ARTICLES

CENTRE TO LAUNCH JAL JEEVAN MISSION

CENTRE TO LAUNCH JAL JEEVAN MISSION

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that more than Rs 3.5 lakh crore will be spent in the coming years under the Jal Jeevan Mission to bring piped water to households. 

In his Independence Day address, Modi said half of the country’s households do not have access to piped water. 

Modi said for water conservation, efforts need to quadruple in the next five years as to what was done in the last seven decades. He also emphasized that the Jal Jeevan Mission should not be a government initiative alone. “Just like Swachh India Mission, this should also be a mission of the people,” the PM said. 

 

THE BACKGROUND:

The government has resolved to provide piped water to all households by 2024. It has clubbed all erstwhile water-related ministries under one new Jal Shakti Ministry.  

In her Budget speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the new ministry will look at the management of water resources and water supply in an integrated and holistic manner and will work with states to ensure Har Ghar Jal (piped water supply) to all rural households by 2024 under the Jal Jeevan Mission. 

This mission, under the department of drinking water and sanitation, will focus on integrated demand and supply-side management of water at the local level, including the creation of local infrastructure for source sustainability like rainwater harvesting, groundwater recharge, and management of household wastewater for reuse in agriculture. 

The Jal Jeevan Mission will converge with other central and state government schemes to achieve its objectives of sustainable water supply management across the country.

Sitharaman informed that the government has identified 1592 blocks which are critical and overexploited, spread across 256 districts for the Jal Shakti Abhiyan. 

Besides using funds available under various schemes, the government will also explore the possibility of using additional funds available under the compensatory afforestation fund management and planning authority (CAMPA) for this purpose.

According to the ministry, Jal Jeevan Mission is different from the earlier National Rural Drinking Water Programme (NRDWP) approach, as it involves the gram panchayats in the planning and implementation of the project.  

 

PROVIDE TAX BENEFITS FOR CSR SPENDING: Govt. Constituted Panel

PROVIDE TAX BENEFITS FOR CSR SPENDING: Govt. Constituted Panel

In significant recommendations, a government-constituted panel has suggested making expenditure on CSR tax-deductibles well as treat non-compliance with CSR requirements a civil offense under the companies law.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, certain classes of profitable entities are required to spend at least 2 percent of their three-year annual average net profit towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a particular financial year.

The panel, headed by Corporate Affairs Secretary Injeti Srinivas, has stressed that CSR expenditure should not be treated as a means of resource gap funding for government schemes.

Apart from recommending that violation of CSR compliance might be made a civil offense and shifted to the penalty regime, the panel has also pitched for “making CSR expenditure tax deductible”, according to an official release.

“All activities listed under Schedule VII to enjoy the uniform tax benefit. CSR expenditure to be made deductible from the income earned for the purpose of taxation,” the report said.

“The mode of implementation to be tax neutral. Implementing agencies be treated as partners and not service providers / vendors for CSR activities, so as to address the variable incidence of indirect taxes on them.”

Schedule VII of the Companies Act pertains to CSR.

According to the panel, unspent CSR amount for a particular year may be transferred to a separate designated account. Such unspent amount, and the interest earned thereon  be spent within a period of three to five years, failing which the same be transferred to a fund specified by the central government.

“For non-compliance, the panel has also suggested a penalty - that is two to three times the default amount - up to Rs 1 crore but “there be no imprisonment”, it noted.

In recent weeks, concerns have been raised in certain quarters about penal provisions in the Act for non-compliance with CSR norms.

The scope of CSR applicability be extended to Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) and banks, the report said.

Noting that the committee has made far-reaching recommendations, the release said the main suggestions include the introduction of impact assessment studies for CSR obligation of Rs 5 crore or more  and registration of implementation agencies on the corporate affairs ministry’s portal.

Companies having CSR prescribed amount below Rs 50 lakh can be exempted from the need of constituting a CSR committee, as per the report.

“The committee discourages passive contribution of CSR into different funds included in Schedule VII of the Act. It has emphasized on CSR spending as a board-driven process to provide innovative technology-based solutions for social problems,” it said.

In a significant suggestion, the panel said that CSR could be brought within the purview of a statutory financial audit by making the details of the spending as part of the financial statement of a company.

Besides, mere disbursal of funds to implementing agencies should not be construed as CSR spending, it added.

