News and current affairs

It is interesting to note that the constitutional validity of section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  was challenged before the Delhi High Court in the matter of The Cooperative Store Limited, New Delhi v. O.P.Dwivedi, P.O.Industrial Tribunal –II & Others, reported in 1988 1 LLJ 135.In the case of Madras –Bangalore Transport Company Vs. The Madras –Bangalore Transport Company Worker's Union and Ors., reported in (1964) II LLJ 614 Kant, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held  that the limited restriction imposed by S.36 in a law sanctioned by Parliament in the exercise of its legislative competence as conferred by the Constitution, cannot be viewed as an abridgment of any fundamental right. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court interpreted the said provision in the case of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen And Management of Keonjhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs.  Their Workmen, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 339.

However, thereafter when the same issue came up before the Allahabad High Court, Markandeya Katju, J (as he then was) vide his decision in ICI India Ltd. v. Labour Court (IV) & Another) reported in 1992-1- LLN 972, has held that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act and a similar provision i.e. Section 6-I(2) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act are ultra vires of the Constitution.

In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a  parliamentary legislation when receives the assent of the President of India and published in an Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a  legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It futher held that an order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.

Here we have a situation where the Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Section 36 of the I.D Act and the Allahabad High Court has said that the same is unconstitutional.

Under the circumstances, what  would be the effect on the rest of the Country?

Section 36 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates both the consent of the opposite party and the leave of the Tribunal will have to be secured to enable a party to seek representation before the Tribunal through a legal practitioner qua legal practitioner. This is a clear, significance of Section 36(4) of the Act. The same was held by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Paradeep Port Trust reported in  (1977) 2 SCC 339.

However, the judiciary of this country is divided on the interpretation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to whether such consent and leave can also be “implied”.

The Courts, among others, which have decided that such a consent and leave of the Court has to be express are as under:

1.     General Manager, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal - I, Hyderaband and Anr.- Andhra Pradesh High Court. reported in 1998 (4) L.L.N. 908

2.     Bhavani Art Handicrafts v. Gulab Singh and Ors. - Rajasthan High Court, reported in 1999 (2) L.LN. 1070

3.      J.B. Transport Company and Ors. v. Shankarlal @ Mavaram Nathuji Patel] - Gujarat High Court, reported in 1999 (4) L.L.N. 290

4.     Lakshmi Engineering Industries v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Rajasthan High Court, reported in 2003 (2) L.L.N. 773

5.     Management of Muttapore Tea Estate, Assam v. Presiding Offcer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh, Assam- Gauhati High Court., reported in 2004 Lab. I. C. 4035

6.      Grapes Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Judge, Labour Court, Bhilwara] - Rajasthan High Court, reported in 2004 (2) SLR 665 [

7.     Chandrakanth and Ors. v. All India Reporter Ltd.] - Bombay High Court - Nagpur Bench, reported in 2005 (105) FLR 300

8.       Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. v. Brooke Bond Shramik Union- Orissa High Court, reported in 2005 (105) FLR 256

On the other hand, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shiraz Golden Restaurant Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2000) II LLJ 1101 Cal , relying upon an earlier Calcutta High Court judgment of Reckitt and Coleman of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Nath Maitra and Ors., reported in AIR1956 Cal 353, and  a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay v. Meher and Ors, reported in (1966) I LLJ 580 Bom, held that since the section does not prescribe that the consent must be given in a particular manner or in a particular form, the consent of a party which is the basis for the grant of leave to the other party for being represented by a lawyer in a proceeding under the I.D. Act, could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances as also the conduct of the consenting party. It held that such a consent could also be implied. It futher held that since the section does not insist upon a written consent, a consent once given could not be revoked at a later stage because there is no provision in the I.D. Act enabling such withdrawal or revocation. To put it simply, the consent once given by a party, entitling the other party to be represented in the proceeding, by a lawyer would inure to his benefit till the proceeding is finally disposed of.

Apart from the Calcutta and the Bombay High Court , the Madras High Court concurs with the above view as held in the matter of The Management, Hindustan Motors Earth Moving Equipment Division Limited, Chennai Car Plant V. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Mr. T. Soundrarajan and Catter Pillar India Private Ltd., (Erstwhile Hindustan Motors Limited, Earthmoving  Equipment, reported in (2007) II LLJ 59 Mad  , the Kerala High Court in the matter of Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Union v. Calicut Co-operative Milk Supply Workers Union, reported in 1986-II-LLJ-422 at 422, 423 and in the matter of Francis Gomez and Anr. Vs. President, Thiruvananthapuram Shops & Commercial Employees' Union and Ors, reported in (1999) III LLJ 1250.

Till very recently, the Delhi High Court followed 2004 1 CLR 163 [Hindustan Motor Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Ors.] - Delhi High Court, (1999 (1) L.L.N. 983 [Prasar Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India v. Suraj Pal Sharma and Ors.] - Delhi High Court which stated took the view contrary to Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Kerala. However, in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Brothers decided in LPA 212 of 2008, the Division Bench overruled its earlier decisions and concurred with the view of Calcutta and Bombay on the issue.

Since the judiciary of this country appears to be divided on the interpretation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hopefully either the Supreme Court would resolve the issue once and for all or the legislature shall amend the law to suit the demands of the 21st Century.

 Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 states that in any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, a party to a dispute may be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceeding and with the leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be.

