Author: lexpeeps lexpeeps

                                                      REPORT BY- RIDDHIMA BHADAURIA 

The supreme court in June has asserted that a criminal protest against a police officer or a public servant cannot be engaged without previous sanction or assent from the government as is said under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure. The bench comprising Justice R Banumathi and Indira Banerjee held that the law on the question is settled and has been set down. The judgement takes note of that if a challenge is mounted under section 482 of Crpc to a decision of the trial court to engage an objection against a public servant without authorization, the high court should practice its jurisdiction to suppress such a grievance.

Appellant’s contention

1.  The appealing party in this case was a deputy commissioner against whom the respondent has filed a complaint of sick treatment and police excesses during custody.
2. The accused appellant has stated that police officers of the Crime Department enquired into the history of the respondent and his family and found that the respondent was involved in various cases under IPC.
3. the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate I, Bengaluru remanded the respondent to police custody, observing that the respondent had not complained of any ill-treatment by the Police. The Investigating Officer seized a stolen car being Tata Manza car which was parked on the road adjacent to the respondent’s house, allegedly pursuant to a voluntary statement of the respondent.
4. The father of respondent filed a petition of habeas corpus and allegations made by the respondent and/or his father, of ill-treatment of the respondent, by the Police. The respondent was taken to hospital for check-up and treatment. The doctors gave a detailed report ruling out any abnormalities and injuries on the respondent.The Karnataka High Court later dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition being filed by the respondent’s father, observing that eight criminal cases were pending against the respondent and that he had been produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law.
5. 3rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, was pleased to take cognizance against the appellant even though no previous sanction had been obtained from the Government. The accused appellant filed Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru inter alia for quashing the order.
6. Mr. Saajan Poovayya the learned counsel of appeallent submitted that the private complaint as also the Magistrate taking cognizance of the private complaint, ought to have been quashed by the High Court, in the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
7. Mr. Poovayya argued that even otherwise there was no case against the accused appellant. Even assuming that there was any ill treatment meted out to the appellant, while he was in police custody, there was no specific allegation against the accused appellant, who was not the Investigating Officer, but the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
8. Mr. Poovayya also argued that the respondent was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on which date he was remanded to police custody with the finding that there was no ill-treatment by the police. Even after the respondent’s father filed the Habeas Corpus Petition in the High court and there was no record of ill treatment by the police.
9. He also contended that allegation of police excesses in the course of investigation, and police custody of the respondent, has a reasonable nexus with the duty of the appellant as a police officer. Even if the act was in dereliction of duty or in excess of duty, it was nevertheless in exercise of authority as a police officer, in connection with investigation of an alleged crime in which the respondent was alleged to be involved. The police officers were duty bound to investigate an offence. The excesses alleged were in the course of discharge of such official duty of investigating into an offence and no prosecution is to be entertained against a Police Officer, except with the previous sanction of the Government, in case of any wrong alleged to have been done by such officer, by any act in pursuance of any duty imposed or authority conferred on him by any provision of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, or even any act done under the exercise of duty.
10. Hence, the criminal complaint against the accused appellant should, therefore, have been quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
11. Mr. Poovayya argued that the accused appellant had been arrayed as accused vindictively, out of vengeance, since the accused appellant had, in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch), submitted an affidavit in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the respondent’s father in the Karnataka High Court. The said affidavit led to the dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition. Case referred to(State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others)

Case  laws cited by appellant’s counsel

• D.T.Virupakshappa v. C. Subash
• Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadambur v. State of Mysore,
• Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Another
•  K.K. Patel and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another
•  State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew

Respondent’s contention

1. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that, whether sanction was necessary or not, had to be decided, keeping in mind the nature of the complaint, which, in this case, was of physical torture and illtreatment of the respondent. Ill-treatment and torture could never be in exercise of official duty, or even under the colour of official duty.

2. Mr. Luthra further argued that, in any case, whether sanction was necessary or not, would have to be determined in course of the trial. A complaint should not be denied in the earlier stage on the ground of want of sanction.

3. He also submitted that, an order of a Magistrate, taking cognizance of a complaint was not amenable to challenge under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court rightly remanded the complaint to the Trial Court.

4. Mr. Luthra concluded with the argument that the accused appellant can have no grievance against the judgment and order under appeal, since the High Court has given the accused appellant the liberty to apply for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has directed the Trial Court to decide such

application, if made, before recording evidence on the merit of the

allegations made against him.

Cases cited by respondent’s counsel

• Devinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
• State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram
•  Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of Gujarat
•  State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal and Others
•  Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police

            & Ors. v. State

•  Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur & Anr.
•  Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Judgement

The Court held that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is intended to prevent a public servant from being harassed does not apply to acts done by a public servant in his private capacity. This Court however left it open to the accused public servant to place materials on record during the trial to show that the acts complained of were so interrelated with his official duty as to attract the protection of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Court ought to have exercised its power to quash the complaint instead of remitting the appellant to an application under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seek discharge.

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the complaint is quashed. The supreme court recently reiterated that a criminal complaint against a police officer or a public servant cannot be entertained without prior sanction from the government, as is mandated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Other cases referred from-

1.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar

2.Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and others v. Jammal

   Patel and Others

3.Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan

4.Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand and

   Anr.

5.Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Gurmej Kaur

6.State of Maharashtra v. Atma Ram

7.Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of Gujarat

8.State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal

9.Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. State Thr.

CBI

10. Devinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab through CBI

                                                                           Report by Karthi Shankar

This case has already given out some guidelines which was issued on 13.12.2018 by the Supreme Court of India. Further it was brought into attention currently due to the pandemic situation in a concern for old age people who are facing difficulties and not taken adversely taken care of.