“Regulatory oversight be exercised through enhanced and granular reporting wherever CSR funds are used for the creation of capital assets. Companies are encouraged to forge partnerships when creating assets for a public purpose. The ownership shall rest with the public and the company may act as a custodian to operate it and make it self-sustaining,” the report said.

A CSR Exchange Portal be developed for creating an interactive platform for all stakeholders, including contributors, and beneficiaries, by leveraging the benefits of technology to maximize the potential and outcomes of CSR, it suggested.

The panel was set up in October 2018 to review the existing CSR framework and make recommendations on strengthening the CSR ecosystem, including monitoring implementation and evaluation of outcomes.

 

More...

LEGAL NEWS

Kevin Murder Case: Girlfriend’s brother abducted and killed Kevin, Kottayam Fast Track Court
Principal Sessions Judge of Kerala’s Kottayam Court C. Jayachandran found that the May 2018 murder of Kevin Joseph, a Dalit Christian, to be a case of 'honour killing'. The fast track trial completed within fifteen months of the crime and found that Shanu Chacko and nine others guilty of murder and abduction of Kevin. Kevin was in a relationship with Neenu Chacko, and they had applied for registering their marriage on May 25, 2018. The next day, he was abducted from his home at Mannanam at the instance of Neenu's brother Shanu. Two days later, his corpse was found in a water canal in Kollam district. The sentence will be pronounced on Saturday.
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


CBI gets P. Chidambaram’s custody till 26 August in INX Media Case
CBI Court Bench of Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar has granted custody of former Union Home and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram to Central Bureau of Investigation till 26th of August for investigation in INX Media Case. The Central agency had sought 5 Days custody of Chidambaram to unearth the money trail in the alleged money laundering case. The CBI judge said in the order that allegations were "serious in nature" and a "detailed and in depth investigation is required in the case". The Court has granted his family and lawyers permission to meet him for half an hour everyday and there should be medical examination of Chidambaram every 48 hours. The Court also asked the CBI to maintain dignity of accused.
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


Calcutta HC stays Arrest Warrant against Sashi Tharoor on his ‘Hindu Pakistan’ remark
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha stayed an arrest warrant issued against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor for the "Hindu Pakistan" remark he had allegedly made last year. The Court stayed the bailable warrant and proceedings against Tharoor, issued by a city court here, till further orders. Facts of the case goes as at an event in Thiruvananthapuram, Tharoor had allegedly said that the BJP would rewrite the Constitution and pave the way for creation of a "Hindu Pakistan" if voted to power again. The matter sparked as controversy, with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) demanding an apology.
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


HC has Right to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding against Judicial Officer facing Sexual Harassment Allegation: SC
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha dismissed a writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, who is facing disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment. The Supreme Court observed that "The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court. The Full Court of the High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and placing the petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016 has resolved to send the complaint of the employee to the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held, further steps were taken in accordance with Act, 2013." A Junior Judicial Assistant had filed a complaint against the judicial officer alleging sexual harassment at work place. | Case: P.S. MALIK vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI | 21/08/2019
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


P. Chidambaram arrested from his Jor Bagh residence by CBI
A prime suspect in the INX Media Scam, Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram has been arrested by the CBI after he held an unannounced press conference today at the Indian National Congress Office. He was arrested by the central agency from his residence at Jor Bagh, Delhi and was taken to the CBI Head Quarters. Chidambaram has been accused of committing offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act in respect of INX Media investments. Supreme Court have listed to hear the matter of Chidambaram’s Bail on Friday.
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


Allahabad HC Bans Use of DJ sounds, calls it ‘unpleasant and obnoxious’; Asks Govt. to regulate use of Loudspeakers
The Allahabad High Court 20/08/2019 imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state. The High Court division bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel and Justice Pankaj Bhatia also asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. "In India the people generally do not consider the noise as sort of pollution, hence, most of the people are not fully conscious about the effect of the noise pollution on their health", "…noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level. Even if they are operated at the minimum level of the sound it is beyond permissible limits…" the bench observed. | Case: Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs. State of UP | 20/08/2019
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


