Abstract

The reputation of An Individual is An Insegregable Facet of His Right to Life with Dignity, said the Supreme Court in the ISRO spy case, which relates to allegations of transfer of certain confidential documents and secrets of the country’s cryogenic engine technology to enemy countries. This article talks about the various facets of that particular case as well as how procedural technicalities and irresponsible media can mould an issue in such a manner that it will cause a violation of an individual’s “right to life with dignity”. In particular, this article discusses the different aspects of irresponsible behaviour shown by those governmental investigation agencies, which ultimately led a prestigious scientist before trial without a reason and cause.

 

Introduction

Numerous spying scandals have been recorded, some in India and others in adjacent and foreign countries. The word “spying” is referred to as “espionage” in legal terminology. Espionage is defined as the act or practice of secretly obtaining military-political information that a particular nation has the legal right to keep private and is referred to in law as “state secrets.” It may mean reading through and analyzing diplomatic papers, reports, etc. It is a covert action taken by a person with the designation of “secret identity” on behalf of any other nation-state.

The “Official Secrets Act 1923,” which governs espionage in India, specifies that anyone who participates in aiding an enemy state and divulges any kind of secret information to that particular nation-state shall be found guilty and sentenced in line with the act’s numerous sections. There have been several cases where different people have faced legal action for breaking the Official Secrets Act of 1923’s rules. A Kashmiri journalist named Gilani was detained in June 2002 for allegedly breaking OSA rules by giving Pakistan access to India’s classified material.

Case Overview

Nambi Narayanan is an Indian aerospace engineer and scientist in charge of the cryogenics division at the Indian Satellite of Research Organization(ISRO). He and his colleagues intended to create rocket systems so rockets could be utilized for shipments from the US and France. He thus rose to prominence in the initiative to develop indigenous Indian missiles, which might be valuable and crucial for India.

Two Maldivian nationals were apprehended in 1994 by Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, police officers after a thorough and methodical investigation by Kerala Police and Investigation Bureau employees. This was the beginning of the whole thing. Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, a case was filed against the two Maldivians, alleging that they were responsible for disclosing official documents and information about the Indian Satellite Research Organization (ISRO), as well as for obtaining and selling classified rocket designs to Pakistan. The Kerala Police officials reported the case to the Special Investigation Team, who concluded that the ISRO scientists were responsible for the spying misconduct. This led to the arrest of S. Nambi Narayanan, the director of the ISRO cryogenic project, and two other associates.

Later in 1996, in response to the Government of Kerala’s appropriate request and accordance with the Government of India’s decision, the matter was given to the Crime Bureau of Investigation with the intention of conducting a reasonable investigation. The CBI concluded that the evidence presented to the magistrate by police authorities in accordance with Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not proven and that the accusations of corruption and espionage against the ISRO scientists were false, leading to the discharge of the accused. By that time, the Kerala press had unnecessarily blown this situation out of proportion for commercial gain. Following the probe, numerous disclosures occurred. In addition, the police detained two other individuals. One is Dr Sashi Kumaran, and the other is S.K. Sharma, a labour contractor from Bengaluru who was allegedly seen with the conspirators in a bar.

The Intelligence Bureau is not permitted to make an arrest, appear in court, or bring charges against anyone. The Intelligence Bureau’s primary duty is to gather information and relay it to the agencies responsible for criminal prosecution. They called in the Central Bureau of Investigation as a result. However, Raman Srivastava was suspended without a single piece of supporting documentation.

The chief of ISI would be overjoyed to find that one of India’s top scientists was compromised and that India’s GSLV development has been slowed owing to unbelievable politics and media scandals. Not to mention the hostilities between the intelligence services of India. Speaking of which, it also rendered the Indian Security System completely ineffective, without anyone in ISI having to take action because it was Indians who had already completed the task for him. It turns out that the entire narrative was made up and phoney—the days when they were supposed to meet in Madras at the time. There was enough evidence to establish the innocence of the DIG of Kerala Police, Mr Raman Srivastava, who was actually in Trivandrum monitoring the Republic Day Rehearsals when he was supposed to be there. Everything had begun to come together when they learned from Interpol that Zuheira, the fictitious Columbo ISI operative, had never even been to India during the relevant time period. Lastly, the Kerala Government requested a stay from the court. The alleged stay lasted ten years. The Kerala Government ultimately had no choice but to comprise for the same.

Media: fourth pillar in the true sense?

