#landmarkcases

This article on 'POCSO Victim Age: Supreme Court's Ruling on School Transfer Certificates (P Yuvaprakash V State Rep by Inspector of Police)' was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

Sexual abuse is a heinous crime that strikes at the root of humanity in every society. The POCSO Act (Protection of children from sexual offences act) provides a stringent punishment to such offenders. This legislation was enacted when the Convention on the Rights of Child was not able to fill the gaps in the redressal of cases of sexual abuse in India. The Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment in the case of P Yuvaprakash V State Rep by Inspector of Police in which it held that a School Transfer Certificate Cannot Be Relied Upon to Determine the POCSO Victim Age. A school transfer certificate is an official document that is issued when a student graduates or leaves the school. The honourable Supreme Court in the abovementioned case has finally taken the long-awaited stand for the minor victims of sexual abuse. According to Equality Now, there were 32,033 rape cases reported in India in 2019. Sexual violence is deeply rooted in chauvinist and patriarchal notions. This article deals with the latest decision of the apex court stating that the School transfer certificate can’t determine age under the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

Facts of the case

It all began in 2015 when a minor girl was kidnapped by the accused and his aides and was subjected to continuous sexual assault and was forcibly married off too ( abetting her unlawful marriage ). The girl had told in her testimony to the Magistrate that she had run away with her lover and it was a voluntary act. No one had forced her. However, she retracted her statement afterwards. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 366 of IPC (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman in order to compel her for marriage) and under the POCSO Act for subjecting the minor girl to sexual abuse repeatedly. The trial court also gave him life imprisonment. The accused appealed in Madras High Court. The prosecution had provided a school transfer certificate in order to prove the POCSO Victim Age. The High Court upheld the conviction under POCSO but set aside his conviction under section 366 as there was no concrete evidence of kidnapping the girl in order to compel her for marriage. The HC also modified life imprisonment into rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The matter further went in front of the honourable Supreme Court.

Issues involved in the case

- Whether the accused should be convicted under POCSO Act? - Whether school transfer certificate can be relied upon to prove the POCSO Victim Age? - If not school transfer certificates, then what other documents should be relied upon?

Laws involved in the POCSO Victim Age Case

- Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and Protection ) Act, 2015 - (POCSO) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Judgment

The division bench very articulately while dealing with the first issue held that the accused cannot be convicted under the POCSO Act and acquitted the accused of all charges. The Apex court gave comprehensive reasoning behind the judgment. The answer to this is connected to the answer to the second issue regarding which the court held that TC certificates cannot be relied upon. The court gave a reference to Section 94 of the JJ Act. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 provides that in order to prove the age of the victim to be covered under the POCSO Act, 2012 it is essential to provide: - Birth certificate from school, matriculation from the examination board. - In the absence of a birth certificate from school, a birth certificate from the concerned municipality Panchayat or corporation must be provided. - In the absence of these two documents, a medical examination must be relied upon in order to prove the POCSO Victim Age. Relying on this interpretation of the section, the court held that the trial court had erred in relying on merely a school transfer certificate which does not provide concrete evidence of the age of the victim of sexual abuse. The court answered the second issue while holding that school transfer certificates are not reasonable evidence to be relied upon. The High Court had also erred in failing to consider the medical examination results provided by the doctor which went on to prove that the girl was 19 years of age at the time of the sexual assault. Henceforth, the victim will not fall under the POSCO Act and the accused cannot be convicted. The apex court also stated that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence which could point to a forced sexual assault. The court stated that the act falls under the ambit of the POCSO Act only when penetrative sexual assault takes place. There was an absence of an external injury and the trial court had also erred in not conducting a proper cross–examination of the witnesses.

Conclusion

Sexual abuse is a brutal crime that occurs as a confluence of a lot of factors which are individual, psychological, environmental, institutional, and social. The murkiness of Indian Laws is as such that it sometimes fails to catch and convict the perpetrator. Legislations such as POCSO and JJ Act strike at the root of the crime. Victims of such abuse are advised to contact 1098 which is a 24-hour operating child helpline. The judgment in the case of P Yuvaprakash V State Rep by Inspector of Police is a significant ruling which seeks to prevent unjust convictions of the accused in cases of sexual abuse. Cases that fall under POCSO are very critical in nature and must be dealt with accordingly. The court while holding that school transfer or TC certificates are not concrete evidence of the age of the victim of sexual abuse under the POCSO act has added another important precedent in the books of the Indian judicial system. This is a landmark judgment in which the court gave a comprehensive list of documents that must be relied upon in order to prove the POCSO Victim Age for him or her to fall under the POCSO Act. The judgment was delivered on 18th July 2023 and goes on to show the progressive mindset of the Indian judiciary.

References

This article on 'Delhi Government Services Control: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling' was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India handed over the authority of "services" to the Delhi Government in a momentous ruling. The central government, represented by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, and the Delhi government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are at odds over the division of authorities and responsibilities. The term "services" refers to the administration and management of government employees, including their appointments, transfers, and promotions. Prior to this ruling, the control over services was under the purview of the Central Government through the LG. This led to conflicts between the Delhi Government and the LG, as the former accused the latter of interfering in its functioning and stalling key decisions. The Supreme Court's decision to transfer Delhi Government Services Control is significant as it clarifies the distribution of powers between the two entities and allows the Delhi Government to exercise greater autonomy in managing its affairs. This ruling is expected to substantially impact the governance and administration of the NCT of Delhi. This article will talk about the facts, issues and the decision of the Supreme Court related to the transfer of Delhi Government Services Control.

