Naik Naik & Co has represented Bollywood actor Imran Khan and a student in their Bombay High Court writ petition challenging Maharashtra’s increase of the minimum drinking age to 25 years.
Naik managing partner Ameet Naik filed the petition on behalf of Khan and management studies student Vedant Malik, and said that the restriction was a “palpably arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational denial by the state, to persons who have attained full majority under Indian law, but are only not 25 years old, of the equal protection of their settled fundamental and/or legal right(s) of equality, privacy and personal liberty”.
The arguments in the petition, according to an email from the firm:
The specific denial here questioned, is the minimum age requirement (i.e. 25 years) set by Respondent No. 1, for the issuance of permits for the possession, use and consumption of liquor within the State of Maharashtra (outside Wardha District).
The petition highlights the Notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra from time to time prescribing minimum age limit for drinking hard liquor. The minimum legal age prescribed for drinking hard liquor in 1972 was 21 years, in 1979 was increased to 30 years, 1982 reduced to 25 years, January 2001 and July 2001 reduced to 21 years and September, 2005 increased to 25 years.
The Petitioners were under the impression that it was the Notification issued in July 2005 was in force until date. The Petitioners have contended that right since 2005, they had witnessed many persons close to their own age, having no great difficulty in gaining access to liquor (mild or otherwise), for personal, recreational consumption. The Petitioners themselves, being social drinkers, had noticed that even this age requirement was rarely enforced. It thus came as a surprise to them to know that the Government of Maharashtra is now aiming to firmly enforce a minimum age requirement of 25 years. In order to remove this confusion, the Petitioners instructed their Advocates Ameet Naik of Naik Naik & Company to file an Application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with the appropriate authorities, to ascertain the rules/regulations presently in force, prescribing the minimum age requirement for the consumption of liquor.
In response to this Application, Government of Maharashtra, under cover of its letter dated August 16, 2011, has furnished the Petitioners with two Notifications. The first was the afore-mentioned Notification dated 1st July, 2005 and another Notification, dated 26th September, 2005. That Notification re-amended sub-rule (1) of Rule 70-D of the said Rules, once again increasing the age limit for grant of Liquor Permit to any person from “21 years” to “25 years” in the State of Maharashtra.
The Petitioners state and submit that the Impugned Notification seeks to impose a manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustified restriction on the class of persons between the ages of 21 to 25 years, who are not legally regarded as “minor” and may vote, marry, contract, consume tobacco and even own firearms, but are not permitted to consume liquor. The impugned Notification therefore seeks to impose a classification which is wholly and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary and occasions real and substantial discrimination between persons otherwise similarly situated. The Petitioners have further submitted that the impugned Notification is an abuse or improper exercise of discretion by the State of Maharashtra, as it bears no proportionality to the object which may be sought to be achieved by it. The petition highlights the irony in existing law that a youth has to cross the border and go into Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh, where he would be deemed to have acquired the requisite maturity to drink, a maturity he is supposed to lose the moment he drives back.
The Petitioners have therefore filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus or direction, striking down and setting aside the Impugned Notification issued by State of Maharashtra. Pending the hearing of the petition, the Petitioners seek an order and prohibitory Injunction staying the effect and purport of the Impugned Notification.
Picture: Bollywoodhungama
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
If this trend continues, LI will be the best source of court pleadings etc. Maybe they could consider publishing a book soon
India is a land of crabs stuck in a jar. The detractors above clearly belong to the group that pulls other people down when they try to do good.
Why not replace the writing credit from "Written by Kian Ganz" to "Written by _______ _______ from Naik Naik & Co."?
Since they pretty much write the whole article themselves, and you guys print it verbatim, might as well be open about it right? Rather than simply mentioning, "according to an email from the firm". Jeez, apparently there are people other than Imran Khan looking to gain publicity..
Thanks for your feedback, you do have a point.
Normally we try not to quote such long chunks of text when there is time but in this case it was clearly marked as a quote from the firm and it was well-written and explained their arguments clearly.
In addition, the case had been reported in other papers already and it was useful additional detail for lawyers.
If we had quoted large chunks of the writ petition, for example, would it not have amounted to practically the same thing?
Best regards
Kian
Thanks for replying to my comment.
I must point out to you, that in particular for articles on this website pertaining to or in relation to "news" generated by Naik Naik & Co., there are particularly large chunks quote from the writ petition or "well-structured" comments from the firm itself. My intention was not to make allegations of "shoddy" journalism at you or your team; in fact, I think you're doing an exemplary job.
My intention was to point out that "certain" law firms try and garner as much publicity as possible by (literally) writing articles about themselves and their work on websites such as yours. I must warn you though, to restrict a practice such as this, as your credibility may (in the eyes of some) may take a fall. I have heard so many comments from my fellow lawyers, who believe that LegallyIndia is fast becoming a domain for concealed advertisements by law firms and law schools - most of which I have defended. But in certain cases, like this for example, I find it difficult to voice my support in favour of your website.
Nonetheless, as already stated, please don't interpret this as an attack on you - I merely wanted to state my observation that many articles in relation to Naik Naik & Co. are, either heavily vetted, or largely written by their staff.
Best regards,
Observer
Again, thanks for compliment and criticism, always helpful to hear.
