Attempt to Murder: Episode 4

"Would you mind if I borrow your beloved for a celebratory dance?" Kavya addressed Meher, disrupting the tranquil sweeping over our table.

"Not a bit, he's all yours..." responded Meher and then quickly added, "do return him once you've taught him how to let his body loose and actually dance for a change!" 

"In that case, I'm afraid I won't ever be able to hand him back over to you. For all his other qualities, he's never been one to shake a leg with." The two of them shared a good laugh at the expense of my incapability to dance.

Attempt to Murder: Episode 3

Our party of five occupied a large, circular table at the Matchbox Lounge. I was flanked by Meher on my right and Vidhi on the left side. Kavya was seated directly opposite to me, with Zafar placed in between her and Vidhi. The evening's celebrations were kick-started with a round of drinks from the bar. We merrily drank to our collective success and raised a toast for all the good times yet to come. As is often characteristic of such gatherings, conversations soon shift from the present to reminiscences of the past. Naturally, the subject-matter of our discussion had also started to steer towards memories of the early days - from how we all met and became fast friends to all the planning, dreams, struggles, failures, fights and embarrassments that tagged along. In ten years, we had formed quite the treasure trove of memories and experiences, all of which were recollected one-by-one.

Attempt to Murder: Episode 2

So there we were, the five of us, at the Matchbox Lounge in Hauz Khas, South Delhi. It was almost 10 PM in the clock and the weekday crowd had begun to call it a day, leaving us in a relatively empty and peaceful environment to relish our recent successes. None of us had bothered to get dressed for the occasion but had put on some modest, almost business-like, attires that gave out professional and sophisticated vibes. None of us, but Kavya! Kavya had chosen to dazzle in a stunning black one-shoulder midi dress. As she approached us at the entrance of the lounge, I felt as if she was strutting out on to the red carpet. Meher whispered in my ears about how beautiful she was looking, a proper damsel.

Attempt to Murder: Episode 1

As she came close and leaned over to land a gentle kiss on my forehead, beads of perspiration trickled from her body onto mine. They rolled down my cheeks and slowly dissipated within me, symbolic of the part of her that would always reside in my heart. As she kissed my forehead, numerous strands of her thick, dark hair formed a curtain around our heads. I had often found comfort from the deepest troubles when I ran my hands slowly through her flowing hair. In fact, her hair worked such a charm on me that I would start pouring out the most mundane thoughts to her. She was the perfect listener, soaking in all the love, hate or anger that my thoughts had to offer. Whatever trials, travails or tribulations that I encountered, she was always there... just as she had been there now for the past one week, waiting patiently for me to wake up and talk to her. When she got up and prepared to leave for the night, suppressing a sob every now and then, I longed to call out and tell her how much I yearned for the warmth of her hug.

Life's A Mystery

Life's a mystery,

Puzzling you at every nook and corner.

Solve one and out pops another!

 

Life's a mystery,

Dazzling you at every curve and border,

Recover from one and there's another!

Life's a mystery,

Blinding you at every turn it has to offer,

Avoid one and run into another!

 

Life's a mystery,

Setting traps at every step in order,

Jump over one and fall straight into another!

 

But life's too short to worry, so,

Buckle up and grace every moment you have to deliver.

Tribunals in India: Questions of Independence and Constitutionality

The year 2021 has witnessed an unending battle between the judiciary and the government concerning the passing of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Act, which revived the exact provisions of an ordinance (also earlier struck down by SC to be unconstitutional) is known to pose a serious threat to the judicial independence of the tribunals by providing exemplary power to the Union Government regarding appointments, service conditions, salaries, etc. of members of the key tribunals. The question of the independence of the tribunals reverberates a scenario of potential misuse of the orders/judgements of these tribunals by the government, as the government remains the prime litigant in the Indian legal framework. 

In light of this, the article expounds on the evolving jurisprudence concerning the need for tribunalisation in India . It also explains the initial confusion regarding the scope of the jurisdiction of such tribunals to supersede the judicial review powers of the High Courts. The passing of the Finance Act, 2017 which positioned the Union Government to exercise sweeping powers regarding the appointment, removal, salary, etc. of the adjudicating members of these tribunals has been dealt with in the article along with the Roger Mathew judgement of the SC striking down such provisions. Further, the article also focuses on examining the constitutional validity of the tribunals formed for resolution of the matters which are out of the purview of Articles 323A and 323B.