Background and Context

India follows a federal structure of governance, as outlined in its Constitution, which divides powers between the Central Government and the State Governments. The constitutional framework governing this distribution of powers is primarily based on three lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution: the Union List, the State List, and the Concurrent List. - Union List: This list comprises subjects on which only the Central Government can legislate and make laws. These subjects are of national importance and require uniformity across the country. Examples include defence, atomic energy, foreign affairs, and railways. - State List: This list contains subjects on which only the State Governments can legislate and make laws. These subjects pertain to matters of local or regional importance. Examples include police, public health, agriculture, and local government. - Concurrent List: This list includes subjects on which both the Central and State Governments can legislate and make laws. In case of a conflict between central and state laws on a subject in this list, the central law prevails. Examples include criminal law, bankruptcy and insolvency, marriage and divorce, and bankruptcy. There is a residuary power vested in the Central Government to legislate on matters not enumerated in any of the three lists, as per Article 248 of the Constitution. As a Union Territory, Delhi does not enjoy the same degree of autonomy as other states in India. The distribution of powers between the Central Government and the Delhi Government is governed by Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution, which grants Delhi a special status with its own elected Legislative Assembly and a Chief Minister. However, certain subjects, such as public order, police, and land, remain under the exclusive control of the Central Government through the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

Delhi Government Services Control: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling

Legal provisions

Overview of the legal provisions related to the Delhi Government's authority and jurisdiction over "services" prior to the Supreme Court's decision: Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, the legal provisions related to the Delhi Government Services Control were governed by Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (GNCTD Act). Article 239AA of the Constitution grants Delhi a special status with its own elected Legislative Assembly and a Chief Minister. However, it also specifies that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, who represents the Central Government, has the authority to refer any matter on which there is a difference of opinion between him and the Council of Ministers to the President of India for a decision. The GNCTD Act, in Section 41, further clarifies the distribution of powers between the Delhi Government and the LG. It states that the LG has the power to make rules for the "conditions of service and conduct of business" in connection with the administration of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. This provision was interpreted to mean that the LG, acting on behalf of the Central Government, had control over "services," which includes the administration and management of government employees.

Supreme Court's Decision

-  Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) vs. Union of India case arose as a result of a series of disagreements between the Delhi Government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and the Central Government, represented by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi. - The conflicts centred on the division of authorities and responsibilities between the Delhi Government and the LG, particularly in the context of government employee administration and management, or "services." The Delhi Government accused the LG of meddling with its operations and delaying crucial decisions about government employee administration. - In response to these disputes, the Delhi Government filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, which ruled in favour of the Central Government, stating that the LG had the authority to control "services." The Delhi Government then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. - In July 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that clarified the distribution of powers between the Delhi Government and the LG. However, the judgment did not specifically address the issue of control over "services." - The Court noted that the Constitution of India provides for a federal structure of governance, with a clear distribution of powers between the Central Government and State Governments. The National Capital Territory of Delhi, while not a full-fledged state, has a unique status within this federal structure, with its own elected Legislative Assembly and Chief Minister. - The Court observed that the Constitution grants the Delhi Government the power to make laws on all matters within its jurisdiction, except for those specifically reserved for the Central Government. The Court held that "services" was not one of these reserved matters, and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Government. - The Court relied on the principle of democracy and the importance of elected representatives in decision-making. The Court noted that the Delhi Government, as an elected body, was better placed to understand the needs and concerns of the people of Delhi and that the LG's control over "services" was an impediment to effective governance. - The Court relied on the principle of constitutional morality, which requires that constitutional provisions be interpreted to promote the larger public interest. The Court held that the LG's control over "services" was against the spirit of the Constitution and the principles of federalism and that transferring Delhi Government Services Control would promote the larger public interest. - The Supreme Court relied on several precedents and legal principles. The Court cited the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution, and held that the distribution of powers between the Central Government and State Governments was part of this basic structure. The Court also relied on the principle of constitutional trust, which requires that constitutional provisions be interpreted to promote cooperation and coordination between different branches of government.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the article discussed the issue of the transfer of Delhi Government Services Control by the Supreme Court. The article provided an overview of the constitutional framework governing the distribution of powers between the Central Government and State Governments in India, highlighting the unique status of the National Capital Territory of Delhi within the Indian federal structure. The article also examined the legal provisions related to the Delhi Government's authority and jurisdiction over "services" prior to the Supreme Court's decision, which placed control over services under the Central Government through the Lieutenant Governor (LG). The Supreme Court's decision to transfer Delhi Government Services Control is significant as it clarifies the distribution of powers between the two entities and allows the Delhi Government to exercise greater autonomy in managing its affairs. This ruling is expected to substantially impact the governance and administration of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. A fair judgement of the Supreme Court's ruling would admit that it resolves long-standing disagreements between the Delhi Government and the LG, fostering simpler governance and decision-making in the region. However, it is also vital to note that the judgement may spark new arguments and legal challenges in the future over the extent of the Delhi Government's powers and the role of the LG. Finally, the efficiency of this move in enhancing Delhi governance will be determined by cooperation and coordination between the Delhi Government and the Central Government via the LG.