One of the foundational elements of democracy in media. Media freedom is always connected with people’s freedom to be informed about current social issues. The operation of democracy is impossible without a free and healthy press. Democracy refers to a form of participatory government where citizens actively participate in decision-making. Therefore, the populace needs to be informed about current events in society. Press and media outlets must educate the public on matters of public interest. Press and media must retain an objective viewpoint on such issues and refrain from interfering with cases that are still in litigation. The judiciary and the media have a strong connection and complement each other’s work. The judiciary deals with its legality while the media investigates, unearths, and exposes the accomplishments and follies of man. The media and the judicial system are both working to learn the truth.

The judiciary has been described as the guarantor of justice, and the media as the force behind social reforms. As a result, both are crucial for the development of civil society. These two cornerstones of democracy occasionally clash, in any case. The media asserts the right to look into, reveal, and draw attention to criminal cases under the fundamental freedom of speech and expression. It claims that everyone has the right to know in a democracy. As a result, it is the responsibility of the media to inform the public about social and criminal issues. Therefore, it demands the ability to create exciting publicity. However, the judiciary is also conscious of the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial. The judiciary must strike a balance between the conflicting fundamental rights since pre-trial publicity might thwart a fair and efficient trial. While the right to information for the general public, the freedom of speech and expression for the media, and the right of the accused to a fair trial must all be secured and guaranteed, these rights must also be protected. Publicity before a trial is harmful to the integrity of a fair trial.

The main drawback of this is that the media declares the accused guilty even before they have been detained or put on trial. Press and media present information in such a way that viewers are led to feel it is unquestionably true. The media must comprehend innocence until proven guilty because making snap judgments about someone’s guilt or innocence prevents them from receiving a fair trial.

The writing committee members were quite aware of the problems and changes that were likely to occur in the following decades. This is why press and media freedom has been incorporated into the definition of free speech and expression. However, the liberty provided is limited. Subclause (2) of the same article permits reasonable limits. The right to an impartial, fair, uninvolved, neutral, and pressure-free trial in a court of law belongs to all parties to a legal dispute under the Constitution. To boost the platforms’ financial value and sensationalize the news, images, interviews, and other documents are published. When prominent names and celebrities are involved, the issue is more pronounced. In certain situations, public opinion can be significantly influenced by media coverage. Therefore, a balance must be struck between the constitutional right to free speech and the individual’s right to a fair trial.

Two steps front and one step back is still one step front

1. Nambi Narayanan, a former scientist for the Indian Space Research Organisation, has endured a torturous battle with the legal system and the public for more than 20 years. A well-known and successful scientist was forced to endure extreme humiliation. Not only did the state and the Intelligence Bureau fabricate a false narrative, but paid media amplified the same only to fabricate surprising news out of thin air, as is currently the case with social media.

Dr Nambi Narayanan was arrested and put into custody by the state police on November 30, 1994. He was detained for more than 50 days. No police officer who took part in the torture to create false evidence to discredit Dr Nambi, or who bore vicarious responsibility for it in an effort to utilize claims instead of proof, has been found guilty of any crime yet. Dr Nambi has received recognition from the Indian government in the form of the Padma Bhushan, as well as from Kerala’s government in the form of a 1.3 crore settlement and extra-legal exonerations. However, Nambi can never make up for those missed years or his damaged reputation over the years. Simply put, a professional died in this situation.

Fake allegations and their consequences:

Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code defines extortion as:

“Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. Professional death is indeed grievous hurt.”

Section 386 states that:

“Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or any other shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Surprisingly, even lawyers are utilized to convey the threats while claiming that the advice is for the scientist’s good to resign rather than face those long-drawn-out proceedings as a result of the manufactured allegations. Thus, while there are explicit provisions in the IPC for punishing those who level fake allegations for personal gain or other ulterior motives, otherwise described as camouflaged extortion, those provisions are rarely applied rigorously.

Conclusion:

The prevention of crime is the primary goal of the criminal justice system. Therefore, in order to stop crimes from being committed, state police officers and magistrates have been given the responsibility of upholding law and order throughout the nation. They also have the authority to arrest suspects in public unrest or when they act against India’s sovereignty or integrity. However, there have been instances where false allegations and case registrations by police officers have hurt innocent people’s reputations and caused them to suffer mental anguish. The registration of the false case destroyed the career of Nambi Narayanan, vandalizing his reputation. An internal committee should be established with authority to monitor the governance of the police officials and instil in them the belief that the proceedings should be conducted fairly and impartially so that the court can take action against the officials who file false cases and make unauthorized arrests.