Background – Post-1980s there has been a rapid proliferation of tribunals adjudicating matters concerning the domains which their parent statutes have provided for them. For some, it is the grundnorm, the constitution (under Articles 323A and 323B) which has enveloped the legal validity of working of these tribunals, and for others, it’s the combination of legislating power of the Parliament and the courts’ interpretation in consonance with the entries provided under Article 246, validating the establishment of these tribunals.

Be it as it may, the tribunal system in India is aimed at decongesting the astronomical number of cases, which often plague the formal court system. Rendering justice through tribunals is expeditious and less expensive when equated with pure judicial mechanisms of courts, and also allows specialized adjudicators of the concerned domain to nurture decision-making process. Although these purposes have attained a backseat due to the inconsistent constitution of these tribunals and lack of uniform guidelines in the adjudication of matters.[1]

Often, suggestions for improving the framework of the tribunals have been provided which include the establishment of a Tribunal Commission at a National level or an Appellate Tribunal Body for all domains, comprising of politically aloof members and judges. Independence of the members presiding such tribunals is the most contentious of all the questions which spawn infidelity on part of the public interest to hold good the constitutional principles of rule of law and doctrine of separation of powers.[2]

Doctrine of Merger - Kunhayammad v. State of Kerala

Introduction – The case of Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another[1] was concerned with a very important question of law in the realm of civil procedural laws. The subject matter of the case touched upon the doctrine of merger and res judicata in civil cases and posed a substantial question on the deeper nuances of its applicability. Before discussing the technicalities of the judgement and the arguments presented by the respective sides, let us delve briefly into the facts of the matter.

The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 provided for the vesting in the Government of private forests in Kerala and for its assignment to agriculturists for cultivation. It was also provided that any disputes on the question(s) whether any land was a private forest or not, and, whether any private forest was vested in the Government or not, would be decided by the Forest Tribunal constituted under section 7. Appeals against any such decision could be made to the High Court under section 8-A within a period of 60 days from the date of decision.

In a particular dispute before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode involving 1020 acres of land, it was ruled on 11-8-1982 that the land did not vest in the Government. The State Government filed an appeal in the High Court that was subsequently dismissed on 17-12-1982. In the statute, no further mechanism of appeal or review had been provided to the parties. In such a scenario, the State chose to approach the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by way of a Special Leave Petition. However, this petition was dismissed on 18-7-1983 by an order that only stated the following – “Special leave petition is dismissed on merits.”

A little while later, in January 1984, the Government went before the Kerala High Court and filed a review application of its earlier order. The original petitioners in this matter raised a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of the review petition. The High Court overruled these objections petition and decided to proceed further on the merits of the subject-matter. The petitioners then sought for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.

The two contentions that were primarily preferred by the appellants before the Supreme Court were that, first, the order passed by the Kerala High Court had merged into the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP. Therefore, the consequence of such merger was that the order of the High Court had ceased to exist in the eye of law and the review application cannot be filed before the High Court. Secondly, the appellants put forth that the effect of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP was that the High Court’s decision had been affirmed. Thus, a further review petition could not be entertained.

Lost: Why?

Why did I get lost?

Was it my serenity, or,

Was it my insensitivity?

Was it my modesty, or,

Was it my laxity?

Was it my ignorance, or,

Was it my dimness?

Was I too much, or,

Was I too less?

Was I not who I promised to be?

[2017]

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Introduction

The 2012 Delhi gang-rape was an unfortunate incident which shook the heart of the nation and struck a raw nerve. It brought out people on to the streets to put up a brave front against such vicious and brutal crimes that defy all bounds of morality. The incident also ignited national discourse on the question of juvenile delinquency as one of the prime accused in the case was a juvenile, just few months shy of turning eighteen – the age of majority under Indian law. The fact that this accused was tried in a juvenile court, thus escaping a death sentence, triggered a massive outcry on the inadequacy of the juvenile law to treat cases where such heinous crimes had been committed.

The negative public perception was captured perfectly through the words of Maneka Gandhi, when she remarked that “an adult crime by a juvenile required adult punishment, not leniency.”[1] The anger stirred by the treatment of the juvenile along with other factors such as the increase in juvenile crime rate and deplorable conditions of juvenile homes, forced the Parliament into deliberation and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) took birth, ushering in a new era of juvenile justice laws in India.