Thus, representation of a party by a legal practitioner can only be with the consent of the other party to the proceedings and with the leave of the Tribunal.

If the workman raises an objection for appearance of a practicing Advocate on behalf of the employer, then in view of the provision of Section 36, the practicing Advocate could not be permitted to appear on behalf of the employer.  

The Industrial Disputes Act was enacted in the year 1947 the Trade Union movement in this Country was in its infancy. The Legislature had visualised the legal battle between two unequals. On the one hand, the Trade Unions with scarce resources could not be pitted against the mighty employers, who had all the wealth at their command. They could hire the best lawyers at the Bar while the Trade Unions and/or workmen were likely to not have any trained persons to defend them. Their leaders had no necessary legal training and knowledge of Court functioning. The lawyers who had professionally acquired law training were rarely available for the Trade Unions and workmen who could hardly afford their fees. In order to bring about and maintain fairness and equality, the Legislature provided under Section 36 of the Act how the parties would be represented in the proceedings under the Act. The parties, of course, could themselves appear in their own litigation. A legal practitioner is permitted only with the consent of the other party in the proceedings and with the leave of the Labour Court/Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be. It was left to the other party and also to the discretion of the forum before which the proceedings were instituted. The underlying principle of this section is just and fair trial.

However, over the last 62 years, the Trade Union movement has long crossed its age of infancy. Today, excellent Trade Unionists are available who have acquired knowledge, legal acumen and skill to defend the working class in the proceedings under this Act. Very often these dedicated and reputed trade Union leaders are more than a match to even the best of the practitioners before the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal. Similarly, there are experienced office-bearers of a number of Trade Unions who have also acquired rich experience in the field of legal knowledge.

In view of the present business scenario and the increased entry of foreigners in this area, would it be a fair and an equal fight between a powerful Trade Union represented by a very seasoned, senior and experienced Trade Union representative or a leader against an ordinary small /foreign employer if he is not assisted by a legal practitioner? The Trade Unions are professional litigants. Since the employers are not, they are required to engage the services of legal practitioners to represent themselves in the legal battle. If they are prevented from engaging legal practitioners as against the powerful representatives of the Trade Unions it would not be a fair, just and equal trial of the strength between the two.

Since there has been a considerable change in the circumstances, both in the industrial and legal sector, the utility of such a law in today’s times need to be revisited. There is no dearth of decent legal practitioners available now even for the workmen or Trade Unions. Lawyers' services are nowadays available to all those who can pay a reasonable remuneration. A lot of advocates represent the cause of social justice. It would therefore be unreasonable and unfair to deny the same opportunity to the employer.

R.J. Kochar, J in the matter of T.K. Varghese Vs. Nichimen Corporation, reported in 2001 (4) Bom C R 168, stated that “Moreover, the provision of Section 36 has given rise to formation and floating of bogus paper organisations of employers who engage and appoint some legal practitioners as their so-called office-bearers to circumvent the provisions of Section  36 as such "office-bearers" are permitted to appear in industrial proceedings with legal authority. The result is that very good legal practitioners are appointed as "office -bearers" of the employers' organisation or even as the employees of the employers to appear for the members-employers to circumvent the objections of the Trade Unions/workmen. To face the situation successfully, the employers like the Respondents are compelled to enroll themselves as the members of such organisations to be able to be defended by legal practitioners who are the officers or office-bearers of such organisations.”

A recent decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overruling the Court’s earlier stance to the contrary in the case of Bhagat Brothers , decided in LPA 212 of 2008 echoes the observations of Justice Kochar wherein they state “It would be totally unjust to deny the legal community access to this field and the Courts and the Tribunals would face great handicap if they do not get proper assistance from the legally trained persons in their decisions which finally land in the higher Courts.”.

Further, one must also appreciate that in view of judicial review by higher courts , appeals and other judicial remedies, such industrial matters most of the time, if not always, end up in High Courts or higher up. There is no protection similar to section 36 available to the workman when it comes to the fight in the appellate forums. Thus, such partial protection also does not make sense, especially since usually there is a huge difference in the ability and affordability between the legal practitioners at the tribunals and the ones at the High Courts and/or Supreme Court.

In view of the above, in my humble opinion, its time for an amendment to section 36(4) of the ID Act.

The consumer awareness in India is still at a nebulous stage. The Consumer Protection Act was legislated in 1986 and consumer disputes redressal forums erected pursuant to the Act. However, the practice and procedure followed in these forums id perhaps not what was intended bythe legislature.

Section 13 (3A) of the Act states that every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities:

It also provides that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum and costs to be awarded as a deterrent measure.

          In practice, however, final and conclusive adjudication by the forums within the prescribed time period, has almost never been heard of. The reasons. The usual problems which plague the civil courts leading to long delays and a burden of backlogs. Resultantly, the consumer disputes redressal is sluggish and ineffective. The system, contrary to the wise intentions of the law, ends up playing into the hands of the market mal-practitioners necessitated by greed and the consumer in fits off fury and frustration.

The clear divide between the legislative intention and actual justice dispensation procedure and practice  continues to remain unaddressed.

