constitution of India provides free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years as a Fundamental Right in such a manner as the State may, by law, determine. This RTE Act came into effect on 1 April 2010.

This conference will highlight the changes that came in our country post 10 years of RTE: our achievements as well as challenges that still need to be addressed.

About the Call for Research Papers

NLUO & Sarkari School invites submissions about the implementation and challenges faced by the Right to Education Act in India.

The best 10 authors will be given an opportunity to present their paper at the conference.
Every selected article will be acknowledged with a certificate of appreciation.

Themes and Sub-Themes

Impact of RTE on

Girl’s Education.
School infrastructure.
Enrollment rate.
Inclusion of differently-abled.
Literacy rate.
Social and economical implication on right to education.
Role of RTE in child-centered education.
RTE in view of government and private schools.
RTE paving the way for the democratization of education.
How has the RTE act failed to ensure a 25% reservation to poor students in private schools?
Revolution of the education system and the way forward.
Right to education and gender equality.
The education system for the disabled.
The need to uphold the RTE act during a pandemic.
How can India’s Education System escape the vicious cycle of inequality and discrimination?
Impact of media on the Right to education.
Right to education in the era of digital learning.

Submission Guidelines and Rewards

Click the link at the bottom for submission guidelines and rewards.

Important Details and Deadlines

Deadline for abstract submission: October 5, 2020 (Extended)
Deadline for final submission: October 14, 2020 till 11:59 PM
Conference Date: October 18, 2020
Time: 10 AM to 4 PM

Contact Details

For queries regarding the conference and for submission, write to rteconf2020@gmail.com.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.

About CCI, India

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is a statutory body established under the Competition Act, 2002 with the objective of preventing practices having an adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interest of consumers, and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets in India.

CCI is also mandated to take suitable measures for the promotion of competition law by organizing various advocacy programs for the stakeholders.

The Commission brings out its annual Journal on Competition Law and Policy in both print and online versions.

About the Opportunity

The Commission invites original high-quality research papers, articles, case law, and book reviews on competition law, the economics of competition law, and contemporary antitrust issues for publication in its aforesaid journal.

However, research papers/ articles/book reviews on the following themes, in the Indian context and based on empirical research, would be encouraged:

Cartel
Vertical restraints and competition
Market definition, measuring market power and abuse of dominance
Merger and acquisition
New age economy, platform markets and challenges for antitrust enforcement
Intellectual property rights and competition law
Recent development in competition law and policy
Any other issues related to competition law and policy

Process of Selection

Initial stage: The Joint editors will carry out a blind review to determine the eligibility of the paper for further review. On clearing the initial stage: The paper will be sent to the editorial board.

A double-blind review process will be followed at both stages.

Based on the editorial board recommendations, the paper will be rejected or accepted or sent.

Submission Guidelines

View the detailed submission guidelines.

CLICK HERE

How to Submit

Full papers along with a CV of the author(s) and duly signed certificate of originality sent to journals@cci.gov.in

Contact Information

Requests for further information or any other queries may be sent to the abovementioned email ID.

Please Note: There is no specific deadline for the submission of papers. Papers cleared by the Editorial board will be published in the next available issue of the Journal.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.

About Law Primis

Law Primis is an online platform launched in 2020. They seek to spread awareness among individuals from legal backgrounds and individuals interested in the legal field.

They aim to reach people and increase their understanding of the multifaceted life that is the career and practice of the law. They seek to be the platform that caters to your needs as an individual interested in this field.

About serving on the Law Primis Editorial Board

Board membership provides an opportunity to discuss issues of importance in education, develop collaborative relationships with scholars and colleagues, and gain editorial skills and scholarly publishing experience. These positions offer an opportunity to engage with a range of writing and research on law, policy and social sciences.

Minimum Requirements

The applicant must be in or above 3rd year (5-year course) or 2nd year (3-year course) of Law College or in Masters or Research Scholar in Law.
The applicant must have strong research and analysis skills.
The applicant must possess strong command over the English language.
The applicant must have at least one publication with a peer-reviewed journal or at least two paper presentations at national conferences.

Number of Vacancies

4 (four)

Important Note

An awareness of current affairs and contemporary debates in law will be valuable.
Familiarity with web applications and publications would be welcome.
Preference will be given to candidates having prior editorial experience or research experience. However, the same is not a pre-requisite to apply.
Kindly specifically mention any special qualifications held with respect to any of the above-mentioned requirements.

Roles and Responsibility

Making primary decisions on the merit of a written piece.
Send conditional acceptance and written feedback for improving an article.
Language and content editing of the articles, commentaries, case comments and book reviews.
Other miscellaneous editorial tasks.

Application Procedure

FILL THIS FORM.

Candidates selected after the initial scrutiny will be sent a manuscript to review of which they have to submit a review report.
Candidates will be shortlisted on the basis of the quality of the review report and will subsequently be interviewed.
Details of the same will be communicated to the prospective persons soon; kindly refrain from repeatedly following up on the status of your application or interview result.

Contact Information

For any other query contact us at

connect@lawprimis.com.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.