The word juvenile is commonly used to refer to children, or people below the age of eighteen. The term in itself does not imply anything negative, nevertheless, it is commonly perceived to be attached with children who have committed a crime. In fact, the term juvenile although not defined in the Act, refers to all those who cannot be considered as adults. There are many jurists and academicians who have criticised the use of the word juvenile as it bears a negative psychological ring to it. The 2015 legislation has, to a limited extent, attempted to address these apprehensions by substituting its use. Yet, the title of the Act continues to carry the word juvenile, which shows the half-baked approach of the law-makers.

A Case Against Judicial Censorship

Introduction

The recent controversy surrounding the release of the Netflix documentary Bad Boy Billionaires and the airing of a show on Sudarshan TV have reignited the debate around the issue of judicial censorship in India. What has been even more surprising in the case of these two contentious programmes is the differing approach adopted by the Court, thus highlighting a grey area in the realm of censorship laws. A 49-second trailer of an upcoming show on Sudarshan TV, which had a deep communal overtone, caused a massive uproar on social media and led to the filing of numerous complaints with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. On the basis of these complaints, a notice had been issued to the channel by the Ministry for clarifying details over the content of the show with regards to the programme code of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court refused to stay the broadcast of the show.

The Delhi High Court, however, restrained[1] the channel from broadcasting it and subsequently refused to vacate the order. Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995[2] states that “no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service any programme unless such programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme code”. Section 19[3] confers the power to prohibit a broadcast in public interest if it may promote disharmony or enmity between different religious or racial groups as well on the basis of case and community. In its reply to the notice, Sudarshan TV contended that its show could not be stopped from being telecast as that would amount to pre-censorship by the Ministry. The Ministry, after receiving the reply, went on to allow the telecast of the show[4]. It is to be noted that the Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere, had stated that “the Court has to be circumspect in imposing a prior restraint on publication or the airing of views. We note that under statutory provisions, competent authorities are vested with powers to ensure compliance with the law”.

In the Netflix case, a court in Bihar[5] stayed the release of Bad Boy Billionaires on a plea by Subrata Roy, one of those named in the documentary, as it found that Roy qualified the threefold test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Merely two days before this stay, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry had opposed Mehul Choksi’s (also portrayed in the documentary) writ petition in the Delhi High Court on the ground that “freedom of speech and expression is cardinal and should be given full play”. A civil court in Hyderabad also restrained[6] the release of the series in a petition filed by B. Ramalinga Raju, who is one of the four billionaires depicted in the Netflix show.

Remix: Where the Mind...

Where the mind is suppressed and hands are tied,

Where the truth costs a premium and lies are plenty abound,

Where mouths are shut and eyes are closed,

in silent support of the slaughter of the lamb.

Where the innocent poor are convicted,

by the guilty rich.

Where faith is blind, and, trust is governed by greed.

Where people are followed

but not their ideals.

Where humanity is divided by community

Where integrity is marred by religion

Where identity is scarred by colour

Into that joke of freedom, my People,

Our country has awakened!

Ramblings: Digital Apartheid

 

Introduction – The pandemic has caused a paradigm shift in the manner in which education is imparted across the country. Almost in an instant, schools and colleges embraced the internet and initiated classes on video-conferencing applications such as Zoom, Webex and Meet. While it was heartening to see how adaptive students and teachers have been to technology, online education has also led to a growing gulf between economically weaker students and their right of access to education. The Delhi High Court recently recognised these ill-effects of shifting education to an online medium as Digital Apartheid. This article explores the contours of this judgement along with the exclusionary effect of online education, and is concluded with certain suggestions to bridge the burgeoning divide.

 

How is Online Education Discriminatory? – The disruption in education caused by the lockdown has been unparalleled. There is no one who has not been impacted by the closure of educational institutes. However, the degree of impact has been skewed far more heavily upon those who do not have the same scale of access to resources such as electricity, internet and internet-enabled devices. The level of smartphone penetration in India is still quite low for one to presume that each and every child could easily arrange for a device to be available to him/her for several hours in a day. Notwithstanding the unavailability of devices, it cannot be suggested by any prudent person that a speedy, stable internet network is within the reach of all as India’s internet penetration currently stands at only 40 per-cent.

