•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Jaising rebuts FCRA sanction v Lawyers Collective. And did gov't get basic definition of 'gov servant' wrong?

We are back to the intolerance of challenge. The Lawyers Collective posed no political challenge to the NDA, it cannot, but it seems that there is an intolerance of legal challenge within the NDA

writes Indira Jaising via The Huffington Post, in a point-by-point rebuttal of the government's case.

Meanwhile, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy senior resident fellow Alok Prasanna Kumar explains in Firstpost how the government has at least partially got the FCRA law wrong by wrongly classifying an additional solicitor general as a "government servant":

Jaising, on the other hand, was an ASG to the government of India – a law officer so to speak and governed by completely different set of rules, namely the Law Officer (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987. Unlike an IAS officer or other employee of the government, she was entitled not a salary but to a retainer. It was not a permanent job but a three-year engagement by the central government, terminable at the will of either party with due notice. These rules don’t prohibit her from practicing law on behalf of private clients – so long as she takes the government’s permission and is not in a conflict of interest situation.

No comments yet: share your views