Petitioner’s Contention

Dr. Ashwani Kumar is the person (Amicus Curae) who have filed the case in concern of older age citizens of the country that they were not treated well in the Pandemic times especially those who live alone are put into suffering and does not get sanitation materials and other essential goods which are in great demand at this time, this material gets out-of-stock within a limited time due to more demand, which makes it a struggle for the old age people to purchase the requisite materials. It is also been stated from the petition that, the caretakers of old aged people are also mostly untrained or lacks skill and also works without proper equipment when getting in contact with these people. Another important problem which mentioned by the petitioner was that there is a delay in payment of old age people who are really in need of a pension, this is a major drawback for them, as some have no other source of income other than from pension. The point which was discussed in relevance to the current situation was that the elderly people should get priority in government hospitals and the priority should not be given on the basis of their influence, the capacity to pay, etc, they need to be taken care off immediately as soon as possible.

Key Highlights

1. The petitioner has filed WRIT Petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court regarding the rights of elderly people under Article 21. The rights were the following,

2. Pension for elderly people

3. Shelter for elderly people

4. Geriatric care and medical facilities for old age people

5. Effective implementation of maintenance and welfare of senior citizens.

• The case has already issued directions but was re-applied to make clear of the ongoing pandemic situation favourably for the older age people and to get them due attention and utmost care.
• This case is against the Union of India so the respondents comprised of centre and also all the states which has to respond to this Writ petition, as it is related to all the states.
•  In State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, Nagar Nigam v. AL Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd and in Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India the right to health was given the status of a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution.

Respondent’s  Contention

State is responsible for the welfare of it’s citizens irrespective of their age, but it should pay more care to old age people as they have less immune and more prone to deaths than other ageing groups. The elderly people who are alone are the more vulnerable ones as they should suffer and struggle for attention and care. The petition was responded with that each and every individual gets free treatment in a Government Hospital, and also the treatment to COVID-19 is totally free. The only thing which is missing is that the priority in admissions in accordance with their health condition and how far the virus have caused complications in their health. In case of any complaint made by elderly people, the hospital should immediately look after the respective person and should redress their grievances.

Supreme Court added flavours to the guidelines which was already issued in light of the Pandemic times

Based on the directions issued on 13.12.2018 for a Writ petition, SC has delivered some other points on the Re-application of the same Writ in relevance to the COVID-19. The court has asked the government hospitals to prioritise the health of elderly people and not delay them in admissions because they are more vulnerable ones especially to virus of this kind. Immediate actions should be taken against queries and complaints.

                                                                                             Report by Karthi

Bombay High Court stated that the state cannot make any changes in the fee structure of private unaided schools that are not dependent on government. The resolution which was issued on 08.05.2020 regarding the fee structure which was stayed till further orders.

Petitioner’s Contention:

This case before the High court of Bombay is a writ petition filed during the pandemic crisis. This is not a single petition but collaged because of the similarity of the problem placed and for the relief claimed. The writs were filed based on a government resolution No.Misc-2020/CR33/SM-6 dated 8^th May,2020-08-09, which was issued by Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department. Petitioners were individuals who runs private unaided schools with different boards like CBSE, ICSE , etc , therefore the fees collected from the students are the source of income as they are not aided by the government. The Resolution passed by the Principal Secretary was regarding the non-increase of the fees for the academic year 2020-2021, because the Epidemic Diseases Act and the Disaster Management act was implemented in the state due to the COVID crisis. The order issued in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. What the petitioners stated was that the power of approval of the fees was given to the executive committee of parent teachers association in accordance with the Maharashtra Educational Institutions Act, 2011.

Key Highlights:

1. The State is not empowered with any laws to issue such a resolution in accordance to the fee of private institutions.
2. Because of the compulsion to pay fee by the institutions the state exercised Section 21 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions Act,2011 and Section 26(i) of Disaster Management Act,2005 and have made some decisions in the following:-  Payment in Installations, Online mode of payment, no hike in fees for the academic year and reduction in fees proportionate to reduction in usage of reduction in resources.
3. Whether the Resolution passed by the State could be justified with the power of state to take an executive action under Article 162 of the Indian constitution.
4. TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka,2002 8 SCC 481, this case stated that it is totally unacceptable for the government to interfere in determining the fee structure of Private schools especially which is not aided by the Government.
5. Based on having the above case as a Precedent, Supreme court in State of Bihar vs Project Uccha Vidya Shiksha Sangh said that with precedents it is clear that article 19 cannot be achieved by issuing a circular of resolution under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
6. The court also asked the management to consider the difficulties faced by the parents in this pandemic situation and their financial struggle, therefore provide them to pay fees in instalments and provide online payment facilities.

Respondent’s Contention

When we look it from the State’s perspective it is done for the welfare of the people of the state as they were compelled to pay fees and to protect them from the increase of fees the Principal Secretary has passed such a resolution. Section 25 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has given the powers to the State Executive Committee in an event of Disaster situation and to look after the welfare of people, clause (i) empowers the state executive committee to build temporary plans for the welfare of the state and also to remove hazardous plans that will affect public. Later it was stated by the court that the resolution passed on 08.05.2020 was issued without Jurisdiction. Right to establish educational institution is a fundamental right which is mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and the fees must be fixed reasonably and also for the betterment of the institution.

The Government Resolution order issued on 08.05.2020 was Stayed until further Orders.

With all the statues and favourable precedents, it was a decision favoured for the petitioners for the private aided schools which are unaided by the government. It was explicitly stated that there were no provisions for the government to interfere in the fee structure or alter any fees module of Private schools. The entire power to fix the fee lies with the private school and is left for approval with the Parent-teacher Association. No article in the constitution allows the state to take decisions on the fee structure even during the time of disaster as stated above, even with Article 162 where it is stated that the state could exercise executive powers. The Petitioners were asked to consider the financial struggle of the parents and do the need by the Bombay High Court.

Case number

 105 of 1963

 Citation

 AIR 1965 SC 1039

Bench

Gajendragadkar, P.B. (CJ)

Wanchoo, K.N.

Hidayatullah, M.

Dayal Raghubar

Mudholkar, J.K.