If the system wakes up to deliver on time, needless to mention that more and more consumers would seek redressal of their disputes. The system, once it functions in a more civilized fashion, would bring in more matters to the legal practitioners specializing in this branch of law and in these forums. More importantly, the legal system would be more professional in its response as required in this service sector. Needless to mention that on one hand when we are opening the doors of this country inviting more foreign business into the country, a country with the lofty goals of being a superpower in the near future, necessarily needs to relook and rebuild a civilized redressal mechanism which has more credibility in practice.

Lawsuits from asbestos exposure in many countries is a big issue. People who have been exposed are able to sue manufacturers who knowingly sold products that could result in a deadly cancer called mesothelioma. The fact is that these companies, and the government, knew about the dangers of asbestos as far back as the 1920's.

Basically the whole world has agreed that asbestos is very bad and can result in lung cancer. India is the exception.

I found this bit of news interesting I found here:

"There is a political consensus in India to promote asbestos at any human cost" declares Gopal Krishna, after his country - joined by Canada, Russia and Pakistan - last month spiked the banning of crysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent.

Madhumitta Dutta points out that India based its refusal to join most of the rest of the world by claiming it has to await the result of a health study on asbestos impacts. However "India failed to inform the international community ...that the study was funded in part by the asbestos industry... Still worse, the study is kept under wraps and is not accessible to public health specialists or labour groups."

The fact is that there is a strong link between politicians and the asbestos industry. As a result, India is not acting like a responsible super power. Maybe soon they will reverse their decision, lawsuits will follow and the asbestos industry will die a slow death.

The last few days have been sadly violent ones, also for the legal fraternity. But in both cases so far not much is really clear.

Three days before the bomb blast in Pune's German Bakery, criminal lawyer and 26/11 defence counsel Shahid Azmi was shot dead in what appears to have been a targeted assassination.
Legally India's sincere condolences go out to his family and friends, as well as to the victims of the Pune attacks and their close ones.

Of course, for the papers the Azmi killing has been a perfect story.

A young idealist or "convicted child terrorist" with an alleged "outlaw" past, climbing out of poverty and prison to the top of the respected profession of law to defend alleged terrorists.
Cue a violent murder with options for conspiracy theories aplenty.

However, not much is clear so far, but for the significant emotion involved, particularly now with the untimely Pune attack.

Between three and four attackers (reports conflict there) on Thursday evening fired four shots to Azmi's chest and head from point-blank range after covert phone calls and preparation.

"He was bumped off for being 'anti-establishment' and 'anti-police'", reported DNA, quoting lawyers. The family also apparently blames the police. Then there are the suspicions of mafia involvement and a "patriot" gangster trying to make a name for himself.

The general public is divided.

On one hand there is the age-old antipathy directed at lawyers defending those the public does not deem worthy of a defence (or a fair trial).

In the comments on the Hindustan Times website, one reader writes: "Some body took care of Terror friendly lawyer...Give those guy Padam Bhushan", while another simply says "good job".

"Just deserts" writes another, followed by: "Brilliant. Melt pot trusts a former child soldier and convicted terrorist over the Indian Government and Police. I'll be honest, sleep will come easier to me tonight knowing that this 'man' is no longer at large", on the Times of India site.
Another on the TOI's site takes the opposite angle: "A clear indication of what awaits Ajmal Kasab [Azmi's 26/11 defence brief]. He will never get a fair trial in India."

Further investigations are undoubtedly necessary, as in any murder.
But with details and the motives of the killing so sparse, is it not too early to point fingers and allocate blame?

Surely, whether it was the underworld, shadowy powers up high or someone completely unrelated will make all the difference, as will the reasons of why it happened. 

Then again, the sad risk is that no one will ever truly know and speculation and finger pointing will be all there will be.

Today's new angle in the story is that lawyers are up in arms about the security allocated to advocates acting in dangerous cases.
"We have planned a meeting to discuss this serious issue. Shahid's death demands an urgent look into the security of lawyers who deal with dangerous cases, which at times doesn’t go well with certain section of the society," senior advocate Rohini Salian, who is special public prosecutor in the 2008 Malegaon blast case and general secretary of the City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association, told the Indian Express.

What are your views? Is the security of lawyers taken too lightly in India?

According to draft Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS), data compiled by the Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejriwal-led NGO Parivartan as part of an initiative to promote people’s right to access information from government organisations. West Bengal is at the bottom of the heap, scoring just 6% in OPS while Karnataka tops the country in implementing the Right to Information (RTI) Act, scoring 55%..

There is no dispute that the Supreme Court and all other courts are public authorities under the RTI Act. Its a different issue whether the office of the CJI is a public authority or not. Even though two courts have held it to be so, final determination in the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Chapter II of the RTI Act deals with right to information and obligations of public authorities. Section 4 of the Act mandates that it shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. For the said purposes, every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

All the kinds of information enumerated in section 4(1) of the Act was to be published within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act. The Act was enacted way back in 2005. and thus the one hundred and twenty years have long gone by.

It appears that the Calcutta High Court, as it continues to decide matters relating to the Act, despite being a public authority, fails to disclose on its website the information as mandated by the Act.

And this blatant violation of the mandate of law stares at your face in the highest court of this communist state by the complete absence of the RTI disclosure mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.

There is possibly no reason to assume that the same agency (NIC) which has created and designed the websites of the Supreme Court and high courts and has created an icon/provision for the RTI therein has failed to display the said information inadvertently while designing the site. The said agency, NIC, obviously is not in a position to do so since it does not decide what information is disclosed.

A lot of questions to ask.

