Author: admin

The ‘transfer system’ envisioned under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is purportedly meant to address the commission of heinous offences, particularly sexual assault by adolescent boys. It is worth noting that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and criticisms thereof are majorly based on the principles of the best interest of the ‘child’ and ‘society’. This paper undertakes a different route, providing a feminist critique of the transfer system with reference to the best interests of women, particularly survivors of sexual assault. It argues that the problem is not that children are increasingly committing sexual assault but that sexual violence overall remains prevalent. The transfer system, in this context, is part of a project of ‘governance feminism’ which seeks to divert attention from institutional failures at preventing sexual violence to external ‘sexual predators’. It operates on assumptions of hegemonic masculinity by treating child offenders as inherently ‘deviant’. Consequently, current rehabilitation measures are framed in accordance with masculine norms and do not specifically address sexual offending behaviour. Further, they provide no agency to the victim. This paper proposes a ‘restorative justice’ approach as an alternate solution. This not only gives victims the opportunity to seek closure and decide methods of restitution but also involves the use of multi-systemic methods to ensure specific redressal of juvenile sex offending.

Safe abortion ought to be considered a non-criminal healthcare procedure, accessible to everyone and decided upon between a patient and their physician. The current legal framework jeopardises the complete wellbeing of women and girls, leaving them confused, scared and unable to attain medically safe and affordable health services. In this paper, I argue that there is an urgent need for decriminalising abortions in order to allow women to have full power over the decisions regarding their health. Criminalisation has a chilling effect on the provision of sexual and reproductive health services. Further, I argue  that abortion ought to be removed from the criminal domain and be considered an issue of equal access to healthcare within a gender justice framework.. Not only do barriers to abortion access lead to unsafe abortions and high maternal mortality rates, they also place an extraordinary burden of childrearing on women. The right to bodily autonomy and integrity is a fundamental right, and includes the right to reproductive and decisional  autonomy. Additionally, if women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, their right to equality and non-discrimination is also violated due their inability to exercise other basic rights. Decriminalisation of abortion would mean that women, girls and gender diverse people are unable to exercise all their rights freely and would specifically ensure that their right to health is fulfilled as well.

The deplorable state of the criminal justice administration system in India has been highlighted time and again with several possible measures being suggested to remedy the same. However, even within these discussions, the possibility of the introduction of community sentence as a restorative justice reform has not been given much consideration. At the same time, various jurisdictions have successfully tested community service as a form of alternative sentencing. Notably, community service not only reduces the burden on the system of incarceration, but also disburdens the state exchequer. While there is ample literature debating other alternatives to custodial sentencing, community sentencing in India remains a relatively unexplored domain. In recognition of this situation, this paper examines the attempts made in India to introduce community sentencing. This is juxtaposed against the experiences with the system of community sentencing in different legal jurisdictions. On this basis, a suggested model for the introduction of community service in India has been outlined in this paper.

In nearly a decade of its existence, the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’ or ‘Tribunal’) has positively changed environmental adjudication in India. The push for its creation came from the judiciary rather than the legislature, as the former is not adequately equipped to tackle complex environmental issues involving a high degree of scientific uncertainty. While the NGT – having technical expertise – may be better equipped to handle complex environmental matters, it lacks an effective framework for determining compensation. This is primarily due to three reasons, as will be discussed in this paper. First, despite the wide discretion provided by the NGT Act 2010 with respect to determining compensation, the NGT’s unreasoned trend of pegging initial compensation at five percent of the project cost or at INR five crore does not bear semblance with ground realities and intricacies of a case. Second, the NGT, in many cases, fails to establish an environmental baseline condition prior to the alleged damage and accordingly is unable to quantify environmental damage. Third, the NGT frequently fails to hold the governmental authorities accountable. In this paper, we endeavour to demonstrate this lack of framework through the relevant case laws. In particular, we will analyse Manoj Mishra v. Delhi Development Authority (‘the Art of Living Case’) – arguably one of the most controversial cases decided by the NGT – and will demonstrate how it exemplifies this.