REFERENCES

This article on 'Vishakha and Others v State of Rajasthan' was written by Farhat Sultana, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

I. Introduction

The historic judgement in the Vishakha case in Indian law has had a significant impact on women's rights and workplace safety. In 1992, the Supreme Court of India accepted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from a group of social workers seeking guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at work. The case gathered traction after a horrible incidence of sexual assault on a social worker in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in the Vishakha case defined workplace sexual harassment and established standards for preventing and addressing such events. It was a huge step in the right direction towards assuring women's safety in the workplace and making it a safe place for them to work. Since then, the case has had a significant impact on Indian society and helped to shape the conversation on sexual harassment in the workplace. This article will provide a comprehensive overview of the Vishakha case, including its background, key arguments presented by the parties involved, and the decision of the Supreme Court. It will also delve into the implications of the case, criticisms and controversies surrounding the Vishakha guidelines, and the way forward for women's safety in the workplace.

II. Brief history of sexual harassment in India

In India, there has always been a problem with sexual harassment, and many cases are recorded yearly. Women have experienced harassment in a variety of ways, including rape, molestation, sexual remarks, and groping. However, it wasn't until the 1990s that workplace sexual harassment came to light and started to be addressed by the legal system. Before the landmark Vishakha case, sexual harassment in India was not properly defined nor made illegal. However, the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code also included sections that addressed sexual offences, such as sexual harassment. However, these regulations did not offer any standards or procedures for handling claims of sexual harassment at work. A landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vishakha and Others v. State of Rajasthan in 1997. The Vishakha Guidelines were a set of rules that included things like creating a complaints committee, adopting a code of conduct, and offering awareness and training programmes. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, later included these rules. Additionally, it emphasised the necessity of stronger gender equality and the defence of women's rights in India.

III. The Case

The Vishakha and Others v. State of Rajasthan case, which created the first legal definition of sexual harassment and offered rules for preventing and dealing with it in the workplace, is a landmark decision in Indian law. In reaction to the gang rape of a social worker named Bhanwari Devi in Rajasthan in 1992, many women's rights organisations filed the case, which the Supreme Court of India heard in 1997. Facts of the case: Social worker Bhanwari Devi was employed by the Women Development Programme of the Rajasthan State Government. She attempted to prevent child marriage in 1992, at which point five males who belonged to the upper caste class allegedly gang-raped her. She called the police after the incident, but the defendants were found not guilty, leading the community to shun Devi and her family. Women's rights organisations began calling for action to stop future occurrences of this kind after Devi's case gained widespread notice. Arguments presented by the parties involved: Several women's rights organisations, including Vishakha and others, filed petitions in this case, claiming that no law in India protected against workplace sexual harassment. They argued that since no such law existed, women were left open to sexual exploitation and that the state was obligated to defend their rights. The State of Rajasthan was one of the respondents, and it maintained that the occurrence involving Bhanwari Devi was an isolated one and that there were sufficient laws and regulations in place to handle such cases. The decision of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court of India ruled in a historic decision that sexual harassment at work violated a woman's fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court additionally stated that there was a need for comprehensive guidelines to prevent and handle sexual harassment in the workplace and that the current rules and regulations were insufficient to address the problem. The Vishakha Guidelines were subsequently released by the court, and they defined sexual harassment and offered a framework for handling complaints. The rules mandated that all employers establish a procedure for handling grievances, which included appointing a complaints committee, providing a secure and encouraging atmosphere for complainants, and imposing penalties. In accordance with the recommendations, businesses must also offer their staff training and programmes that raise awareness of the problem of sexual harassment. Due to the lack of a supporting legal framework, the Vishakha Guidelines were not immediately enforceable. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 replaced the previous regulations and offered a legislative framework for handling sexual harassment in the workplace, although they were ultimately enshrined in that law. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which made the rules legally enforceable and broadened its coverage to include all workplaces in India, was passed as a result of the case's precedent-setting nature.

Vishakha and Others v State of Rajasthan: A Legal Analysis

IV. Implications of the Case

Creation of the Vishakha Guidelines: The Vishakha Guidelines for preventing and dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace were developed as a result of the historic ruling in the Vishakha case. The rules established a framework for businesses to stop, forbid, and address workplace sexual harassment. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, later included the guidelines. The Vishakha Guidelines and the following statute dramatically enhanced India's institutional and legal framework for preventing and combating workplace sexual harassment. Impact on workplace sexual harassment: The Vishakha case significantly altered India's perception of the problem of workplace sexual harassment. It raised awareness about the problem and the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in the workplace. The case also paved the way for the categorization of sexual harassment as a fundamental right infringement against women. Employers are required by the guidelines and ensuing law to prevent and handle workplace sexual harassment. The case has also given women the confidence to report instances of sexual harassment and request reparation. Importance of the case for women's rights in India: A crucial turning point for women's rights in India was the Vishakha case. It acknowledged that, in breach of the Indian Constitution, sexual harassment violates the fundamental rights of women. The case also established standards for businesses to follow in order to provide a secure and respectful workplace for women. Women now can report sexual harassment at work and seek remedies thanks to the case and the statute that followed. The Vishakha case significantly contributed to women having the confidence to stand up for their rights and demand a workplace that is courteous and safe.