Decided on

29^th September, 1964

Relevant section

300(1) of the Constitution of India

 Brief facts 

Ralia Ram was one of the partners of a firm that deals in bullion and other goods at Amritsar. He was taken into custody by three police constables on suspicion of owning the stolen property at the bazaar of Meerut, where he went to sell his goods. He was detained into lock-up and his belongings, gold and silver were seized and kept into Malkhana till the disposal of the case. The next day he was released on bail and after sometimes the seized silver has been returned to him. He then made the demand for the seized gold, and since he could not recover the gold from the officers, he filed the current suit and claimed a decree that either his gold should be returned to him or the equivalent amount should be paid to him. The claim was resisted and it was urged that the respondent was not liable to pay either the gold or the relevant amount. The respondent alleged that the head constable, Mohammad Amir, then in charge misappropriated the gold and some cash deposited in Malkhana and flew away to Pakistan and the case against him was also filed but nothing effective could be done in the said case. Alternatively, the respondent pleaded, it is not a case of negligence and if it is then also the state is not liable for loss incurred by such negligence.

Issue before the Court

Whether the tort of negligence committed by public servant in discharge of statutory function, which can be categorized under sovereign powers, be held liable?

Ratio of the case

 The powers conferred on a specified officer by statute, here the power to arrest a person, to search him, and to seize property, can categorized as sovereign powers and the Supreme Court also held that the act which gave rise to the present claim for damages has been committed by the employee of the respondent during the course of its employment, but the employment in question in categorized under sovereign powers.

Decision of the court

The Supreme Court held that it was negligence on the part of respondent’s employee, but the employee was discharging his sovereign powers, hence the claim of the appellant fails and the parties had to bear the cost of damage.

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)

Archives

• 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

The author Nadeem Siddiqui is a second-year student of B.L.S L.L.B from Government Law College. Mumbai.

INTRODUCTION

The action undertaken by a person to receive compensation or to punish the person who has violated his right is known as ‘legal remedy’. There are different types of legal remedies available. For example, you can get compensation for the damages suffered and the court can also punish the violator while asking them to pay the compensation. In Tort Law, the remedies or reliefs available to an aggrieved person are mainly of two types:

1. Judicial Remedies
2. Extra Judicial Remedies

Judicial Remedies

Judicial remedies are the reliefs provided by the courts to the person whose rights are violated.  Judicial Remedies are of three types:

1. Damages
2. Injunction 
3. Specific Restitution of Property

Extra Judicial Remedies

Extra Judicial Remedies are the reliefs that a person can obtain by himself taking certain actions. Extra judicial remedies are of five types:

1. Expulsion of Trespasser
2. Re-entry on Land
3. Recapture of Goods
4. Abatement of Nuisance 
5. Distress Damage Feasant 

To get a proper understanding of each of these remedies, we need to discuss them in detail. First, we will discuss the judicial remedies in detail followed by extra judicial remedies.

1. Damages

The basic idea behind the concept of damages is to recompense the aggrieved person so that some harm caused due to the violation of his/her rights could be rectified.

General and Special Damages:

Damages which the law presumes to be the natural consequence of the defendant’s acts are general damages, whereas damages the law will not presume/infer unless proved at the trial are special damages.

E.g. Medical expenses incurred by plaintiff due to defendant’s negligent driving will give rise to general damages, whereas if the plaintiff claims nervous shock, then he/she has to prove the claim in order to get special damages. 

Types of Damages

1. Nominal Damages: Nominal damages are awarded by the Court to the plaintiff not as compensation but as a recognition of some legal rights of the plaintiff which the defendant has infringed. In other words, nominal damages are awarded when a person’s legal right is infringed but he/she has not suffered any damage. Nominal damages are available for torts which are actionable per se.

In Ashby v. White, a rightful voter’s right to vote was wrongfully denied at an election, he was awarded damages nominal in nature though the candidate in whose favour he wanted to cast his vote won the election.

2. Contemptuous Damages: Contemptuous damages are an indication of the Court expressing an opinion on the claim of the plaintiff or showing its disapproval of plaintiff’s conduct in the matter and consequently the amount of money awarded as damages is quite low. They differ from nominal damages as they may be awarded for any tortious act whether actionable per se or not.
3. Real or Substantial Damages: Damages which are assessed or awarded as compensation for the damage actually suffered by the plaintiff and not simply by way of mere recognition of violation of a legal right are called real or substantial damages.
4. Exemplary or Punitive Damages: Exemplary damages are awarded when there has been great injury by reason of aggravating circumstances accompanying the wrong. Exemplary damages are awarded not by way of compensation for the plaintiff, but by way of punishment for the defendant. The intent here is to create an example for the public, as the name itself suggests.     

In Rookes b. Barnard, the Court laid down that three situations/cases in which exemplary or punitive damages can be awarded. They are as follows:

1. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the Government.

E.g. In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, Bhim Singh, an MLA of J&K was arrested when he was going to attend an assembly session. The Supreme Court considered it to be an appropriate case to award exemplary damages. 

2. Cases where the defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff.

E.g. In Manson v. Associated NewsPapers Ltd., the court held that if a person who is in possession of material which would be defamatory if published, and the person really believes it to be true and still decides to publish it simply because he/she can make a profit from publishing it and he reckons that any damage she might have to pay would be so small that it would be well worth it, then that is a person, and that is the only person, against whom an award of exemplary damages can be made.

3. Where exemplary damages are expressly authorized by the statue.
4. Prospective Damages: Damages which are likely to result from the wrongful act of the defendant but they have not actually resulted at the time when the damages are being decided by the Court.

In Subhas Chandra v. Ram Singh, appellant was hit by a bus driver. He suffered several injuries resulting in his permanent disability to walk without a surgical show. Because of his disability he could not take employment in certain avenues. The Motor Claims Tribunal awarded hi, compensation amounting to Rs. 3,000 under the heading ‘probable further loss’. The amount of compensation on appeal was increased to Rs. 7000 by the Delhi High Court.