I agree with you in principle. Some thoughts:
Some firms will always be better than others at being media savvy. Nothing necessarily wrong in this but it can be a double-edged sword: on the one hand if law firms never sent us anything, we'd have a lot less content to put up on the site and it would take us a lot longer to gather the information. On the other, sometimes press releases are exceedingly fluffy with no news value, and they do take time that we would otherwise use to follow the harder-to-report news. And once a press release is out there and being reported by other websites, there is always some pressure for us to do the same to an extent, unless we decide that it won't be interesting to readers or is too fluffy. (we do turn away quite a few pitches for stories, actually!)
Press releases can also make journalists a little lazy, particularly if they are well written and lend themselves to copy-pasting into stories (talk to many professional Indian PRs and they will tell you that half the press releases they send to a few 'quality' newspapers get copy-pasted under the newspaper's byline). We try to avoid this but sometimes it is hard not to, particularly in the last few months which have been especially busy.
I don't really think any blame attaches to Naik Naik & Co or any others that are starting to get into PR. Naik being a media law firm is understandably more media savvy than others but fortunately most cases that they inform us about are also interesting MSM news stories and are well-explained. As in this case, if they provide a well-written summary of their case, which is also making headlines all over the MSM and provides useful additional information to lawyers not available in the MSM, it is arguably defensible to use it verbatim (although ideally with less time constraints we would have quoted from it more sparingly).
And do bear in mind that most deal stories are essentially little more than sharing the previously unknown information of which law firm is advising on which cases or deals that are already reported in the business or popular press. Some would always call that 'veiled advertising', others would call it market intelligence or information. I would argue strongly for the latter - seeing which firms do which deals or cases is enormously valuable to us and many readers too, I'm sure, in evaluating the performances of law firms. In that sense, volume can sometimes justifiably trump depth of reporting in this case. Including long excerpts describing the case, are sometimes only 'bonus' information that may add interest to a story.
One aim for Legally India, particularly with our new Legally Wired section and Deals in Brief round-ups, is to partly be a publication of record for the legal profession, which also means we indulge in a little more aggregation and press-release rewrites than perhaps we should.
But I still hope that we can keep hunting out original news about less PR-savvy firms or the news that lawyers would not issue a press release about.
Anyway sorry for going slightly off topic but thanks for raising the points and keeping us on our toes, always good for us to bear in mind and glad to see that readers appreciate the nuances.
Best regards
Kian
Ps: Thought I'd point out that none of our articles are ever "vetted" - in fact we have a strict policy that we never show subjects an article before publication, although we get asked many many times for this and worse.
I must compliment you on your well-thought out reply. Seriously, well written and well worded. Legal journalism was definitely a great choice for you.
Also thanks for pointing out that you do in fact turn down 'fluffy' news-pieces. I, and I'm sure many readers, appreciate that. While all we have is your word for that, I think I'll accept it.
"Veiled advertising" or "being media savvy and into PR" - that's a debate with so much scope of argument on both sides, I think its best I leave it here. Although, I would like to make just one point - our profession strictly forbids advertising in any form; being the brilliant lot that we are, and being that it is part of our job description, we always find loopholes and manage to promote our respective firms. In a competitive market like ours, its only fair to get your name out as much as possible, and clearly Naik, being a small firm as compared to many others, has accomplished that substantially better than most firms. However, I would have to disagree with you in this respect - I strongly believe (and this is just my opinion) that Naik pushes the boundary a bit too often - a lot of articles on LegallyIndia feel like they're firm-written; it almost feels like a well-worded press release / advertisement. My only appeal to you, and LegallyIndia, while you already do that to quite an extent, is to venture more into the foray of investigative journalism. While it is the primary goal of journalistic enterprise to report the facts, I would urge you print the facts and not the summary of arguments given by the law firm in question.
I truly appreciate the effort your website makes in bringing legal news to the front, as usually, it merely travels through word-of-mouth. I haven't yet completely made up my mind on whether I agree with the philosophy adopted by certain law firms (particularly Naik) of extending press releases and providing arguments and access to the writ petitions to journalists to as to get their name published as much as possible, but I suppose I lean towards the other side of the spectrum. I do lean towards being discreet and I do lean towards adhering to the prohibition on advertisement.
Great having this discussion with you. Hopefully, we'll do it again someday. Until then, keep doing what you're doing!
On a last note, I really don't think blame should attach to Naik or law firms here - if anything, whatever we print is ultimately our responsibility and comes down how well we 'vet' or report, and nothing we print should ever be 'advertising' within the BCI's definition of the word.
If we agree that we want a legal market that is more professional and transparent partly with the help of legal journalism, which is still nascent in India, there has to be some benefit in it for law firms too. If all we did was report about the terrible things that happened in firms and they never got to tell their side of the story or share the good things they are doing, most firms will begin to clam up and move back towards the times of "don't ask, don't tell". This wouldn't stop legal journalism in its tracks but it would make it a lot more resource-intensive.
All media, except those with the resources to be able to exclusively focus on investigative journalism, nowadays work like this, for better or some would argue mostly for worse.
Do let me know your feedback or thoughts any time, has been a useful and interesting to discuss.
Best regards
Kian
high time you put some news on real litigation matters. right to education act matter being one of them..other matters with some relevance. Only, firms handling such matters won't give you articles. you will need to do all the work yourself.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first