V. Criticism and Challenges

The Supreme Court's landmark decision, the Vishakha Guidelines, sought to address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. The recommendations have, however, come under fire for a number of different reasons. Others have expressed worries about the standards' improper application and enforcement, while some have contended that the guidelines do not go far enough in protecting victims of sexual harassment. Challenges in implementing the guidelines: The lack of knowledge among employees and employers about the Vishakha Guidelines has been one of the biggest obstacles to their implementation. The guidelines also mandate the creation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), which can be challenging to set up and sustain in companies. The effectiveness of the ICCs in looking into sexual harassment claims has also been under criticism.

VI. The Way Forward

Changes brought by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013: A thorough framework for dealing with workplace sexual harassment was created by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, which was passed in 2013. It establishes severe penalties for non-compliance and requires all businesses to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Future Prospects for Women's Safety in the Workplace: Employers, policymakers, and society as a whole must continue to make efforts to improve women's safety in the workplace. Crucial efforts include creating a climate of zero tolerance for sexual harassment, bolstering the legal system, and raising awareness and sensitization. All workers may work in secure and welcoming environments by investing in gender-sensitive training and capacity building for employers, staff, and ICCs.

Conclusion

Finally, the Supreme Court of India's ruling in the Vishakha case, which established rules to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, was a watershed moment. As a result of the case, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted. This lawsuit was critical in addressing the issue of workplace harassment and ensuring that women in India had a safe working environment.

References

This article on 'A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: A Landmark Judgment' was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case is a landmark judgment decided by the Apex Court of India on 19th May 1950. The case specifically magnified the issue of unnecessary detention under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 and also the modification of Article 21 which deals with the right to life and personal liberty. In the A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case the Apex Court was asked to decide on the following key matters: - Whether the preventive detention under the Act of 1950, was constitutional and also consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. - Whether sufficient protection was provided against arbitrary detention and the individual's right to liberty was protected by the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act. - Whether article 21 which deals with the right to life and personal liberty of the Indian Constitution was absolute or could be curtailed by law in certain circumstances.

Overview of the Case

The petitioner in the case Ayillyath Kuttiari Gopalan was a communist leader who was arbitrarily detained under the Preventive Detention Act on the grounds of being a danger to the safety of the public. He challenged the detention as unconstitutional and argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights as enshrined under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In its judgment, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Preventive Detention Act's provisions did not violate the Constitution and were a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to uphold public order and security. The Court further ruled that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 was not absolute and could be restricted by law. The judgment held in the above case has been widely criticized for its narrow interpretation of fundamental rights and its failure to protect individual liberties. However, the case remains significant in shaping the understanding of preventive detention and the limitations on the right to life and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution.

Laws discussed in this case

The following laws were discussed in the case was: - The case deals with the interpretation and application of various provisions of the Indian Constitution including Articles 14, 19 and 21. - The case dealt with the constitutionality of arbitrary preventive detention under the Act, which allowed for the detention of individuals without trial to cease them from getting engaged in various activities detrimental to the security of the state. - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: The Code of Criminal Procedure was also discussed in the case, particularly concerning the procedure for preventive detention and the rights of the detained person. The Supreme Court's decision in A. K. Gopalan's case had significant implications for the interpretation and application of these laws, particularly for the balance between individual liberties and the State's power to maintain public order and security.

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras Case

Arguments presented by the petitioners and respondents

Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the provision of preventive detention under the Act violates his fundamental rights under articles 14, article 19 and article 21. - The petitioner contended that the Act did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary detention and violated the principle of natural justice. - It was argued by the petitioner that the right to personal liberty was a fundamental right that could not be curtailed by the State except under the procedure established by law. Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent argued that preventive detention was a necessary measure to maintain public order and security and was a valid exercise of the State's power. - The respondent contended that the provisions of the said Act provided adequate safeguards against arbitrary detention and ensured that the detained person's rights were protected. - It was argued by the respondent that the right to life and personal liberty was not absolute and could be restricted by law in certain circumstances, including preventive detention.

Judgment of the case

The Supreme Court on May 19, 1950, gave its judgment in A. K. Gopalan’s case. The Court ruled that preventive detention under the Act was constitutional and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The Court also acknowledged that the provision contained under Article 21 was not absolute and in certain circumstances could be curtailed. The petitioner had argued that the Act did not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary detention, but the Court rebuffed the argument and held that the provisions of the Act were adequate to protect the rights of the detained person. The Court also recognized the importance of preventive detention as a necessary measure to maintain public order and security and upheld the State's power to exercise it. The case had a multifold impact on individual liberties and the power of the State to limit them through preventive detention laws. The Court's decision established the principle that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was not absolute and could be curtailed by law in specific circumstances, including preventive detention. The judgment upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention but recognized the need for adequate safeguards to prevent its arbitrary use. Nevertheless, the constitutionality of preventive detention remains a contentious issue in India, and the case continues to be a crucial precedent for the interpretation of fundamental rights in the country.