2. Injunctions 

An injunction is an order of the court directing the doing of some act or restraining the commission or continuance of some act. Injunctions are classified in two ways:

1. Mandatory Injunction:

If the injunction is an order to do an act, it is called a mandatory injunction. For example, an order to remove a structure illegally built by defendant on the plaintiff’s land, order to remove the obstruction violating plaintiff’s right to enter upon his own land.

2. Prohibitory Injunction:

If the injunction is to forbear from doing an act, it is called a prohibitive injunction. For example, an order not to encroach upon the plaintiff’s property, order not to cause nuisance. It is also called a ‘preventive injunction’, ‘perpetual injunction’ or ‘prohibitory injunction’.

3. Permanent or Perpetual Injunction:

If the court after going into the matter, finds that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief, the temporary injunction will be replaced by a perpetual/permanent injunction. A perpetual/permanent injunction is a final order and is issued after listening to both parties and after full consideration of the case.

When can perpetual or permanent injunction be granted ?

According to clause 3 of section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases:

1. Where the defendant is the trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
2. Where there is absence of an established norm for discerning the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
3. Where the wrongful act is such that recompense in money would not afford sufficient relief;
4. Where obtaining an injunction is indispensable to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.  

3. Temporary Injunction:

It is also called an ‘interlocutory injunction’ and is granted when the case is pending. Section 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 defines temporary injunction as “A temporary injunction is such as to continue until a specified time, or until the further order of the court”. It does not mean determination in favour of either the plaintiff or the defendant but simply shows the concern of the court that there is a substantial question requiring consideration. It is granted to stop the suffering till the case is in the court. 

When can an injunction be refused or not cannot be granted ?

Section 41 of the specific relief act lays down the grounds when an injunction can be refused. As per the section, an injunction cannot be granted –

1. To prevent any person form prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
2. To restraint any person from starting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that form which the injunction is sought;
3. To restraint any person form applying to any legislative body;
4. To restraint any person form beginning a proceeding on criminal matter;
5. To prevent the breach of a contract the execution of which would not be specifically enforced;
6. To prevent an act which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
7. To prevent a prolong breach in which the plaintiff has consented;
8. When equally effective relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
9. When the behaviour of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to debar him from the help of the court;
10. When the personal alleging the harm has no personal interest in the matter

3. Specific Restitution of Property

When one is wrongfully dispossessed of his movable or immovable property, the court may order that the specific property should be restored back to the plaintiff.

E.g. Action for ejectment, the recovery of chattels by an action for detinue etc.

As per section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a person who is wrongfully dispossessed of immovable property is entitled to recover the immovable property. 

As per section 7 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a person who is wrongfully dispossessed of movable property is entitled to recover the movable property.  

Extra Judicial Remedies

1. Expulsion of Trespasser

A person can resort to legitimate force in order to repel an intruder or trespasser provided the force used by him does not transgress the reasonable limits of the occasion i.e. he must not use disproportionate force.

In Scott v. Mathew Brown & Co., the Court held that the rightful owner of property is entitled to use force in ejecting a trespasser so long as he does him no personal injury.

In Edwick v. Hawles, the Court held that, while ejecting a trespasser, the rightful owner of property should not resort to violence.

2. Re-Entry on Land

A man wrongfully disposed of his land may retake its possession, if he can do so in a peaceful manner and without use of force. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that if one in possession of immovable property is disposed of, otherwise than by due course of law, may, within six months, sue to recover possession without reference to any title set up by another, which is left to be determined in a separate action. 

3. Recapture of Goods

A person entitled to the immediate possession of chattels may recover them from any person who has been in actual possession and detain them, provided that such possession was wrongful in its inception.

4. Abatement of Nuisance 

Abatement means removal of the nuisance by the party injured. It is justiciable provided it must be peaceable, without damage to life or limb and after notice to remove the same, if it is necessary to enter another’s land to abate a nuisance, or where the nuisance is a dwelling house in actual occupation, unless it is unsafe to wait.

5. Distress Damage Feasant 

A person who is in possession of a land may impound a cattle/animal which is wrongfully on that land to secure the payment of compensation for damage caused by it.

The basic idea behind the concept of damages, as said initially, is to provide some monetary recompense for the violations suffered as the courts cannot undo an act. The courts have also recognised that it is not enough to reward some compensation for the violation of rights, it is also necessary to give people some power so that they can defend themselves hence the concept of extra-judicial remedies. These are the remedies available in Tort Law.

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

This article is written by Anushka Singh, a second-year student, pursuing BBA-LLB at Unitedworld School of Law, Karnavati University. This article analyses the case of Ryland v. Fletcher which established the rule of strict liability under tort law.

INTRODUCTION

The principle of strict liability was first established in this case. Rylands v. Fletcher is an English tort law case. Strict liability is a term used to describe liability which is imposed on the defendant without proof of fault on his part.

Equivalent Citation

 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330

Bench

House of Lords-

• The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns) 
• Lord Cranworth.

Decided on

17^th July 1868- House of Lords

Relevant Act/ Section

To bring action under Tort law for strict liability, established under this case, the following elements should be there-

• Accumulation of something that may cause mischief when released.
• For personal use
• Should de dangerous/ or cause mischief
• Escape of the said thing
• Non- natural use of one’s land
• Foreseeability 

Brief Facts

In 1860, Ryland wanted a reservoir on his land, to supply his mill with water. He paid contractors (competent engineers) to build the reservoir, therefore not playing any active role in the construction. 

While building the reservoir, the contractors discovered old coal shafts and empty passages beneath the Rylands land adjoining Fletcher’s mine, which were filled loosely with debris and soil. Instead of blocking these shafts and passages, the contractors left them.

On 11^th December 1860, after being filled with water for the first time, the reservoir burst and flooded the adjoining mines, the Red House Colliery. Causing damage to the mine in addition to Fletcher’s property. Fletcher bought a suit against Rylands on 4^th November 1861.

Issue before the Court

• Was the use of Defendants land unreasonable?
• Should the Defendant be held liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff?

