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]
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.
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.
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.