Conclusion

The A. K. Gopalan case is a landmark case that deals with the constitutionality of preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 and the scope of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The case required a balancing act between individual rights and the State's power to maintain law and order. The principle that the right to life and personal liberty was not absolute and could be restricted by law in specific circumstances, including preventive detention, was established by this decision of the Supreme Court. While the constitutionality of preventive detention was upheld by the judgment, the need for adequate safeguards to prevent its arbitrary use was also recognized. Overall, the A. K. Gopalan case had significant implications for the interpretation and application of fundamental rights in India and remains an important precedent in Indian constitutional law. The case continues to be debated and studied in legal circles as it raises fundamental questions about individual liberty and the limits of State power.

References

This article on 'Shreya Singhal Vs Union Of India: All You Need To Know' was written by Shriharshini Balachandar, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

In 2012, the Indian government introduced a new section to the Information Technology Act, of 2000, known as Section 66A. This section made it an offense to send "offensive" messages through communication devices like the Internet, social media, or instant messaging platforms. The punishment for violating Section 66A was up to three years in jail and a fine. However, this law was widely criticized by activists and legal experts, who argued that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The law was also used to stifle dissent and criticism of the government, leading to several cases of individuals being arrested for making online comments deemed "offensive." One such case was that of Shreya Singhal, a law student from Delhi, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A in the Supreme Court of India. Her case, known as Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, became a landmark judgment in the Indian legal system, setting important precedents for freedom of speech and expression in the digital age.

Background of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

In 2012, two young women from Maharashtra were arrested for criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai due to the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray on Facebook. The police charged them under Section 66A of the IT Act, claiming that their comments were "offensive" and had caused "hurt" to the sentiments of Shiv Sena supporters. This incident sparked a nationwide debate on the misuse of Section 66A and its potential to curb freedom of speech and expression. Several other cases of misuse of the law were reported, including the arrest of a man who had "liked" a Facebook post critical of a political leader, and a cartoonist who had uploaded a cartoon mocking the government's response to a dam project. Shreya Singhal, who was a law student at the time, decided to take up the cause and challenge the constitutionality of Section 66A. She filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the law was vague, overbroad, and violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The Shreya Singhal Vs Union Of India case was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman. The central government defended the law, arguing that it was necessary to maintain public order and prevent the spread of hate speech and fake news.

Key arguments in the Shreya Singhal Vs Union Of India

Shreya Singhal's main argument was that Section 66A was vague and overbroad, and therefore, it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. She argued that the law was so broad that it could be used to curtail any form of online communication, including legitimate criticism and dissent. Shreya Singhal's lawyers also argued that the law was unconstitutional because it did not contain any guidelines or standards for determining what constituted "offensive" or "menacing" communication. They argued that this lack of clarity gave too much discretion to law enforcement agencies, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law. The government's main argument was that Section 66A was necessary to maintain public order and prevent the spread of hate speech and fake news. They maintained that the law had been successfully applied to stop cyberbullying and online abuse, and that multiple high courts in India had upheld it.

The Judgment

In the matter of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India issued its ruling in March 2015. The Information Technology Act, 2000's Section 66A was deemed unlawful and overturned by the court. According to the Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a), Section 66A infringes on the basic right to freedom of speech and expression. In its judgment, the court noted that the law was too vague and overbroad, and had a chilling effect on free speech. The court held that the terms "grossly offensive" and "menacing" were subjective and could be interpreted in a manner that would curtail legitimate criticism and dissent. The court also noted that Section 66A was not narrowly tailored to achieve its stated objective of preventing cyberbullying and online harassment. The court held that the law was not proportional to the harm it sought to prevent and that it had a disproportionate impact on free speech. The court also held that the law had a "chilling effect" on free speech and that it created a "perceptible" danger of arbitrary and discriminatory application. The court noted that the law had been used to target individuals who had engaged in legitimate criticism of public figures and institutions.

Shreya Singhal Vs Union Of India: All You Need To Know

The impact of the judgment

The judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India was a significant victory for free speech and expression in India. The judgment set an important precedent for the protection of online speech and expression, and it provided clarity on the limits of government regulation of online communication. The verdict had a substantial effect on India's legal system as well. Following the ruling, numerous other Information Technology Act of 2000 provisions were contested on similar grounds, and many of them were overturned by the courts. The judgment also led to a renewed debate on the need for a comprehensive data protection law in India. The court noted in its judgment that the lack of a comprehensive data protection law in India had created a situation where sensitive personal information was being collected and used without adequate safeguards.

Suggestions

- Need for a thorough data protection law: The decision emphasized the requirement for a thorough data protection law in India. People should be aware of how crucial it is to prevent the misuse of their sensitive personal information, and they should insist that the government take action to safeguard their information. - Clarity on government regulation of online communication: The judgment provided clarity on the limits of government regulation of online communication. Individuals should be aware of their rights and should take action when their freedom of speech and expression is curtailed by government action. - Importance of challenging unconstitutional laws: The judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India was the result of a legal challenge to an unconstitutional law. It is important for individuals to challenge unconstitutional laws and regulations that infringe upon their rights, and to seek redress through the courts when necessary. - Need for continued vigilance: The judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India was an important victory for free speech and expression, but individuals should remain vigilant to ensure that their rights are not infringed upon in the future. It is important to monitor government action and challenge unconstitutional laws and regulations when necessary.