But who is the Public Information Officer of the Calcutta High Court?

The Times of India, on 14th December 09, carried a piece titled ‘Legalise Prostitution? Then Why Not Graft?’ by Dhananjay Mahapatra based on a recent observation by two Supreme Court Judges asking the Government if the worlds oldest profession could not be controlled, then why not legalise it. 

The author seemingly annoyed with the court's suggestion draws an analogy between prostitution and corruption based on the common ground that neither problems seem capable of solution. The author suggests that legalising the sex trade would be akin to letting those guilty of corruption go scot-free.

The piece can be found here.

Here is what I would have written:

 Supreme Court: Why not Legalise Prostitution?

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! This is exactly the kind of thinking we need!

As it stands today, the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, has not been able to achieve what is was originally enacted to do – to check the illegal trafficking of persons for sexual exploitation. Instead what it has managed to do is make the unsafe environment, that commercial sex workers work in, more dangerous, it has allowed pimps and brothel keepers perpetrate acts of violence without fear of them approaching the police, it has allowed the police to repeatedly pick up sex workers and keep them in lock up, rape and violence is often reported. It has also made it difficult for sex workers to insist on the use of condoms.

Recently, a proposed amendment tried to bring in a new approach; one which proposed to penalize the customer. This has been tried in Sweden and unfortunately has not yielded successful results. Reports from Sweden show that the proposal has pushed sex work underground, made women feel more unsafe and there have been increased reports of violence.

It seems therefore, that there is clear evidence of what doesn’t work. A system which allows authorities to effectively check the trafficking of women and at the same time allows the improvement of the condition of women already working as sex workers, seems to be the need of the hour. Members of Parliament during the legislative debates in 1956 had observed that penalising the sale and purchase of sex would not eliminate prostitution. (Source: the Lawyers’ Collective)

Why then are we trying the same approach in different ways? The hon’ble judges’ propensity to try something new, more importantly with the recognition that the current law is not working, is vital and must be recognized and hopefully mirrored by the administration.

Activist groups have campaigned for either legalization or a decriminalization of the sex work industry. The approaches have their own pros and cons. What either of these approaches may allow however, is an increased regulation and scrutiny of red light areas and sex work in general. This could allow increased monitoring of and a reduction of violence on the women, presence of trafficked and minor girls in the brothels and would allow an all round improvement in the working conditions of the women. There is of course a worry that over-regulation would push the industry back underground thereby undoing any advantages of legalization or decriminalization.

New law and policy is needed and though comments from judges from the highest court of the land are an excellent starting point, there must be a consultative process, one which seeks to involve the views of commercial sex workers.  

In my last blog, I wrote about the disparities existing in our country and proposed a solution for the backward India by promoting Micro Finance, following the concept of Grameen banks and socialBusiness.

I thank everyone for devoting their time to my blog and sharing your opinions. In this blog, I will discuss about the concept of social business, Grameen Banks and will analyze the views portrayed by Noble Laureate Md. Yunus when he came to India to deliver a lecture at the parliament of India.         

As discussed earlier in my blog about the raging disparity in our country, what could be an effective solution to this problem? Anyone would suggest to develop these backward areas, but the key questions remains the same-how? Government plans have failed to make a significant impact in these areas due to various reasons, some of them being corruption and in effective administration. A new approach needs to be adopted. I think in case of government developing the life of these peoples why not give these peoples a chance to develop themselves and government may act as guardian just to check any malfunction.  “Social business is can be casually assumed as a business in which neither loss is suffered nor gain.” The investor always gets his capital back and in dividend enjoys the fruits gained by performing his social obligations.  In delivering the lecture at the parliament of India Md. Yunus identified the two main questions which  decides the fate of the social business theory. Any person reading about social business will think two questions:

·         Who would like to establish a company to achieve social goals rather than make profit?

·         Who would provide for the funds for setting up such a business which in this capitalist world will be perceived as irrational and impractical?

There are many institutions in the world who works for social cause. Apart from this the government itself can be an investor. Mr. Yunus laid emphasis on the importance of social business. There are many charitable institutions in the country, but the money from charity depends upon donations so it’s one way, social business is the tool to empower these charitable institutions to stand on their feet.

To generate income or to employ different techniques to become self sufficient institutions, but not a commercial profit making institution. The concept of social business is being followed all over in the world including our neighbor Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, practical approach of social business can be seen. Mr. Yunus has been able to tie up with many multinational companies. A French dairy company called “Danone” is working in partnership with Grameen bank as “Grameen-Danone” with the aim to reduce the malnutrition among the children. The company produces “Yoghurt” at extremely affordable prices for the poor section of Bangladesh and it is rich in all nutrients which is required by a normal child.  The owners of the company are self committed not to generate profit over their actual investment and the surplus profit is used to make the product more efficient and in other development plans of the company. The target of the company is not to make profit but to increase its market to such an extent as more number of children can be benefited.

Similarly a French water company veolia is working in partnership to provide safe drinking water in villages of Bangladesh. They have incorporated giants like Intel to form Grameen –Intel which works in improving "IT" in rural sector and improving health services and perhaps the most unique collaboration is with "adidas" Grameen-adidas which makes affordable shoes for every section of people in Bangladesh and their aim is to ensure that no one in Bangladesh walks without shoes.

These are some examples of social Business in real life. Multi corporate giants have blended themselves in the nobility of social obligations and the best thing is no one is at loss.