If a dispute is settled fully by the Lok Adalat, FIR cannot be filed in respect of same case: SC
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R. Subhash Reddy has observed that FIR cannot be lodged in respect of a dispute settled in Lok Adalat. An electricity meter was not recording correct reading in the house of Saleem Ahmed, BSES made assessment in relation to the consumption of the electricity and sent a bill for theft for Rs. 97,786 to him. Later the matter was referred to Lok Adalat where, though the original demand was for Rs.97,786, the dispute was settled at Rs.83,120 in full and final satisfaction of the claim made by the BSES. Even after settlement of the case and receiving the payment, the BSES filed FIR against Saleem under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The High Court dismissed Saleem's petition seeking to quash FIR. “The remedy of the parties in such a case was only to challenge the award in appropriate forum in case they felt aggrieved by the award. .. In our opinion, the effect of passing of an award was that dispute in relation to the demand raised by the BSES was settled amicably between the parties leaving no dispute surviving” the court said. | Case: Saleem Ahmed v. State & Anr. (19/08/2019)
Date - Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:39 PM


OPPORTUNITY

DAILY LEGAL GK

LEGAL NOTES

image description

WRITS UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Introduction:

In common law, Writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction.

In India writs provides the citizen as well as person a right to directly approach the Court   in situations wherein their rights are infringed or are on the verge of infringement.

It should be taken into consideration that the concept of writ is alone wherein the High Courts enjoy more jurisdiction as compared to the Supreme Court.

 

Five Type of Writs:

There are five types of writs in the Indian Constitution stated in Article 32 for Supreme Court and Article 226 for High Court. They are

  1. Habeas Corpus
  2. Quo-Warranto
  3. Mandamus
  4. Prohibition
  5. Certiorari
     
  1. Habeas Corpus: (to have the body)

The first writ is of Habeas Corpus. It emanated from the 39th clause of Magna Carta, which was signed and authorized by King John in the year 1215. The term ‘Habeas Corpus’ is a Latin term which means ‘to have the body’. The main purpose of this writ was to provide security to a person who has been illegally detained. Within the terms of this writ unlawful or illegal detention shall take place if-

  • If the detention is not as per the law of the territory or if the procedures are not duly followed.
  • Laws of land are infringed while detaining a person.
  • It surpasses the authority which was entrusted by Legislature.

The Indian Constitution under Article 20, provides protection to a person in respect of conviction for offences and under Article 21 protects the personal life and liberty of a person. Whereas under Article 22, the Constitution provides protection against arrest and detention and it also lays the rights of detainee. Based on these articles the Court shall analyse the authenticity of the detention of a person.

 

Case law- Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra

  • Sheela Barse a journalist by profession had filed a writ petition on the pretext that she had interviewed 15 women prisoners in Bombay on 11/05/1982.
  • She stated that during the interview she found out that two prisoners were assaulted within the jail premises.
  • Based on her allegations the Court had ordered and directed Dr (Miss) A.R.Desai, Director of college of Social Work to investigate into the matter and submit a report.
  • The report submitted by Dr (Miss) A.R.Desai proved that the allegations were true.
  • Subsequently, the Court ordered for certain safety measures that had to be followed for protecting the women prisoners and also the officials responsible for the carelessness and inaccuracy were punished.

 

  1. Qua warranto: (by what authority)

The word ‘Qua warranto’ is derived from a Latin term which means ‘by what authority’. In simpler terms this writ questions the authority who lays a down a particular decision. In legal aspect this writ is issued to a person who holds a public office. The person who enjoys the position of a public officer is answerable to the Court for his/her acts. The public officer has to satisfy the Court that he/she is legally entitled to hold the office. This writ does not lay emphasis on the concept of ‘locus standi’ and any person can approach the Court under this writ. It is not a pre-condition the sufferer c an alone file this writ.

This writ can be filed under various circumstances such as:

  • test the validity of an election of a person in a university syndicate
  • test the validity of Nomination of members to a Legislative Council by Governor
  • to examine the appointment of Chief Minister, Chief Justice, Advocate and Attorney General, University Teachers etc.

Conditions for Issue of Quo Warranto

  • The offence must be substantive in nature.
  • The person under question must legally hold a public office which is established by or under Constitution.
  • There must be a contravention in constitution in appointing the person for that office.