Conclusion

In the Indian legal system, a significant decision was made in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India. The ruling clarified the boundaries of government regulation of online communication and acknowledged the value of free speech and expression in a democratic society. The judgment also highlighted the need for a comprehensive data protection law in India and the importance of protecting sensitive personal information from misuse. The judgment has had a significant impact on the legal landscape in India and has set an important precedent for the protection of online speech and expression.

References

This article on 'Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Life' was written by Arpita Tiwari, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

INTRODUCTION

The essence of mature human life has always been human rights. They are unalienable, global, sacrosanct, and irrevocable. They guard the sacredness of human life. One of these rights is the right to live freely and it is very essential. Nobody's life or personal freedom can be taken away from them without following the legal requirements, according to the right to life. The right to life and individual liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It contains three crucial components: life, liberty, and dignity. The meaning of Article 21 has grown throughout time to embrace a range of other components that make human existence meaningful and worthwhile because of increasing judicial activism and respect for individual rights. This article will be going to deal with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution its meaning and its interpretation further, the author will discuss landmark cases related to Article 21 in India.

ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution addresses issues related to the defence of individual freedom and life and it states that no one "should be stripped of his life or his own freedom unless in accordance with the method prescribed by law". Article 21 gives everyone the right to life and individual liberty that cannot be infringed by the government save where necessary to uphold the law and avoid harm to or death to anyone. Judge Iyer aptly referred to it as the "procedural Magna Carta safeguarding of life and liberty" in this way. The freedom to live is guaranteed in this Article to both residents of our nation and outsiders, which is its most amazing view. As a result, anyone can ask for security under Article 21 in India. Article 21 plays a major role as it is a key for the normal individual in opposition to the government instead of private parties, though. Every individual whose rights are being violated by Article 21 may register a suit with the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 32 or any High Court under Article 226.

THE DEFINITION AND IDEA OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

No freeman shall be kidnapped or confined, except by the laws of the nation, according to the English Magna Carta, which was signed in 1215, which is the first recorded reference to individual freedom. According to Black's Law Dictionary, personal liberty is the freedom to conduct however one pleases. Yet, it is crucial to abide by the laws of the society in which one resides. According to Justice Field in the US case of Munn v. Illinois, personal freedom is a necessary component of life (1877). It suggests that since all men are born free, they must stay that way. Yet, freedom cannot be permitted to turn into a licence in order for people to coexist happily in society. Hence, it is subject to some fair limitations. Because of this, individual freedom indicates that nobody is entitled to be unfairly restrained unless the law specifically requires it. With the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the idea of personal liberty gained prominence in India (1959). A communist leader who was being held at the centre of the case argued that his imprisonment was unlawful and violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21. The freedom to rest, eat, and engage in other bodily functions are all included in the scope of personal liberty, according to the court. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Others (1964), it was defined once more that individual freedom included the liberty of being free from constraints imposed on both our private lives and our freedom of movement.

DEFINITION, INTERPRETATION, AND APPLICATION OF “THE RIGHT TO LIFE” UNDER ARTICLE 21

Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and personal protection. The right to live is the basic need of every individual and it is a very essential right compared with all the other rights. All other liberties that raise the level of living in question depend on life as a whole in order to operate properly. The right to life itself is our major right above all other rights because without it there are no other rights that have any definition or advantage as individual rights only applicable to living organisms.  It is noted that if we apply the actual meaning of Article 21 then there is no other basic right This section will examine the Indian Supreme Court's interpretation and application of the freedom of life. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, "life" includes more than just inhaling. It will not suggest a life of constant labour or easy living in the real world. It addresses a much broader variety of concerns, including the freedom to a respectable quality of living, the freedom to financial security, the freedom from disease, the freedom to fresh air, etc. The foundation of life includes all of those aspects of life that provide a person's presence meaning, fulfilment, and worth as they are crucial to our very survival and without them, we're unable to remain as individuals. The only Constitutional provision that has received the broadest interpretation. As a result, the underlying premise of the freedom to live gives rise to the basic resources, least requirements, and needs of a human. In Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court cited and decided as follows: When the word "life" refers to more than mere physical presence. All of the organs and abilities that are employed to live a happy life are prohibited from being lost. The provision outlaws the disfigurement of the body, along with the amputation of an eye, a limb with armour, or a different part that permits a connection between the spirit and the external realm.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Life

DEFINITION AND IDEA OF PERSONAL DIGNITY

The idea of dignitas hominis, which can be interpreted as "status," was the origin of the concept of dignity in classical Roman thought. Due to achieving a certain rank, the individual deserving of it was accorded honour and respect. As a result, a person's worth and charm were determined by his standing, which gave him his dignity. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), it was further determined that "the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 extends further than ensuring one's bodily sustenance and cannot be restricted to just living creatures. The right to life also encompasses the freedom to move around and interact with other people without restriction, as well as the basic essentials of life, such as appropriate nutrition, clothes, and shelter. It also involves the right to live in dignity.