Procedural History

In 1865, a trial Court decided in favour of defendants, stating that defendants were ignorant of the abandoned passages and mine shafts. Therefore, no negligence was committed by them.

In 1866, the Exchequers Chamber reversed the decision by lower court, J. Blackburn on behalf of the other five judges held that- when a person for his personal use, brings anything to his property that is most likely to cause mischief when escapes, must be kept at the owners peril and if it does escape and cause damage, the owner must be held liable.

However, the owner can take two defences stated as follows-

• The thing escaped due to the act of plaintiff
• Vis major

In 1868, the House of Lords in their judgement affirmed the decision of Exchequer Chamber, but Lord Cairns limited the scope of J. Blackburn’s statement by adding that this principle can only apply where the defendant is using his land for a non-natural purpose. Thereby shifting the emphasis from the flooding of mines to the decision of defendant to build a reservoir on land adjacent to coal mines. 

Decision of the Court

The House of Lords held in judgment, affirming the Exchequers Chambers decision, stating that the Defendant’s use of the land was unreasonable, resulted in harm to the Plaintiff and was engaged in without proper caution. Therefore, holding the Defendant liable for damages done to the plaintiff.

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)

Archives

• 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

This article is written by Tulip Das, currently pursuing BBA L.L.B(H) from Amity University Kolkata. In this article, the author aims to describe how the Ram Janmabhoomi Puja and alliance of BJP to Hinduism are leading the way to extinguish of secularism as a concept in India.

INTRODUCTION

A future historian might record the 5th day of August 2020 as the day in India when Secularism breathed its last breath. Despite secularism being one of the strongest pillars of the Indian Constitution, the concept always had to encounter threats, fights, and debates. A glimpse of India losing the concept of secularism was seen on the 5th of August 2020, not because of the Ram Janmabhoomi Puja conducted in Ayodhya but because the worship was backed by political influence. A political party presiding and influencing religious ceremonies is not a good practice in a secular state. However, it was not so unusual as far as India is concerned. 

The Ayodhya Dispute- A Brief History

The story of the second-longest proceedings in the Indian History in the matter of Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid land dispute case centred on the ownership of a plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh – had begun in 1949, two years after the Indian Independence and came to its end on the historic date of 9th day of November 2019. Starting as a typical land title dispute between two communities – Hindu and Muslims – it shaped itself as the most sensitive political, religious communal fights. The dispute revolves around the history and location of Babri Masjid at the concerned site, the fact of whether there is any Hindu temple that was demolished by Muslim invaders to create a mosque.

The legal and political drama that has been on for debate for more than six decades now turned as one of the worst incidents of inter-religious brutality in the history of India which is responsible for the lives of thousands. On 30th September 2010, Allahabad High court pronounced a verdict to divide the disputed land into the three parts which were stayed and overruled by the Supreme Court of India and then the constituted Five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave the final judgment on 9th November 2019 which vacated the previous decisions and ruled to hand over the territory in dispute to Hindus.

Why Is India’s Secularism Questioned?

The question of whether the Ram Janmabhoomi Puja and alliance of BJP to Hinduism will lead to secularity extinguishing in India is quite natural to arise especially after the Hindu-Muslim riots over the land and it finally going to the Hindus and BJP`s open support to Hinduism. The answer is also yes! The secular ideology was defeated in India because it failed to distinguish itself from knee-jerk pro-minority, even as it learned to turn a blind eye to minority communalism.

It wouldn’t have been such a big issue if the event was viewed just as a Prime Minister and other ministers attending a religious ceremony but, it was BJP attending a Hindu puja. This question arose because everyone will remember how the building of the temple was finalized. So, going back, it was neither a battle inside the courtrooms nor regarding elections, but it was a battle of ideas. Secularism has been defeated in the minds of Indian citizens. Politics in India is no longer secular anymore. If we just take few steps back, we will be able to see, India`s secularism has been questioned right from the scrapping of Article 370 to fights between India`s two major religions to the building of the temple today and with BJP, the ruling party which has openly shown their inclination towards Hinduism and Hindutva. India’s secularism is really in danger. 

Secularism or Pseudo-Secularism?

Today, our ruling party wants India to be a Hindu nationalist state which combines territorial unity with Hindutva rather than a secular unit. It became all the more eminent after the Ram Janmabhoomi Puja and the increased alliance of BJP to Hinduism. Although the Faridabad Court placed the site under the custodial responsibility of the state and the Additional Magistrate issued a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to control the rising communal tensions, the so-called leaders and preachers of both the religions, refuse to abide by the same. A day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed Bhoomi Pujan for Ram temple at Ayodhya, a few Muslim leaders, claiming to be representatives of their community in India, has started a campaign against PM Modi’s participation in the historic ceremony for which the majority Hindus waited for several generations. 

Terming the Prime Minister’s participation as against the spirit of secularism enshrined in the Constitution, these hatemongers are trying to provoke people to spoil the peaceful atmosphere in the country when a temple of harmony is being built after a wait of 500 years. Thinking like a layman, it was a simple worship ceremony on the establishment of a temple attended by the Prime Minister and other ministers, however, looking back to the increased partial behaviour by the Modi-led BJP Government towards Hindu religion and Hindutva and their efforts to make India a fully Hindu nation, plus, negative acts and reaction of the so-called representatives of both Hindu and Muslim religions, forces even a layman to question India`s secularism. India is now more of a Pseudo-secular state.

Triumph of Majoritarianism

The landmark case M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors [Civil Appeal Nos 10866–10867 of 2010] popularly known as the Ayodhya title dispute is a historical, political, and socio-legal contention that is on fire for more than a century.

Today, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath preside over the Ram Janmabhoomi puja at Ayodhya, the function marks the triumph of majoritarian politics. Yet, the future historian would remember that majoritarian politics began its triumphant journey way back in 1989. If there is something new here, it is the stamp of legality. Unlike 1949 or 1986, this time the deity would make a legal entry, certified by the Supreme Court of India, no less. Future historians would also underline the fact that a few months after passing that strange order, the Supreme Court had also refused to stay the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which provided for the unequal treatment of future citizens on religious grounds. 