Lost: Where?

Where did I get lost?

Was it among my dreams and desires, or,

Was it among my fairy-tales.

Was it in my playground, or,

Was it in my mental battleground.

Was it in my video games, or,

Was it in my history textbooks.

Was it Lavoisier, or,

Was it Einstein.

Where am I?

For I see myself only with a past and there’s no light at the end of the

tunnel.

[April, 2017]

High Courts Reign Supreme

By Sourabh Balwani and Ritwik Tyagi

Background

Over a long period of time, and especially during the ongoing pandemic, a glaring deduction that has arisen within the legal fraternity is that of the fissures that have emerged in our judicial machinery in dealing with matters of utmost importance. From the Right to Food to the Freedom of Press, from the mandatory imposition of Aarogya Setu to the charges being levied for ‘Shramik’ special trains, the various Constitutional courts in India have displayed differing standards of concern towards protecting the rights of people from being violated. The Supreme Court has seemingly abdicated its responsibility as a protector of individuals liberties, while the High Courts in India have turned out to be cynosures for the common people. The manner in which the High Courts have dealt with the cases vis-à-vis the Supreme Court, is something which should be scrutinized.

Long gone are the golden days when a common person could regard the Supreme Court of India as the custodian of his/her fundamental rights, as the guardian angel for upholding the collective conscience of the nation, and perhaps as the gatekeeper who prevents the legislative and executive branches from crossing certain boundaries. Here, the emphasis is laid on the word common because for a certain section of the society, the Supreme Court has transformed into a personal court of sorts, where the smallest of their concerns are treated with the utmost importance and prioritized over real troubles of those who are suffering every day.

Recent events in light of the pandemic have demonstrated that the Supreme Court is growing more and more exclusionary in terms of who can knock on its doors. By adopting the use of technology to facilitate virtual courts, the court has shown its inclination to take up only cases of utmost importance. The arbitrary exercise of this power to be able to choose what cases are worthy enough to be considered important has corrupted the functioning of the Court. While the poor never really had the luxury of access to justice, the implementation of virtual courts has put the nail in the coffin by completely blocking their path to the so-called temple of justice.

Educational Institutes Charging Hefty Fees: The Unending Saga

By Romit Bhattacharjee and Ritwik Tyagi

Introduction

Education is probably the most sought-after commodity in this country. Predominantly populated by middle-class to poor families, education appeals as the key to a better life and unfulfilled dreams for children hailing from such families. Hence this sector has turned into a lucrative business in the last few decades. But the coronavirus pandemic has brought a paradigm shift in the way educational institutes in this country have been functioning. Institutes have shifted from the brick and mortar concept to online mode of education, which now is proving to be cost-effective and a rather effortless mode of imparting education. But amidst the crashing economy, massive job losses and surging coronavirus infections count, parents have an added burden to address: exorbitant fees charged by the educational institutions! While a PIL filed before the Apex Court for waiver of school/college/university fees awaits hearing, here is our take on the issue.

Defamation of Wife by Husband

Introduction

The offence of defamation has long been challenged as being a relic of India's colonial past. It is argued by many proponents of this position that defamation must be either done away with completely or at least be decriminalised. A private members’ bill was also introduced in early 2017 to decriminalise defamation. The reason being that the offence of defamation is an unwarranted restriction on the right to free speech and must be re-looked. It is put forth that a civil action for defamation must be enough for the effective protection of the right to reputation and that the restriction fails the constitutional test of reasonableness.

However, it is the belief of the author that the provision for a wife to institute defamation proceedings against her husband is one that is very much essential even today. Primarily, the basis for this assertion is that the presence of this provision is an enabling factor for women to fight and break free from abusive relationships that they may have gotten stuck into. The social fabric of the country is one in which the husband and his family enjoy a dominant position over the wife. It would not be wrong to say that marriage as an institution has been a fancy name for a transaction which simply transfers the custody of a woman from her parents to her husband and in-laws. Traditionally, the demand for dowry has been an integral component of this transaction and shows just how the family of the husband enjoys a position of privilege as against the family of the wife.