THE PROCESS PRESCRIBED BY LEGISLATION

Article 21 states that the legal process may be used to restrict someone's right to life and personal freedom. The phrase "procedure established by law" is a legalese that refers to the process required by any statute or state law. It was discussed in great detail in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1959), where the idea of personal liberty gained prominence in India. A communist leader who was being held at the centre of the case argued that his imprisonment was unlawful and violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21. According to the Court, the scope of personal liberty includes the freedom of the corporeal body, along with the freedom to eat, sleep, and use other bodily functions. The major decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India marked a change in this strategy (1978). In this instance, the idea of "procedure prescribed by law" was granted a substantive definition, and the Indian Constitution was amended to incorporate the American concept of "due process of law" into it. Due process of law examined the fairness of the law defining the mechanism to revoke a person's life or freedom in addition to validating the course of action that was taken. It was emphasised that the law must also pass the reasonableness test in addition to the requirement that the process be fair and reasonable. As a result, "due process of law" was expanded to include "method established by law".

RIGHT TO BASIC EDUCATION UNDER ARTICLE 21-A

The Right to Primary Education is protected by Article 21A of the Indian Constitution, which was inserted in 2002 as a result of the 86th Amendment. It stipulates that children between the ages of 6 and 14 have a legal right to receive a free education. On April 1, 2010, Article 21A went into effect, and anyone who breaches that provision of the constitution may face punishment.

CONCLUSION

One of the most important human rights is the right to life, which protects not only an individual's life and freedom but also those aspects of existence that render living valuable, such as livelihood, respect, housing, privacy, and health. India's judiciary has given Article 21's protection of the right to life and personal dignity a broad interpretation. Additionally, it is permissible under international law and in other nations. It has also generated debate on controversial topics like euthanasia and the death penalty. But in every argument, the right to life has prevailed.

REFERENCES

This article on 'Man sentenced to death for killing Parents: Facts and Laws' was written by Tuba Sanobar, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Man sentenced to death for killing Parents:

A 47-year-old man was found guilty of killing his parents at their home in 2018 and was given the death penalty by a court in Chhattisgarh's Durg District, describing the incident as one of the "rarest of the rare." In a 310-page judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Shailesh Kumar Tiwari decided the death penalty for the man and expressed that only the death penalty will be the appropriate punishment for the convict so that no one ever dares again to commit such a grave offence of murdering his parents. Let us now discuss the facts of the case and the relevant laws regarding it.

Facts of the Case

Sandip Jain killed his mother Surji Devi (67) and father Rawalmal Jain (72), both of whom were well-known businesspeople and social workers in Durg, on January 1. Sandip was the only person present in the house at the time of the incident besides the two deceased, so police detained him based on circumstantial evidence. The father-son duo's disagreements over a number of topics, including property, were proven in court. According to reports, one of the problems was that the accused did not like it when his father asked him to fetch water from the nearby Sheonath river to perform rituals at a temple in their home. The police reported that Sandip killed his parents out of fear that they would reject him. Sandip was found guilty of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the court after hearing the arguments and examining the evidence. The Indian Penal Code's Section 302 addresses the penalty for murder.  Murder is punishable by death or life in prison. The other two defendants, Bhagat Singh Gurudatta and Shailendra Sagar, who had given Sandip a gun, received five years in solitary confinement as well as a fine of Rs 1,000 each.

What does the law say about the maintenance of parents?

In addition to being a moral obligation, maintaining parents is a legal obligation as set forth in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007. These clauses are unavoidable and can be applied when children neglect to care for their parents. Along with the wife and children, parents are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The maintenance rights of the mother and father are expressly provided for in CrPC Section 125(1)(d).  According to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a wife, children, and parents may ask their husband, father, and children for support, as appropriate. According to Section 125, the maintenance provision, if a son or daughter refuses maintenance of parents and they lack any means of income to support themselves, the appropriate courts may order maintenance and welfare of parents. For each instance of failure to pay maintenance to parents, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for that person's arrest and/or place them in jail for up to one month or until payment is made, whichever comes first. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act of 2007 is another piece of legislation.  It specifically addresses all issues pertaining to the upkeep and welfare of parents through financial assistance as well as the creation of old age homes for elderly people without children or parents who have been neglected.  

Man sentenced to death for killing Parents: Facts and Laws

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007

A provision in Section 23 of the 2007 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act allows for the nullification of specific property transfers. It primarily shields senior citizens from financial fraud committed by those with fiduciary responsibilities.  For instance, a senior citizen might give away his or her property to someone else with the only requirement that the beneficiary meets his or her basic physical needs. The transfer will be deemed to have occurred fraudulently, coercively, or under undue influence in such a situation, and at the senior citizen's discretion, it may be declared void. Senior citizens (those over 60) and parents of any age are covered by the Act for the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents. Maintenance orders can be obtained against children or any relative who is the senior citizen's legal heir. The Act also mentions the State Government for establishing a Maintenance Tribunal.  Parents can hire family lawyers to help them understand the situation, but they do not necessarily need one while the matter is before the Maintenance Tribunal. The maintenance application process must be completed within 90 days of serving notice on the children/relatives.  An extension of 30 days may be given in case of exceptional circumstances.

Can parents demand maintenance from sons?