Case law- Purushottam Lal vs State of Rajasthan 

  •  In this case this writ was filed the Rajasthan’s Chief Minister stating that he was not legally elected to the post and he was holding the post illegally.
  • Thus the office of the Chief Minister was in question with regards to its validity.
  • However, the petition was rejected in the Court on the grounds that, if the CM holds office without authority, then it is breach of constitutional provision.
  • The Court further stated that the office of the Chief Minister is created by the Constitutional Provision and based on this the member of assembly is not a purpose of office.
  • The Court was of the view that the objecting the election of the Chief Minister cannot be included in this writ and the same can be done by filing an election petition.
  • This decision clearly stated that if the person with no or improper qualification was appointed as a Chief Minister by the Governor under Article 164 of the Indian Constitution, the decision cannot be challenged.
  • Because the Governor enjoys discretionary powers under Article 361 and the appointed can be deserted by the High Court if it thinks fit.
  • In the case ‘Y.S.Raja Sekar Reddy vs Nara Chandra Babu Naidu’ a quo warranto cannot be issued for dismissing the Chief Minister of a state on the reason of non-performance of his constitutional duty.

 

  1. Mandamus- (We command)

Mandamus means ‘we command’. This writ is in the form of an order from the Supreme Court or High Court to the lower court i.e.

  • Lower or Subordinate courts
  • Tribunal.
  • Public Authority.

Under this writ the higher Judicial courts orders their subordinates to perform a public or a statutory duty.

This writ is more in the nature of a command which is issued to any Government, subordinate court or corporation or public authority in case there is any failure on their part to the work effectively and efficiently.

 

 

Limitations for Mandamus:

Supreme Court cannot issue writs to

  • President or State Governors
  • Chief Justice of High Courts
  • Against any private individual
  • Duties on voluntary interest
  • State government to appoint a commission for any enquiry in the state 
  • Delegated legislative to make further rules in statutory provisions
  • To enforce the payment of money of a person in a civil liability
  • Directing the government to make reservations (Article 16[4])

Case law- Tata Cellular vs UOI 

  • The Apex Court stated that the Judiciary cannot intervene in the Government’s freedom of contract, invitation of tenders and refusal of tenders.
  • It also held that the Courts are eligible to intervene if the conduct of the Government was induced by illegal, unreasonable or unfair activities.

 

  1. Certiorari – (To Be Certified):

The writ of Certiorari is issued by a Superior Court to its lower or inferior courts or to any other public authority. By virtue of this writ of the Superior Courts are entitled to receive the records of any proceeding for reviewing the same.

Generally, this writ is issued to revoke the order passed by the lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies.

Conditions for Issue of Writ of Certiorari:

  • There must be a court, tribunal or an authorised person having a legal right to act judicially.
  • Such court, tribunal or officer must have acted or passed an order without jurisdiction or in excess of judicial authority.
  • The order in question was against the principle of Natural Justice.
  • The order contains an error of judgement.
  • The order is against the constitution or is in contravention with the fundamental rights.
     

 

  1. Prohibition- (to prohibit)

This writ is issued by the Superior Court to the Inferior Court with a view to disallow or forbid the orders that were passed by them. The major difference between the writ of certiorari and prohibition are as follows:

  • Certiorari – issued to quash a decision after completion of proceedings.
  • Prohibition – issued before the completion of proceedings.

 

Conclusion:

The writ jurisdiction of the Indian Legal System is a blessing to its democracy. The writs not only allow the citizen to approach the Judiciary directly, but it also gives an opportunity to the persons as well under certain circumstances. It sort of helps the victim or persons acting on behalf of the victim to avail speedy recovery. Thus, it is necessary the concept of writs should be duly and diligently followed, so that the faith of people in its legal system prevails.

 

image description

Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession

The needs of extra judicial confession actually creep in when the urgency of the matter exceed fair judicial process. These are made by the party elsewhere then before a magistrate or in the court. The word used by the accused in such a confession weight the higher value that such exact words would be necessary to give the court an impression of what the true confession was. It can be made before a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confession u/s 164 CrPC or before a private individual. However unlike other form of confession extra judicial confession u/s 26 has its own limitations. Extra judicial confession made before persons with whom the accused had no relationship could not be relied upon. In Tarseeem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1995 the accused was acquitted on the ground that the extra judicial confession, as claimed, was made before stock witness who was casually knowing the accused. Such a extra judicial confession lacks credibility before the court. In state of Haryana v. Ved Prakash 1994 it was alleged that the accused made extra judicial confession to a Doctor and another person, both the strangers and the same was tape-recorded as if it was anticipated and the tape-recorder kept ready. Such a statement was not a confession in nature because of denoted influence and involuntariness of the accused to state such fact whether true or not. The nature of the confession is always voluntary where accuse submit himself before the fair people in just belief. Where extra judicial confession was made to a stranger and the excat words were not recorded and corpus delicit i.e, substance or foundation of an offence was not available, it was held that the confession could not be relied upon.

In Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001 the evidentiary value attached to the extra judicial confession was explained;

            “it is settled position of law that extra judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakness of the extra judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement. Further, relying upon the judgment in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh the has again in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab held that the evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused to witness cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by the way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be found on the evidence alone. In Kishore Chand v. State of H.P. this court held that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possess high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inducement, threat, or promise envisaged u/s 24 of Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent section 25 and 26. The court is required to look into surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to whom the confession is made the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized.”

Thus, in examining the weight of evidentiary value of extra judicial confession it is necessary to check whether the accused was the free man while making such a statement which can in all the probabilities go against him and can criminalise him. 

image description

Rights of an Arrested Person

Cr P C gives powers to the police for arresting a person with such power Cr P.C also provides rights to an arrested person. The arrest should not only be legal and justified but it should be effected strictly according to procedure established by law.  Thus no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.  Rights of an arrested person are as follows –

1. Right to know the grounds of arrest – (Section 50(1)) – The foremost requirement of lawful arrest is notification of the reason of arrest with the charges against him. According to this provision, every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or any other grounds for such arrest.

Case law :- Udaybhan Shuki vs State of UP,   High Court held that right to be notified of grounds of arrest is a precious right of the arrested person. This allows arrested person to move to court timely for bail, opportunity to clarify any mistake, to begin to prepare his defence.

Re Madhu Limaye, Court held that detention becomes unlawful if the ground given were not proper and sufficient.

2. Right to be informed of the provision for bail – (Section 50(2)) – This section provides that where a police officer arrests any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence without warrant, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

3. Information of arrest to a person nominated by accused – (Section 50 A) This section  provides that once the arrested person is brought to the police station, the police officer must inform a relative or a friend, or any other person of the arrested person’s choice, about his arrest. He must also tell the place where the arrested person has been kept. Further he must note down the name and address of the person who was informed about the arrest.  It shall be the duty of the magistrate before whom such person is produced to verify that the provisions of this section were complied with

This section has been added by the decision of Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and DK Basu v. State of West Bengal.

 

4. Right to be produced before magistrate within 24 hours – (Section 57) – This section lays down that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167, exceed twenty four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s court.

In the case of Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, SC has strongly urged upon the State and its police to ensure that this constitutional and legal requirement of bringing an arrested person before a judicial magistrate within 24 hours should be met.  It is essential that the magistrates should try to enforce this requirement and when they find it disobeyed, they should come heavily upon the police.

5. Right to be examined by a medical practitioner (Section 54) – This section gives the accused a right to get himself examined by a registered medical practitioner. When a person who is arrested, whether on a charge or otherwise, alleges, at the time when he is produced before a Magistrate or at any time during, the period of his detention in custody that the examination of his body will afford evidence which will disprove the commission by him of any offence or which Magistrate shall, if requested by the arrested person so to do direct the examination of’ the body of such person by a registered medical practitioner unless the Magistrate considers that the request is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of Justice.

In case of Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra, SC held that even in cases were accused does not make any prayer it is duty of the magistrate to inform the arrested person about his right to get himself medically examined in case he has complaints of torture in police custody.

 

6. Right to consult Legal Practitioner – (Section 303)- It is mentioned that any person accused of offence before a Criminal Court or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may have right to be defended by a pleader of his choice.

7. Right to free legal aid – (Section 304) – This section provides that where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.

LEGAL VIDEOS

INTO LEGAL WORLD INSTITUTE- An ISO certified Educational Hub

Into Legal World is devoted to research and innovation in law and create an environment for students to pursue their dreams.With the aim of grooming students who will not only be thorough professionals but also good human beings, We present INTO LEGAL WORLD INSTITUTE to make students JOB- READY.


LEGAL QUOTES

OUR GALLERY