If Bangladesh can do it surely this concept can be applied in most backward states of country.

Comments and suggestion are heartily appreciated and invited.

Something has been troubling for a while. 

The print media has vast readership in India. The daily with the highest circulation has a readership of 1.33 crores. The ability to affect public opinion is of course then immense. Newspapers sometimes carry articles which are unjustifiably uninformed or extremely biased.  This is something that we have been saying for a while now. 

This is my attempt to try and do something.  Its is an attempt to rewrite certain newspaper articles without criticising the author in anyway. It is a rewrite inasmuch as it takes the theme of the particular article and brings to light the other side of the moon. I would also like to add that the contents of the blog and opinions expressed therein  are the result of legal research and logic that a law student can muster.

So, please, let me.

Hello people

Law as has defined by numerous scholars but to no awail. Everybody has a different definition of law and everybody perceives law in a different sense. However, for everbody one aspect of law is common ie laws govern a society. It is for the people. However, i would like to draw the attention of the people towards the immoral conditions mentioned in the Bombay Anti Begging Law that applies to Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkatta. Under the act there are conditions that can punish the beggar for a maximum imprisonment of 10 years. I would like to post this question to you all, is it moral to punish a person who is suffering from poverty and has no means of acquiring the basic neccesities of life ie food. There are numerous examples of the same when a person was picked up. 

This although might appear trivial but don't such people have a right to live? They are put behind the bars, cramped in the imsufficient spaces in Social Welfare Homes. I do realise that in the social welfare homes they are taught vocational skills which might help them to earn a decent living after being released from the homes, but again the same question is it their fault that they are born poor??Is it moral to curbe their basic or the fundamental right to live with dignity, enjoy freedom just because they are shabbily dressed or they can't acquire the funds require to own a home or are not educated enough to earn a decent living for themselves? Why do we rich and the people with money think they are a blot on the face of the metros??

The Delhi Government has started a drive to remove the beggars from the streets of Delhi and have started to deport them back to their native states. How is this decision different from the acts of MNS in Mumbai?? This contention was raised by a famous activist Mr. Harsh Mandher in a PIL. What about the fundamental right mentioned in the Constitution of India which gives freedom to any citizen of India to settle in any part of India and to take up any occupation. Now is this decision of the Delhi government which has the ascent of the Delhi High Court. 

Today's guest blogger is Spiritus convenor Shravan Kochhar

NLSIU's annual, inter-collegiate sports festival Spiritus 2009-2010 began with a rush of excitement after national-level badminton champion Arvind Bhat's motivational speech at the inaugural ceremony on Thursday 14th of January 2010.

Over twenty law colleges from all over the country participated in events ranging from basketball and football to table-tennis and chess; the NLSIU campus and the Sports Authority of India grounds nearby were buzzing with activity for three days of suspense-filled, engaging competition.

For the first time ever this year's Spiritus introduced non-competitive events like paintball and gaming, giving both spectators and players enjoyment and leisure throughout the day. What’s more, informal events like sponge-throwing and arm wrestling, along with dozens of food stalls speckling the venue kept boredom at bay.

Spiritus was a showcase of talent and dedication to sporting activity, with high levels of skill and spirit devoted to every single match. 

While Christ College claimed first place for the Alyosha Kumar Memorial Football Tournament on Sunday, the home basketball team defeated the USS team in the finals, thrilling the crowd with a compelling, nail-biting finish.

Earlier, the NLSIU girls’ team also bagged first place for basketball, defeating DES in the finals.

The School of Excellence in Law Chennai was declared the winner for both volleyball and throwball.

Spiritus 2009-2010 closed with the insightful closing speech of NLSIU vice-chancellor professor Venkata Rao.

NLSIU scored maximum points overall but as gracious hosts handed over the title to the next contender Symbiosis Law, Pune.

Symbiosis won first place in several categories, including both squash and table-tennis.

Rainmaker, Flashpoint, and ABB sponsored the event, along with Legally India as associate sponsor and MegaMart as prize sponsor.

[I've uploaded a couple of photos of the festival, courtesy of Shravan Kochhar. It's a shame I could not make it, sounds like it was fun. Which are the other prestigious sports fests in law school circles? -Kian]

Complete Results

Copa Lexa (Football)

            Winners: Christ College of Law, Bangalore

            Runners Up: SVKM College, Mumbai

Spike o Mania (Volleyball)

            Winners: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

            Runners Up: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

3 Point Party (Basketball) (Men)

            Winners: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: USLLS, Delhi

3 Point Party (Basketball) (Women)

            Winners: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: DES Law College, Pune

Chuck – It’s Legal (Throwball)

            Winners: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Got the Guts? (Badminton) (Men)

            Winners: DES Law College, Pune

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Got the Guts? (Badminton) (Women)

            Winners: Government Law College, Bombay

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Lawland Garros (Tennis) (Men)

            Winners: National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkatta

            Runners Up: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

Lawland Garros (Tennis) (Women)

            Winners: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Paddle Battle (Table Tennis) (Men)

            Winners: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Paddle Battle (Table Tennis) (Women)

            Winners: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Jehangir ki Khoj (Squash)

            Winners: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

            Runners Up: NLSIU, Bangalore

Thunderstrikes (Carom) (Men)

            Winners: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: M.S. College of Law, Vadodara

Thunderstrikes (Carom) (Women)

            Winner: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: Symbiosis Law College, Pune

Check Mate (Chess)

            Winners: NLSIU, Bangalore

            Runners Up: Christ College of Law, Bangalore

Let me begin by enunciating that life at a national university of law isn't exactly a bed of roses. More so when one is part of one of the new nationals, yet to form a formidable impression within the legal fraternity (further continuing the process of clarification- even the oldest nationals akin nlsiu, nalsar and nujs can't exactly be referred to as the most popular of educational institutions in the country so stress on the word within). There is still an aura of curiosity which is pervasive vis a vis these NATIONALS which at the same time is perplexing and enthralling. I'll try to illuminate this apparent tenebros vision of persons willing to jump into the NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL pool with whatever farthing of knowledge I possess.