 

 

 

References:

1. Nambi Narayan vs Siby Mattews & others Etc, CA No. 6637-6638, 2018.
2. Trial by media vs right of a fair trial, IJTR.
3. Trial by media: An International Perspective, (2011) PL October S-38.
4. (1961) 3 SCR 460.
5. Media trials in India, SSRN, (2014)
6. Nambi Narayan Wiki, WikiBio.
7. Soutik Biswas, Nambi Narayanan: The fake spy scandal that blew up a rocket scientist’s career, BBC News, January 27.
8. Nambi Narayanan, Arun Ram, Ready To Fire How India and I Survived the ISRO Spy Case, 2018.
9. Shekar Gupta, Justice for ISRO’s Nambi Narayan, The Print (August 13, 2020) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMf829r0V6Q&feature=youtu.be.
10. Sunil Chacko, Time for Nambi protection act, TSG, August 22, 2020.
11. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Article by Vaishnavi Singh

 

 

 

The Bhopal gas tragedy remains unparalleled in the history of industrial disasters in the world. In the Union Carbide Corp v UOI (AIR 1992 SC 248) Hon’ble Chief Justice RN Misra said that judges are human beings and their hearts also bleed when calamities like the Bhopal gas leak incident occur.

Now, a Curative petition was before the 5-Judge Bench led by Hon’ble Justice S.K. Kaul. The Bench heard arguments for three days from January 10th-12th, 2023 and has reserved Judgment in the case. The Union’s plea was to enhance compensation settlement of $470 million for the damage caused by Union Carbide to the victims of the Bhopal gas Tragedy. The learned Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani argued that errors were made when deciding the settlement, requiring the Hon’ble Supreme Court to intervene and enhance the compensation granted to the victims. The learned Attorney General argued that the significant human tragedy involved in this case is sufficient reason for the Court to move past ‘conventional principles’ and provide relief through the curative petition.

HISTORY OF THE TRAGEDY

In the year 1934, UNION Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) was incorporated in India to manufacture batteries, chemicals, pesticides and other industrial products. The American enterprise, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) owned a majority stake in UCIL. At the time of the disaster, UCIL’s ownership structure included UCC owning 51 per cent of the company, Life Insurance Corporation of India/Unit Trust of India owned 22 per cent and the Indian public owned 27 per cent.

In the year 1970, UCIL erected a pesticide plant in a densely populated area of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

An Argentinean agronomic engineer by name Eduardo Munoz, who had been assigned the task of setting up the plant in Bhopal by UCC, had objected as it being in a residential area. But his bosses in the US overruled, saying, “You have absolutely no need to worry, dear Eduardo Munoz. Your Bhopal plant will be as inoffensive as a chocolate factory.”

With approval from the Government of India, UCIL manufactured the pesticides Sevin and Temik in the above plant. In the night time of 2-3 December 1984, water seeped into a tank containing over forty tonnes of the highly poisonous methyl isocyanate (MIC), a gas used in the production of Sevin and Temik. This caused an exothermic reaction because of which the MIC escaped into the atmosphere-and when the north-westerly winds blew this gas over the hutments adjacent to the plant and into the very densely populated parts of the city of Bhopal, making the city a gas chamber. This resulted in the immediate death of around 2606 people and the death toll rose to 8000 within a fortnight, hundreds of thousands were impacted by this leak.

This tragedy has had a profound impact and haunted several generations of Bhopal’s inhabitants. Over the next twenty-five years, estimates indicate that the number of fatalities rose to a 20,000 while 6,00,000 people suffered irreparable physical damage. Many who were not even born and still in the womb endured its catastrophic consequences. Even the current residents of Bhopal suffer from damaged reproductive systems, lung problems and vision impairments due to the gas leak.

LEGAL BATTLES

Accident of this colossal magnitude and its heinous impact woke up the environmentalists, social workers, general public and government institutions to start devising new ways and means of preventing similar tragedies in the future. This process leads to legislative measures and administrative activism. Industrial accidents involving environmental hazards give rise to judicial concern also.

A suo-motu FIR was registered on December 3rd, 1984 at Hanumanganj police station, Bhopal by the Union government against the executives and employees of UCC and UCIL under Section 304 (A) (causing death by negligence) Indian Penal Code. On December 6th, 1984 the investigation into the tragedy was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 

LEGAL BATTLES IN USA

The Government of India promulgated the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985(replacing the Bhopal Act and the privileges of its Claims Ordinance, 1985). This was done to avoid the problem of multiplicity of parties. This legislation conferred the Union of India the responsibility of suing parens patriae on behalf of the victims. The doctrine of parens patriae allows the state to protect the well-being of its citizens in a representative capacity. The intention behind the legislative measure was the speedy and equitable disposal of claims arising out of the Bhopal disaster.