Today’s ceremony in Ayodhya is not a religious or sacred ritual. It is a purely political one, a ritual of conquest. The ceremony symbolizes the fusion of multiple forms of power: State power, the power of the dominant political party, the brute power of the majority community, the power of modern media, and the power of religious authority. The only thing missing so far was the wholesome participation of opposition parties. A feasible version of Hindu Rashtra, compatible with the fiction of a secular Constitution, has been inaugurated. 

Conclusion

Shockingly, we still have such communal riots as political infringements that are all set to divide our country in this 21st Century. It is not normal that people still fight over religionism. Although it sounds normal in India especially because here, we have politics playing a vital role in playing with the religious sentiments of people. Here, Politicians, Political parties, and the so-called religious representatives are spreading fake communalism in the name of nationalism. The reality is sad but true that India’s current situation has secularism only written in books. Until politics is withdrawn from religionism, secularism as a concept will never grow. It is very important to keep politics and religion separate. Only then India will stand for what she is known – Unity in Diversity. 

The views expressed in the article are the personal views of the author.

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)

Archives

• 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

This Article is Written by Manav Sony, a student at Amity University, Kolkata. The Article talks about coercive interrogation along with some important case laws which were decided under this head.

INTRODUCTION

Coercive Interrogation has become one of the top methods in order to seek information from the culprits. Thanks to various terrorist attacks because of which, this method of interrogation has raised a lot. Talking about the 9/11 attacks in the US, it has led to a stricter method of interrogation of the culprits by the police force so that they reveal the information as soon as possible and thus further investigation can take place as soon as possible. Earlier, Coercive Interrogation was used during any sort of philosophical disputes like finding the location of a Ticking Nuclear Bomb. Coercive interrogation means the application of force (physical or mental) in order to extract important information from the culprits and also to save other people from any crime or terrorism as soon as possible without any loss to humanity. Coercive interrogation has become a specie of torture in the world. It has led to immense cruelty and is prohibited by domestic and international law. This type of interrogation and torture hare totally overlapping conceptuality i.e. none of it is a proper relation or subpart of the other term. Mild Interrogation does not even lead to legal torture which requires some amount of severity or degree of torture which has to be met. There are different forms of tortures that are involved and they are not even considered as coercive interrogation. For example, if any torture is used as political intimidation or as oppression to others, for any sort of another purpose instead of taking information important to save the lives of the third party. In order to have a legalized interrogation, there are two important processes that the interrogators should always keep in mind before taking any step ahead. First of all, the interrogators should use a necessity defence which would actually give immunity to the government officials to use any force against the criminals in order to stop any crime and also to extract important information from them. The second thing which comes over here is that the interrogators can be at the mercy of political pressure and thus seek immunity to carry out the interrogation process without any pressure from other sources i.e. it will lead to proper protection for the interrogators to carry out the interrogation in a legalized way. Police are allowed to use force which is quite dangerous so as to stop the culprits from harming any other people and causing harm to the entire humanity. Killing someone is a very big and rigorous harm to dignity and against the rule of law. We will hear in some parts of the world that coercive interrogation is really very worse than killing someone, also there are some aspects in which it is felt that killing is really very worse than interrogating coercively to someone. This debate will keep on going but we need to understand one thing that we need to raise our voice when we feel something is actually wrong going on. In order to prevent the interrogators from killing innocent people, the governments have taken some steps by enacting some laws which can have some provisions of investigation and can also check about the identity of the culprit and the degree of force that he actually deserved in order to extract information. This will make them guilty if they use coercive interrogation only under bad faith. The main question which arises over here is that why is this system not used in coercive interrogation? 

How to Handle Police Harassment at our Country?

Talking about the steps, there are around eight important steps that have to be kept in mind really very properly and importantly so as to complain and raise your voice against the harassments that are caused by the police. The steps are enumerated as follows: –

1. Never try to indulge in any sort of fight with the police. If you know that the police officer is wrong, talk to him normally and try to maintain a cool and calm attitude and raise your voice without any force or by raising hands.
2. Whenever you have to take any victim to the police station in order to file a complaint, always try to take a lawyer with you.
3. Whenever there is a need to file a complaint against any police officer, you should file a complaint at the Commissioner’s office in your city.
4. If a police officer does not record your FIR, then you should file a complaint orally or send it through courier to the sub-magistrate’s office in your city. They will try to hear your problem and try to solve it as soon as possible irrespective of cognizable or non-cognizable offence.
5. If the complaint filed by the sub-magistrate does not go into your favour, you should file your complaint to the magistrate. Then the magistrate will take your complaint to the police officer.
6. If your police personnel try to call you all the time at the police station, always try going with your lawyer.
7. A victim can always file a complaint with DCP if the police officer tried to be impolite with you
8. Lastly, do not try to argue with any police officer unless and until you are a lawyer by profession.

Cases

A.N. Lalman Lal v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2017)

In this particular case at the High Court of Madras, the single judge bench led by Honourable Justice M.S. Ramesh clearly stated regarding the petition that was filed under section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure or CrPc that the harsh interrogation and cruelty did by the police should be stopped and petitioners should not at all be interrogated on the basis of getting information harshly unless and until they are big criminals committing a big crime which can lead to loss of humanity at large. The court also stated that the powers given to the interrogators are not at all restricted in terms of inquiry regarding any non-cognizable offense or cognizable offense which is actually needed to be checked irrespective of powers that are legally exercised a bit.

Niranjan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957 AIR 142)

In this landmark case, the court had held that the investigation is not all an inquiry or any trial before the court of law and also due to the legislature which could not consider any inconsistency in any sort of investigation as any sort of ample importance to a thing so as to impair or form any sort of affiliation or in any sort of inquiry in the proceedings of the court trial. 