In such a scenario, it is very likely that the husband and his family would abuse their privileged status to extract the maximum benefit from the transaction of marriage. In this process, it is the wife who suffers the brunt of the toxicity, in the form of domestic violence – economic, emotional, physical, mental abuse inflicted upon a spouse – which data shows to be fairly common in India. The wife and her family are often publicly called out and shamed for failing to meet the demands of the husband. Therefore, it becomes of utmost importance to place the tool of defamation in the hands of the wife to take her husband and his family to task for their actions. Thus, through this article, this author will go on to argue that while the criminal offence of defamation has many arguments against it, it would be in best interest to retain the same for wives as a means to defend themselves from their husbands. This is particularly in light of India’s social environment which necessitates wives having a course of action against their husbands for defamation.

Fly Away

Night after night 

I pass away,

Within my sorrow,

I drift away!

Day after day,

I labour away,

Within my memories,

I drown away!

Moment after moment,

I sulk away,

Looking for happiness,

I break away!

Reality strikes,

Truth prevails,

I tell myself to move ahead, but,

My heart still longs for those now far away!

Sigh!

Life is too short, start right away!

[January, 2017]

Review: The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

Introduction

Perhaps, most of us are too educated about the dreadful account of the Nazi Party rule in Germany and its commander-in-chief Adolf Hitler (aka the “Fuhrer”) who were responsible for dragging the German state into a war with the formidable Allies. Possibly, the history lectures during your schooling would have reflected it to you a few descriptions of how in the Nazi rule, the extermination of the Jews was hailed as a critical nation-building goal, supplemented by the overriding nationalist sentiments which fuelled the German populace to revenge the misdeeds of the world. ‘Misdeeds’ which included the societal and economic incapacitation of Germany by the imposition of restrictions by other countries, for the German state’s involvement in causing the WWI. 

But did your school lectures imprint in you an idea (even blurry for that matter) of how ‘people’ in Nazi Germany would have interacted, helped, been influenced, got killed or luckily survived, in the chaotic expanse which just happened to be their country. I think NOT.

The ‘people’ I mentioned earlier would not just include the ‘superior’ Aryan Race (of which the Fuhrer himself coveted to create a nation of), not just the Jews (who were the usual blameworthy souls in Germany in that era), not just the Communists (who, as per Hitler, were a symbol of threat to the idea of a better Germany), but also teenagers of differing ages who understood the eerie game of Hitler, the Germans who were humanly conscious of others’ miseries (the miseries of the Jewish populace) and lent them a helping hand when it was required.   And the word ‘people’ would also encompass soldiers who fenced the borders of the state as well as those fighting with the rivals of Germany in the WWII (Shhhh!!… Yes, many served the army not due to their nationalist character and pride, but because they did not want the Fuhrer to hurt their families).

This is how Markus Zusak through his historical fictional novel The Book Thief, strives to picturize a vivid notion of the chaos, which encapsulated Germany during the WWII.

Ramblings: A Kafkaesque Reality

In Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis, when the protagonist Gregor Samsa wakes up one morning to the rude shock that he has transformed into a sort of horrible vermin, the very first worry that strikes him is about getting to work on time. In fact, amidst all the panic of being late, Samsa initially does not even seem to be able to admit what has happened to him. He attributes the change in physical appearance to a trick being played by his mind as the nature of his work had afforded him little rest and caused grave sickness. When a superior from his workplace arrives at his house to investigate the cause of Samsa not showing up for work, Samsa is warned that his whims would not be tolerated. Such is the cold-hearted and insensitive nature of the world that we have evolved into, where even in the face of impending disaster and crisis, we do not have the liberty, or perhaps the luxury, to take time out and step away. Neither do we possess adequate sympathy or social cohesion for permitting those around us to take their own time and space to repair and recover.

The tragic tale of the days leading up to the death of a National Law University, Jodhpur student in April this year is yet another example of how cruelly we have altered the basic tenets of humanity. This student had been hospitalised with oxygen support after having contracted COVID-19. Nevertheless, the rigid attendance requirements and submission deadlines mandated by the institution translated into a reality where the student was constantly worried about logging into class even from a hospital bed. It is unfathomable how tormenting it would have been for the student to fret over meeting attendance norms whilst also enduring a deadly disease. Did the University not bat an eyelid even in this period of omnipresent suffering? Did they not spare a single thought towards ensuring the well-being of their own students, or is student welfare simply a fancy phrase used in the brochures to collect fees? National Law University, Jodhpur has blood on its hands and shall forever carry this shame.