Legal education was neglected in our country for more than a substantial period of time. This itself is paradoxical because most of the eminent persons who shaped the future of India by taking an active part in the freedom struggle, were themselves, by metier, lawyers. However, going back to the story, with all due respect to the traditional universities' departments of law, they weren't (still aren't) exactly a mecca for legal edification. So the Bar Council of India took it upon itself to redeem the glory of the poor neglected array of the law students/aspirants. BCI managed to pursue the Karnataka Government to pass a legislature for the establishment of a national school of law, an university dedicated exclusively for legal cognizance and research, in Bangalore in 1987. This proved to be an epoch making endeavor in the annals of legal education history. The NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY (NLSIU) changed the way people looked at legal education, (they actually started REVERING it!!!). This university revolutionized the process of learning law and brought about a lot of changes in the field. The conventional 3 year llb program was done away with, and the country saw the introduction of a 5 year ba.llb program, to be taken right after school, at par with the engineering and medical courses (so finally we started making a progress). The skeptics were, as usual, at their sceptical best, raising noses and disregarding the idea, the novel concept. But the mecca of legal education (as it is NOW known) continued with its progress of reinventing and redefining clinical legal education. The blog would never end if I keep beating about the bush on NLSIU as it has made gargantuan contribution and revolutionized a career path for hundreds. However to make a long story short it would be enough if I say that the first batch which passed out in 1993 contained prodigies who are now doing not too bad for themselves in institutions like the World Bank, World Trade Organisation, etc other than, obviously, being partners in the top law firms all over the globe.

From the concluding portion of the last paragraph it must be quite clear to all the rational minds that the national law school's inception wasn't exactly a failure. As the NLSIU started excelling other state governments began pondering over the idea of establishing institutions akin NLSIU in their own states. Andhra Pradesh Government established NALSAR Hyderabad, the second among national law universities in 1999. After a while came NLIU Bhopal and NUJS Kolkata. The third array was completed with the estabishment of HNLU and GNLU in Raipur and Gandhinagar respectively in 2003. And the fourt cluster of law schools were RMLNLU Lucknow, RGNUL Patiala, CNLU Patna and NUALS Kochi. NLS Delhi and NLU Cuttack were established in 2008 and 2009 respectively.

But the question arises how exactly are these institutions different? The answer is simple- the students' mentality. For a change (I know it for a fact as I also happen to be one) the national law schoolites (no offence to the NLSIU family but by this I mean students studying in ANY of the nationals and not just them) don't look forward to wearing the black coat amid the indian summer throughout their lives and being uncomfortable but a financially lucrative career in corporate law. Names like Amarchad & Mangaldas, Luthra & Luthra, etc become part of their active vocab. To make this difference come into life these students do a lot of staffs in their undergradute lives, which, to be quite honest, the traditional universities' law department students don't exactly do. These include preparing 60 odd project reports during their stay at the law schools, presenting seminars every 6 months, attending conferences (national and international), doing 10 internships in 5 years and writing research papers. It doesn't mean the traditional universities law students don't do these at all, but as frequently as New Zealand qualifies for the soccer world cup.

At present the competition among the different law schools is tremendous with everyone looking to outdo the other. A careful look at their history would reveal that most of them with the exception of NLSIU are pretty new by university standards. But the ones who have released batches are occupying a superior position in the reputation hierarchy than the ones who haven't. However, the newer ones are not to be left behind. For an example, in the recently concluded national moot in NLIU Bhopal, our RGNUL team of Ms Bhoomika Modh, Ms Shirin Malik and Ms Roshni Chadda won by defeating NALSAR, a veteran actor in this law school drama in the final. By the way they personified women power as well, so congratulations to them.

Finally, I'd like to conclude as this has become a bit too tedious  for your likings already, by saying that these law schools, no doubt good, but are not the end of discussion as far as legal education is concerned. There are certain non nationals like ILS Pune and GLC Mumbai which are pretty good. Still if studying law in India is one's vision, entering the national law circus by purchasing the ticket of CLAT should be the top priority.

In a shocking incident of alleged ragging in Pune, a second year student of Deccan Education Society Law College committed suicide on Sunday after allegedly facing harassment by a group of students of the same college.  

22 year-old Prashant Chitalkar ended his life by jumping into a well near his home in Rahuri Taluk, Ahmednagar.

The police have so far booked ten students, out of whom four have been identified by the father of the deceased and complainant in the case under the Anti-Ragging Act.

Bandopant Chitalkar, who is a police havaldar by profession, stated in his complaint that his son committed suicide following sustained mental torture by the youths.