Neo-liberal agendas that dictate policy and lawmakers are fundamentally at odds with exploitative market forms that reinforce gender, class and caste hierarchies. Activities that are not purely economic, such as the domestic work industry, are especially incompatible with faith in free market forces, given the popular market-oriented notions that inform the valuation of forms of ‘productive’ work. Any attempt for the State to intervene, has to be more facilitative than regulatory. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way these systems are viewed and such work valued. This paper is an attempt to introduce, into the Indian policy sphere, a discourse on the need to understand the peculiarities of domestic care work and propose that any legislative intervention needs to be contextual, with a different understanding of the ‘worker’ and the ‘workplace’.

Ever since it was established, the NUJS Law Review has sought to foster a culture of legal scholarship in India. In addition to being one of the few Indian law journals that publish on a quarterly basis, the Review has the distinction of being wholly student-run. Moreover, by publishing articles that deal with a wide variety of topics and accommodate diverse perspectives, the Review has attempted to contribute meaningfully towards academic discourse. In previous years, for instance, the Review has dealt with topics as varied as an analysis of the legal framework governing 3-D Printing to an assessment of the legality of anti-satellite missile testing measures. Further, in order to ensure that contentious legal issues are examined both thoroughly and exhaustively, the Review has encouraged the incorporation of interdisciplinary analysis and empirical research….

This article seeks to re-evaluate the Indian legal position relating to arbitrability of oppression, mismanagement and prejudice claims taking into account developments in the United Kingdom and Singapore. In order to accomplish this objective, the article examines the law relating to the subject in these jurisdictions and the principles governing the arbitrability of disputes. Thereafter, the article examines whether the principles rendering oppression, mismanagement and unfair prejudice claims per se arbitrable in the United Kingdom and Singapore can be adopted with suitable modifications under Indian law. The article also proposes certain legal tests that could be adopted by courts in India while adjudging arbitrability of oppression, mismanagement and prejudice claims.

Legal jurisdictions across the world promote the finality of arbitral awards by prohibiting any kind of substantive review of awards. Barring exceptional and enumerated circumstances, parties in arbitration get only one shot at arbitrating their disputes, the idiomatic ‘single bite at the apple’. However, such conceptions of arbitral finality have come under attack, as the tolerance for error in arbitration has decreased with increasing complexity and monetary stakes of the disputes involved. To this end, there has been a fervent advocacy for the usage of internal appeal mechanisms for ensuring substantive integrity of arbitral awards. Recognising the growing demand, multiple international jurisdictions and leading arbitration institutions have already begun offering sophisticated appeal procedures. The Supreme Court of India in its 2016 Centrotrade judgement paved the way for appellate procedures in Indian arbitration by upholding the legal validity of such arrangements. Noting the dearth of literature on the issue in the Indian context, through this paper, we present a comprehensive discussion on internal appeal mechanisms and their application in Indian arbitration. Whilst addressing both the normative and the practical criticisms that that have come to be associated with such procedures, we principally argue that internal appellate procedures will not only make the entire process of arbitration fairer, but also more autonomous. We also highlight and offer suggestions for amendments to deal with certain lacunae in the governing statute that may potentially complicate the application of appellate procedures in Indian arbitration. In addition, the paper also doubles up as a practice guide on internal appeal mechanisms as multiple sections offer detailed recommendations for drafting agreements on internal appeal procedures that are cost and time efficient, while simultaneously, are also capable of being tailored according to the specific needs of the parties.

The Carter’s Breach of Contract is an important addition to the existing literature on the issue. Considering that India draws heavily from Common law in the implementation of its contracts, this book is topical. The book, in its latest version, has taken into account all the developments in the field. The cases relied upon are primarily from England but there are notable references to the developments in Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. Statues pertaining to Contract law from different jurisdictions are also referred to for better understanding of the readers. From an Indian perspective, there is also a passing reference to the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Preamble to the Constitution of India promises to all its citizens – social, economic and political justice. However, the judicial machinery configured to administer it has become the biggest hurdle in the dispensation of justice. This paper dwells into the desirability and the feasibility of adopting the idea of All India Judicial Services (‘AIJS’) to revitalise the lowest tier of judiciary, which is hopelessly plagued by humongous backlog and unmanageable vacancy. For a well-rounded perspective, the paper traces the evolution of AIJS as an idea and analyses the merit of contentions pitted against it. Questions relating to the structure of AIJS, the effect of such a metamorphosis on the role of High Courts, quality of judicial officers, and independence of judiciary are of immense contemporary relevance in India and form the central research theme of this paper.