Global Take Down Orders — Swami Ramdev v. Facebook

Introduction – In October 2019, the Delhi High Court passed a rather contentious order in the case of Swami Ramdev v. Facebook, that gave Indian courts the power to issue global take down orders in respect of content posted online on intermediaries such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to name a few. In this article, the author has closely analysed the reasoning adopted by the court to arrive at this conclusion and argued that this decision must be re-looked at. Judgements on similar questions of law delivered by courts of other jurisdictions have also been discussed to lend a proper perspective of the issue.

 

Background/Facts – The starting point of the entire matter was a book titled ‘Godman to Tycoon – the Untold Story of Baba Ramdev’ that was based upon the life of the plaintiff. Swami Ramdev had challenged the contents of the book on the grounds of defamation and had obtained a favourable decision from the Delhi High Court, finding certain parts of the book to be defamatory. The court had thus restrained the book from being published and sold unless the defamatory content was deleted. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a separate suit seeking a global injunction against the defendant platforms, i.e., Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, to stop them from publishing a defamatory video and related content that were based upon those parts of the book which had been held to be defamatory. The court had initially passed an interim order directing the defendants to geo-block access in the domestic boundaries of the country to all the offending URLs.

Lost: When?

 

When did I get lost?

~

Was it the day I stopped dreaming, or,

Was it the day I started day-dreaming?

Was it the day I resigned to fate, or,

Was it the day I stopped being one of a kind?

~

Was it the day I set the bar too low, or,

Was it the day I stopped taking risks?

~

Was it the day I took the road more travelled?

Or was all this the same day?

~

The day I lost myself.

~

[February, 2017]

Possession in Fact v. Possession in Law

Introduction

It is not particularly surprising to hear about disputes erupting between people, even the closest of them, due to simple matters relating to property. In fact, some of India’s longest running court cases are related to property issues of possession. For instance, the case of a Bengali royal family has been pending for 175 years. The property initially belonged to Raja Rajkrishna Deb, a 17th-century landlord and now over 200 of his descendants are staking a claim. The legalities began in 1833, and now almost two decades later, the matter has reached the Calcutta High Court[1].

Can't Believe It's True

I can't believe its true!

That I get to be with you,

To share my heart with you.

I can't believe its true!

That I get to be on this journey with you,

To ride through its ups and downs with you.

I can't believe its true!

That I get to start a new life with you,

To be able to grow old with you.

I can't believe its true!

That I get to love you.

There's nothing more that I wanna do.

[September 2020]

Ramblings: A Heartless University in the Midst of a Raging Pandemic

The world has turned upside down. Fear and grief have enveloped the universe. All norms of normalcy and order in life have been toppled completely by a microscopic organism wreaking havoc throughout the globe. It’s a whirlwind of emotions, a cauldron of suffering. I believe Charles Dickens’ opening lines from A Tale of Two Cities somewhat manage to capture and depict the entire array of feelings going about:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.

It’s a time when people are dropping dead from a lack of oxygen. People have literally live-tweeted their journey to death. Social media platforms have transformed into distress helplines. There is no dignity in death either with all of the anguish those left behind are having to face in performing last rites of those who are no longer with us. It’s troubling to think of all the lives that could have been saved… all those people who could still have been here. Every other person you know is reeling from the infection. Those of us spared by the virus are simply languishing in life.

Unravelled: Online Pharmacies in India

Introduction

The exponential rise in the number of smartphone users in India over the past few years has opened the floodgates for various sorts of digital services to be made available at our fingertips. This phenomenon has led to the burgeoning of operations of services ranging right from ride-hailing apps to even telemedicine. In fact, most government-related facilities and utilities can also be accessed by citizens through their personal devices. Another essential service that has adapted and remoulded itself to the needs of the digital space at a quick pace is that of pharmacies. The fact that medicines could easily be ordered at one’s doorstep without the need to step out ensured that ailing and at-risk individuals could have an uninterrupted supply of medicines during the coronavirus-induced lockdown. This article aims to undertake a study of the legal mechanisms in place to regulate the functioning of such online pharmacies and also to examine any gaping holes that are required to be plugged at the earliest.