According to the complaint, Prashant was told by students that his father earned money through corrupt means. The family members of the victim informed the media that Prashant attempted suicide earlier too but the matter was not reported then because they had feared adverse repercussions.  

Meanwhile, the college authorities have ordered the constitution of a fact-finding committee to probe into the allegation and only after receiving a report within 48-hours will they take action against the students found guilty.

Such events of ragging are blotches on the civil liberty mandates of our state and not enough attempts are made to plug the existing lacunae.

We offer our condolences to the bereaved family of Prashant and the others who have lost their dear and near ones to such mindless acts of ragging.

Isn’t it time to question those involved and at least try to remedy the situation?

Less than three months ago a Nalsar Hyderabad student was also believed to have killed himself after jumping to his death. [Note: this does not appear to have been related to ragging.]

In a Legally India forum discussion readers have generally said that ragging was not common in law schools.

Do you think that budding lawyers are nicer to each other than the engineers of 3 Idiots or other professions?

Hi
I have summarized information that I have gathered (after extensive research) about doing an LL.M from UK into one blog. I hope this blog helps the Indian students in taking the right decisions on whether or not to do a LL.M and also becoming aware of how things stand in general.

1. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIONS (Requirement of English Language tests) AND EXEMPTION: 

1.1 I got a conditional offer from my first preference college in London and had to submit my TOEFL/ IELTS scores to get an unconditional offer. Many colleges had given me an unconditional offer.

1.2 I spoke to the London college over phone and informed them that I had studied all throughout in English. After speaking with me, they informed me that if I submitted a certificate from my University (where I did my LL.B) stating that I studied the LL.B in English, they would waive the TOEFL/ IELTS for me and give me unconditional admission. Maybe others who have studied all throughout in English and have to fulfill the English language condition can make a similar request to the colleges where they have received conditional admission.

2. FINANCING YOUR LLM STUDIES

2.1 If you have a scholarship and only need to take a minimal loan, go by all means. The LL.M will add value to you as a person and academically. It would give you an exposure that you would not get here in India. In addition you would build up a worldwide network of contacts. Needless to say you would also end up making some really close friends.

2.2  If you're going to take a huge loan and finance your LL.M, then you should acquire significant, stable and highly specialized work experience in India to be able to pay off the loan in case you have to come back to India. At a lesser work experience level, it will be very tough to pay off a huge loan especially since your salary in India after the LL.M will not increase drastically.

2.3  If you're taking a loan and you think you can pay off the loan easily, then go by all means. But don't take a huge loan just from a foreign job perspective cause the risks involved are large. An important point is that a large loan puts a lot of pressure on you and gives you much less flexibility till you pay off the loan. In the present UK market it's next to impossible to get a job after the LL.M.

2.4 Another suggestion is to postpone your admission to the next year and earn some money to finance a major part of your studies/ living costs especially if you have age on your side. 

2.5 Banks in India have the highest rate of interest for an Education Loan unlike the UK and the US. The interest last year ranged between 12% per annum to about 13.5% per annum and for an amount of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and above most banks require a collateral of similar value and a third party guarantee. Even the housing loans are offered at a lower rate of interest than the education loans.

2.6  My calculation of taking a Rs. 20,00,000/- loan from Indian banks repayable over 5-7 years is that by the time you repay it, you would be paying back approximately Rs. 31,00,000/- lakhs or maybe more (my maths was weak so do the calculation for yourself too).:) Think about this figure because the repayment starts one year after you finish your course or 6 months after you get a job. The interest clock keeps ticking while you're studying, unless you're able to service the interest while studying. The expected EMI on the above loan of 20 lakhs is about Rs. 30000/- per month or more. This is a large EMI unless you're earning 1.5 to 2 lakhs a month (which you're unlikely to earn as a fresh graduate/ after only a few years of work experience or directly after your LL.B and the LL.M) and even then it’s a great pressure on you. 

2.7 If you/ your family can’t finance your studies, minimize the bank loan, even if you have to take one. Apply for all the scholarships available and take soft loans from parents, relatives, friends and well-wishers. This way, you don’t have the pressure of paying an EMI after your course or after you get a job.

3. REASONS FOR DOING THE LL.M:

3.1 Do the LL.M for the right reasons and not just from the perspective of getting a job in UK. The worst possible decision you can take in whether to do the LL.M or not is to decide on the basis of getting a job in UK. Do the LL.M only if you want to study further and become more specialized in the subjects of your interest and in areas of law where you already have some amount of experience in India and NOT for the job prospects.

3.2 For those of you planning to do the LL.M right after your LL.B, my suggestion is to work for some time and get some experience in India. The main reason for my suggestion is that after working for a while, you’ll be very sure about which areas of law really interest you. If you go for the LL.M at that stage where you know what you want to specialize in, it will help you much more than if you go without work experience. You might make the wrong decisions about the choice of the LL.M or the subjects you choose if you don’t have work experience.

3.3 The LL.M is really valuable from the perspective of widening your horizons, interacting with people from different countries, travelling to interesting countries/ places, experiencing different cultures and building up worldwide networks that would help you years later in an increasingly global environment. For me it was good to be a student again after so many years of working, apart from gaining specialized knowledge of course.