Yes, the law allows parents to seek maintenance from their sons and daughters if they are unable to support themselves. In the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashi Rao Rajaram Savai and others, the court ruled that "a father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, can claim maintenance from his or her son or daughter." The phrase "his father or mother" refers to both the father and mother of a child, not just the father or mother of a son. Both sons and daughters have a moral and legal obligation to look out for and support their parents. If this obligation is not met, parents may knock on the doors of maintenance tribunals to demand payment from their children for their monthly expenses. If the children's parents don't pay their maintenance as required by the Act, they risk being imprisoned for three months or longer. Money is not everything, though, as some people find it difficult to maintain their independence as they age and require help with daily tasks. Section 19 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Act 2007 calls for the establishment of old age homes by the State Government that can house elderly people in need.

Conclusion

The CrPC and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, impose legal obligations on children to care for their elderly parents, which includes providing for their needs.  One may end up committing the heinous crime of murdering his own parents due to some unnecessary misunderstanding and disbelief among his own parents. It is morally repugnant and violates the law at the same time. India is a morally upstanding, religious, and spiritual country. It is believed that respecting your parents is a reward-earning activity that aids kids in achieving paradise in the hereafter. Children aspire to receive the blessings of their parents, and this is reflected in Indian law in the form of a duty to the parents.

References

This article on 'Consumer court penalizes BSNL for Poor Internet Services: Facts and Laws' was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

This article deals with the recent instances involving complaints against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for its poor services, in the consumer courts and the subsequent remedy that is expected to be granted in such a case. It has been discussed which authority deals with the telecommunication domain and what has changed in comparison to the past in a case where a consumer wants to make a telecom company liable for its poor services because it was a conception that such a dispute was resolved through arbitration and not otherwise. However recent judgments have changed this stance.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and Related Provisions

The field related to Indian telecommunication is regulated and managed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), established under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, of 1997. The responsibility of TRAI involves protecting the interests of the customers of such services and their providers. It is also present to ensure the smooth and seamless expansion of this sector. The standards for quality of services, tariff, and disbursement of money by the providers are some of the purposes of this authority. It also conducts periodic surveys to have knowledge about the actual scenario of services and the related problems that the consumers face due to incompetence and ineffective services provided by the telecom companies. TRAI as a regulatory authority is also responsible for the proper implementation of the relevant legal measures which would be applicable in a dispute. It is evident from the general trend of cases that the subject matter involves the fault of the telecom provider in relation to poor telecom services. 

Change in Approach

A common conception was that such a matter in relation to telecom disputes can only be settled via statutory arbitration. This view was made keeping in mind the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act (ITA). However, this stance has changed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Ajay Kumar Agarwal vs. Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. In this case, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent with the District Consumer Disputes forum. The complaint was that the bill of the appellant was 45 times the average bill that he used to receive in the preceding months. It was held by the Court that it was the consumer’s volition to get the remedy via arbitration as there is no bar to going for recourse under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986 (now replaced by the 2019 Act). It was observed that the definition of ‘service’ under Section 2 of the Act was wide enough in its scope to bring telecom services under its purview.

Consumer court penalizes BSNL for Poor Internet Services: All You Need to Know

Cases Involving BSNL

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. vs D. P. Sharma, the complainant had broadband that was non-functional for 27 days owing to bad services on part of BSNL (service provider). A complaint was filed at a District Consumer Forum in Jaipur. BSNL contended that the action was not maintainable as it didn’t come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, of 2019. The Forum relied on the rationale that the dispute between the service provider and the consumer came under Telegraph Act and was not maintainable. Then, the complainant appealed to the state commission which held that the consumer was entitled to remedy under CPA, 2019 and ordered BSNL to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000. Against this order, BSNL filed a revision questioning the Commission’s order contending that the rationale used in the order is against the law established by the Supreme Court and that the complainant needs to approach the highest court of the land to change the interpretation. The National Commission agreed with such contention and held that the state commission had no authority to interpret a law contrary to its actual intent. Then, the complainant under Article 136 filed a special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction in relation to telecom disputes would fall under consumer forums and directed the National Commission to dispose of the case. In further proceedings under the commission, BSNL brought up new contentions which were not allowed and the telecom provider (BSNL) was asked to pay compensation to the consumer. In another recent case, a district consumer forum at Dehradun fined BSNL due to the failure of the telecom operator to provide adequate services which affected the consumer during the COVID work-from-home era. A person working at a private firm took an internet connection from BSNL by paying around Rs. 7,000. There were two problems with the service. Firstly, the availability of the service of very frequently interrupted. Secondly, the speed of the connection was one-seventh the claimed speed by the company. A suit was instituted against the company as the person could not do his work even for a single day. He had to change the connection and face anger if his employer due to his absence from meetings. Also, he claimed that no solution was provided by the company after repeated calls to customer care. The Court after hearing the arguments ordered BSNL to pay the entire amount with 6% interest and pay additional Rs. 6,000 for litigation charges and mental harassment.

Conclusion

The recent decisions of the Courts and Consumer forums have now given wider options to a consumer to get the remedy under the law. The older perception that arbitration is the only way in eyes of the Indian Telegraph Act has now changed and a consumer has the option to get a remedy in a dispute with a telecom operator under CPA, 2019. It needs to be mentioned that TRAI has played a significant role in regulating these companies and preventing them from going haywire. As far as BSNL is concerned, it has been notorious for its bad service even though it is the source that gives spectrum to various private entities. The downfall of this company shall be avoided and the recent package to revive BSNL is one of the many steps that are required on part of the government to improve the health of the company and the user experience.

Reference