State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980 AIR 326)

In this particular case, the court had held that there has to be a clear cut and separated purview of the activities in the fields of crime detection, punishing, and investing ahead regarding any sort of offense which is the field of reserved executively in the department of police.

Conclusion

Therefore, from the entire analysis, it is really very clear that no person is above the law, all the citizens are equal in the eyes of law. Not even the police, interrogators, and others are above the law. We need to understand that everyone has to be treated on an equal basis. Whenever people face any oppression, they have to keep in mind that there has to be aware of laws in their mind and they should take action whenever there is any oppression against them and consult a lawyer too so that the person affected can be given proper guidance by the lawyer without any sort of problem. Apart from all these provisions and tips, we should keep in mind that there is an article in the books of our constitution i.e. Article 226 through which we can file a writ petition in the High Court.

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)

Archives

• 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

This Article is Written by Akanksha Chowdhury from Amity University, Kolkata. This Article talks about Polluter Pays Principle along with some landmark cases which were decided and also led to the formation of this important doctrine which is a need of an hour.

INTRODUCTION

The Polluter Pay principle was first introduced in 1972 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This principle says that if any person is responsible for polluting the environment then that person has to pay for the damage that he has caused. Honestly the industrial revolution has a lot of pros and cons while on one hand it has helped to improve the lives of many people however it has also caused lots of pollution. Thus, there was a need for certain principles which could help to reduce or curb the pollution therefore the principles such as Polluter Pay Principle and Precautionary Principle. So basically, in this principle the polluter not only has to provide compensation to the but also provide compensation for restoring the environment. Most of the businessmen do not care about the wellbeing of the environment and are mostly concerned with profits, therefore there was a need to introduce different acts and principles that would help them to remember their social obligations. The Polluter Pay Principle is said to be an extension of the Absolute Liability Principle, this principle of absolute liability is applied whether or not the person takes reasonable care.  However the problem with the Polluter Pay Principle is that when it was first introduced it did not gain much recognition , it got finally recognized in the case of Indian Council of Enviro Legal Action vs Union of India. In this case it was said that one of the main part of industrial process is that it should reverse any damage that it has caused to the environment , which means that the industries cannot shift the burden to the government they have to pay all the compensation on their own , further in this case multiple writ petitions were filed however the judge had said it was very easy for people with authority to disobey with the judicial pronouncements .

Disadvantages of Polluter Pay Principle

> There are still a lot of problems in understanding who the polluter is, as the definition is very broad and therefore becomes unsupportive. 

>Large poor households do not possess enough money to bear the costs for any kind of energy for waste disposal. 

>Many environmental problems in the developing countries take place because of overexploitation of common pool resources and access to these common pools of resources could be limited in some cases.

Cases

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors 

The Citizens complained that a lot of untreated waste from the tanneries and other industries of Tamil Nadu are discharged into the rivers. In tanneries around 200 tons of leather were produced every day and also 1 kilo utilizes 40 liters of water and every liter of water contained 176 different types of toxic acids.

Such acids resulted in the contamination of potable water, because of incandescent in nearby towns the river water flowed into the adjacent land, those lands were used for cultivation and farming practices, as a result the agriculture land was contaminated due to the toxic water from the rivers. 

Therefore, in this case the industrialists sought to take necessary action so as to protect our environment. 

MC Mehta vs Union of India

This case is also known as the Taj Trapezium Case, in this case the supreme court had reiterated Polluter Pays Principle and had focused on the application of the principle. The yellowing and decaying of the famous Taj Mahal were the main issue in the entire case.

According to the reports given by the national environment engineering institute and Vardharajan Committee in the year 1990 and 1995 respectively they had claimed that the main cause of this decaying was some chemical industries and also Mathura Oil Refinery , the court held that these industries should change from fuel to natural gas or else their licenses would be cancelled instantly.

Oleum Gas Leak Case – 

In this particular case, a petition was filed by MC Mehta, who seeks closure of Shree Ram Industry because it was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous chemicals and it was also located in a densely populated area. One day Oleum Gas had leaked from one of its units and caused the death of a lawyer and injured several others 

Just after 1 year of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy this incident had occurred, MC Mehta had filed a PIL under article 21 and 32 of the constitution and demanded that the Shriram Plant in Delhi must be closed. 

As a result, the factories were closed however it was later decided by the court that the entire shutdown of the industry will result in the employment of almost 4000 workers and thus cause poverty, therefore it was said that the factory could be opened provided the 11 conditions are followed. 

Further the court was asked to deposit Rs 20 Lakhs for payment of compensation to the victims.  

MC Mehta vs Kamal Nath 

This is also known as the Span Motels Case. The defendant had a direct connection with the company known as Span Infrastructure Limited who wanted to open a club known as Span Club just near the River Beas. The plaintiff had filed a case in the court because the club was made just near to the river Beas and it was therefore blocking the flow of the river. The court therefore issued public trust doctrine and ordered the club to be removed as soon as possible. The court in its judgement had stated that:

“Liability to pay damages on the principle of ‘polluter pays’ in addition to damages, exemplary damages for having committed the acts set out and detailed in the leading judgment. Considering the object underlying the award of exemplary damages to be to serve a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. So, the quantum at Rs. 10 lakhs are fixed for the span motels. “

S Jagannathan v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87

This case is known as Shrimp Farming Case. The court had issued the doctrine of polluter pays principle because of the fact that the shrimp farming industry was found guilty of polluting the coastal areas nearby. The court had held that the affected people had to be paid compensation by the Shrimp Industry on the basis of polluter pays principle. The Central Government had issued Section 3 (3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and held that the affected families had to be paid compensation because they suffered huge loss. 

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

This case is known as the Calcutta Tanneries Case. In this case, the court had applied the Polluter pays Principle because of the fact that an industry was storing around 550 tanneries which was at some adjoining areas at the city of Kolkata. Those 550 tanneries caused widespread pollution in the city of Kolkata and the other areas. The Central Government had issued a search operation regarding the strict checking regarding the loss of environment and thus made the industry pay for such a big loss for the citizens and the natural environment as a whole.