3.4 The course is tough and unless you do it properly you really won't benefit from it. There's enough scope for having fun provided you are regular with your studies. If you maintain a healthy balance you'll not only do well but also enjoy yourself. There's no point going for the LL.M, spending that much money, if you're not going to study seriously. Don't treat the LL.M as just another exam but try to gain as much knowledge as you can.  

4. JOB PROSPECTS IN UK AFTER THE LLM:

4.1 Barring a few UK law firms, most UK law firms really don't care if you have a LL.M or not. Their hiring decision is not made on the basis of the LL.M but on the basis of the LL.B and your relevant work experience.

4.2 By relevant work experience I mean a specialized work experience, which is related to the law firm's areas of expertise. Unlike India where you may need a more generalized experience and sometimes in a smaller law firm you're dealing with various areas of law, in UK the experience requirement is more specialized.

4.3 There's no point in having a general kind of work experience in India if you plan to work outside India. This is feedback that I have received from UK law firms and UK recruitment consultants.

4.4 Not one response from the UK law firms and recruitment consultants in 2008-09 had been positive about getting a job in UK after a LL.M, for persons with a LL.B degree from India. Things will be much worse now in 2010-11 with the present market conditions in UK. You'll also be competing with all the retrenched lawyers/ previous year LL.M students for jobs once you graduate. The LL.M may have more value in other countries like Singapore, Hong Kong etc. but even then you're not sure considering the present economic scenario.

4.5 Even after significant work experience in India, post the LL.M, you would probably start at a Trainee level or at best as a newly qualified solicitor (if you clear the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT). Your previous experience in India would be considered to a certain extent but will not be given a very high preference.

4.6 The more experience you have in India, the less the chances of getting a Trainee position as you would be then be over qualified for a Trainee position. Therefore for persons with more than 6-10 years experience in India, it becomes even more difficult to join a UK law firm in my view unless they are taken on as lateral placements (whihc is very tough).

4.7 Consider this point, why would a UK law firm hire you after a LL.M, when there are persons applying to them who have done a 3-year LL.B degree from UK and also have UK work experience in comparison to Indian work experience or no work experience. 

4.8 India is a choice destination now and foreign law firms were hiring Indian lawyers for their India Practices as well as other practices earlier, but those lawyers were being hired more for the purpose of being trained/ for their education in India and previous work experience than for their LL.M. The foreign law firms are hiring Indian lawyers because they hope that the market in India opens up for the foreign law firms in a few years and it is to their advantage that they set up "India Practices". Of course with the Mumbai High Court judgment things have become unclear once again. Ultimately it is now for the legislature to take a call. 

4.9 The foreign law firms definitely don't have an altruistic reason for hiring Indian lawyers but are doing it only for the reason that when the Indian market opens up for them, they can then send back those lawyers to work for their offices in India or advise their clients' on setting up in India. Further only a small percentage of the Indian lawyers who apply for jobs to foreign law firms get them. 

4.10 I also know persons from India, who have gotten jobs with foreign law firms without doing a LL.M, after about 5-6 years of transactional work, so a LL.M is really not that important for getting a job in a foreign law firm.

4.11 In the present recession a lot of Indian lawyers have been retrenched and have now come back to India, so think about that too before going for the LL.M. 

5. MY VIEWS (IF YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO INDIA AFTER THE LL.M):

5.1 From an Indian law firm perspective, the LL.M really doesn't help you if you come back to India immediately after the LL.M. Senior persons in the profession have mentioned this to me.

5.2 If you plan to come back to India or are forced to come back for a job after the LL.M, then it's better that you get some work experience before you go for the LL.M. After 3-5 years of work experience in India, the LL.M may help a little bit but not much with Indian law firms.

5.3 Your salary with the Indian law firms will certainly not jump drastically after the LL.M. Yes, if you manage to get 4-5 years work ex after your LL.M with a law firm in UK and then come back to India, that would probably help you in the law firms in India.

5.4 Starting salaries in a lot of law firms in India have increased drastically in the past few years. India is growing and being a lawyer in India at this time is a good option. 

5.5 The LL.M may have also have some value for a MNC and a Legal Process Outsourcing Company in India but there also a lot will depend on your previous work experience in India.

Hope my views above help Indian students wanting to do a LL.M from UK. Please conduct your own research on the LL.M, job prospects etc. and let me know if there is any information above, which needs to be amended or is incorrect. I’d be happy to receive any comments and any additional information which persons on this forum may have to share.

I would be writing about my experiences in the LL.M in UK whenever I find time to do so. Keep checking. 

All the best and Cheers

Prash

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that the Bar Councils of India too are subject to Right to Information Act (RTI), following hot on the heels of the Office of the Chief Justice of India last week falling under the Act last week.

Various papers reported that the Bar Councils would now come under the purview of RTI.

"It is held that the Bar Councils - Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils - are public authorities within the RTI Act... the Bar Councils are directed to take all necessary steps to carry out their duties and responsibilities assigned by the RTI Act," information commissioner AN Tiwari told Indian daily DNA.

Although the BCs admitted they were statutory bodies (under the Advocates Act), they denied that they were public authorities and funded wholly or partially by the state. They therefore objected to being subject to transparency requirements.

The CIC would have none of it, for the following reasons.

So, good news, the BCI now has to answer RTI requests. How well they will and whether they will get drowned in applications is another question.

More interestingly, however, what would you really really like to know about the inner workings of your Bar Councils (of India or otherwise)?