How can India Apply Polluter Pays Principle Rigorously?

Talking about India, we can see that our country is not at all employing this principle seriously. Although, there are laws but still the government fails to apply these aspects and contribute in making our environment quite better. We the humans should also understand that we have a Fundamental Right to Live in an unpolluted Environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If we only do not take certain steps, then how are we going to achieve positive results. The main thing which needs to come over here is unity and thus take strict action against the democratic government and pressurize them to apply these laws really fast otherwise we all will have a really bad and polluted future full of diseases and especially cancer. 

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the decisions of the Supreme Court have a long way to go to reaffirm the commitment of the judiciary to environmental protection and eliminate the adverse effects of pollution. However, the Court is wrong in accepting the P.P.P. as one of the international principles. The disadvantages of the P.P.P. identified by the Supreme Court are not necessary for the P.P.P. to dissuade industry. The violation of environmental regulations mustn’t be affordable. In addition to assessing the cost of repairing the damage, the size of the industry must also be considered. Only in this way can it be ensured that the P.P.P. acts as a deterrent in large industries, as environmental damage is often irreparable.

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)

Archives

• 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

This article has been written by Tanya Gupta, a student pursuing BA LLB from Ideal Institute of Management and Technology and School of Law, affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.  This article focuses on the brief explanation of the case N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663.

INTRODUCTION

This case is related to the concept of negligence and the principle of sovereign immunity.

Equivalent Citation

1994 SCC (6) 205

Bench

Sahai R.M. (J)

Hansaria B.L. (J)

Decided On

6 September, 1994

Court

Supreme Court, India

Relevant Law

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (“hereinafter as an Act”)

Concept

Negligence

Facts

The appellant, N. Nagendra Rao carried on a business and deals in fertilizers and food grains under a license issued by the appropriate authorities. On 11 August, 1975 the Police Officer, Vigilance Cell visited its premises and seized a huge stock of fertilizers, food grains and non- essential goods. On 31 August, 1975 the report submitted by the Inspector, the District Revenue Officer(hereinafter as DRO), in the exercise of powers under Section 6 -A of the Act, directed the fertilizers to be placed in the custody of the Assistant Agricultural Officer(hereinafter as AAO) for distribution to needy persons and the food grains and non- essential goods in the custody of the Tehsildar. The role of Tehsildar was to dispose of the food grains and non-essential goods immediately and deposit the sale proceeds in the Treasury. But, the AAO did not take any steps to dispose of the fertilizers. Therefore, the appellant made applications on 17 September, 1975 before the DRO and on 11 February, 1976 before AAO, no steps were being taken the fertilizers shall deteriorate and shall be rendered useless causing a huge loss to the appellant. The request was made by the appellant for diverting the fertilizers either to the place mentioned by the appellant as the demand was more there or to release it in its favour for disposal and deposit of the sale price. But neither any order was passed by the DRO nor any action was taken by AAO. On, 29 June, 1976 the proceedings under section 6- A of the Act were decided and the stock of food grain was confiscated as the appellant’s license had been cancelled. After repeated requests, the collector ordered that the goods be returned to the appellant. However, the AAO did not comply with the orders. After repeated consultations with various ministers, when the appellant finally obtained the stock back but it was spoiled both in quantity as well as in quality.

Issue Before the Court

The issue raised before the Apex Court were:

1. Whether the seizure of the goods in exercise of statutory powers under the Act immunizes the state, completely, from any loss or damage suffered by the owner.
2. Whether confiscation of part of the goods absolves the state from any claim for the loss or damage suffered by the owner for the food grains which are directed to be released or returned to it. 

Ratio of the Case

This case of N. Nagendra must be read in the light of Vidhyawati Case. In this case, the liability was imposed on the state and the concept of sovereign immunity was not adopted. In N. Nagendra Rao’s case as well when the state seized certain goods under Essential Commodities Act for public welfare, the onus fell on the state to ensure that the said goods are carefully preserved as is necessary. Thus, the state was held liable to pay the compensation for the loss incurred. 

 The Apex Court in Kasturilal Case, held that that state cannot be held liable to compensate the appellant as the act of the state falls under the sovereign function of the state. This view can nevertheless be accepted. Sovereign immunity as a defense can never be available where the state was involved in commercial or public activity and it interferes with the life and liberty of a citizen. The state must be legally and morally bound to compensate the victims for the wrongs committed. No doubt the state must have protection so as to conduct its activities for the public interest without being sued every now and then by the people. However, this cannot be applied to every case where the state fails to take necessary care to protect the interests of the public. The state cannot have the absolute power to act according to its whims and fancies.

With respect to the principle of vicarious liability, it was held that if the officers can be sued personally for the negligence in discharge of public property, there is no rationale for the proposition that even if the officer is liable the state cannot be sued. Now, since the doctrine has become outdated and sovereignty rests with the people, the state cannot claim any immunity. Thus, the state of Andhra Pradesh was directed to pay the appellant the amount as directed by the trial Court.

Decision of the Court

The trial court held that the state while performing its duty under a statute has been negligent and issued a decree for the payment of Rs. 1,06,125 towards the damaged stock along with the interest at the rate of 6%.

The HC of A.P. struck down the order of the trial court and decided the case on the basis of the ratio of Kasturilal case.

The appellant appealed in the SC against the judgment passed by the HC of A.P. The Apex Court held that if the officers can be sued personally for negligence in discharge of public property, there is no rationale for the proposition that even if the officer is liable the state cannot be sued.  The Apex Court dealt with the concept of sovereign immunity, meaning sovereignty rests with the people, the state cannot claim any immunity. Thus, the State of A.P was directed to pay the appellant the amount of Rs. 1,06,125 as decided by the trial Court along with the interest at the rate of 6%. 

For Regular Updates Join Us

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/IRYlDGEvwBdCBstgGhF13R

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

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

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

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)

Archives

• 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