The Bhopal Act evoked sharp criticism by few as the wrongdoer (UCIL) as mentioned earlier was partly owned by state corporations and the government could have been held partially liable for the tragedy. By invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, the government began to represent the very victims who could have initiated action against it. The government’s action has therefore been criticized as a device to protect itself rather than protect the victims.

The Union of India acting as parens patriae, had to select the forum where it could sue for compensation on behalf of victims. Two alternatives were observed:

1. To file a case before a court in USA, where UCC, the parent company of the United Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), had its head-quarters and domicile or
2. To file a case before the district court of Bhopal, where UCIL, the subsidiary of the UCC, is located.

Exercising the powers under the Bhopal Act, the Union of India choose the first option and on 8 April 1995 filed a complaint against UCC before the Southern District Court in New York, United States of America. By then, 144 proceedings were already under way in several federal courts across the United States in respect of the Bhopal gas leak. All these proceedings were consolidated to the court of Judge John Keenan. The arguments projected a strange situation-the Union of India argued that Indian courts could not handle the matter efficaciously while a United States corporation asserted that they could. The Union of India contended that

• Its legal system was ill-equipped to handle the complex litigation
• Delays in India’s legal system and the substantial backlog of cases would impede the effective disposal of the case.
• Indian lawyers could not provide proper representation due to a lack of expertise in the area of tort claims as tort law in India was still in its infancy,

Judge Keenan of the District Court, Southern District of New York concluded that the arguments were untenable and dismissed the claim on the ground of forum non conveniens (doctrine which a court can refuse jurisdiction over a case where a more appropriate/convenient forum is available). The judge pointed out that the Union of India was a world power in 1986, and that its courts had the proven capacity to mete out fair and equal justice. Thus, accepted the stand taken by the UCC and rejected our contentions. He observed:

“To retain the litigation in this forum as plaintiffs request would be yet another example of imperialism, another situation in which an established sovereign inflicted its rules, its standards and values on a developing nation.”

“To deprive the Indian judiciary of this opportunity to stand tall before the world and to pass judgment on behalf of its own people would be to revive a history of subservience and subjugation from which India has emerged. India and its people can and must vindicate their claims before the independent and legitimate judiciary…”

LEGAL BATTLES IN INDIA

As soon as the above unsuccessful, the Union of India filed a suit in Bhopal on behalf of the victims. On December 17th, 1987, the Bhopal District Judge Ordered UCIL to pay an interim compensation of ₹350 Crores (Rs 3,500 million) to the victims. For doing so, the court invoked the inherent power of courts under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

The High Court did not approve the use of inherent power during the hearing of the revision against the interim order. The High Court held that interim compensation could be given under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as well as under the common law evolved and recognized by Indian courts. But the High court reduced the interim relief granted by the district court to ₹250 Crores (Rs 2,500 million). Both UCC and Union of India appealed against the decision.

The idea of a compromise arose during the course of hearing the appeal before the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court accepted the suggestion for compromise soon. In the overall settlement award of $470 million. The compensation amount was a mean between UCC’s offer of 426 million dollars and the Union of India’s demand for 500 million dollars. The court laid down a clear mandate concluding all civil proceedings and quashing all criminal proceedings in relation to the Bhopal gas leak.

The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court passed this order on Valentine’s Day in 1989, the victims expected much compensation, since the Central government had earlier kindled their hopes of obtaining compensation of around 3 billion dollars i.e. more than six times the final settlement amount.

The court did not give enough emphasis on the issue of the need to protect national interests from being exploited by foreign corporations and to develop criteria to deal with potentially hazardous technology.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the compensation was adequate and that it actually exceeded personal injury claims of the time. But several individuals believe that the Court failed to appreciate the extent of the damage and its hazardous long-term effects.

In the book ‘10 Judgements that changed India’, by Zia Mody, the author attempts to put things into perspective. Here, she takes a conservative estimate that 1,70,000 people were killed or injured in the disaster, each victim/kin would get less than 50,000 rupees as the compensation. This was definitely not adequate in any manner.

In May of 1989, because to widespread public protests the Supreme Court decided to review the settlement. The Court did not increase the value of the compensation.

On October 3rd, 1991, the Union government filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court to reopen the settlement proceedings. They contested that the Supreme Court should have upheld the compensation stated by the Bhopal District Court. The Supreme Court rejected the petition and stated that it used its powers under Article 142 to dispose of the case in the District Court (Article 142 enables the Court to issue or pass any order that it feels is necessary to provide ‘complete justice’ in a case before it).

In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to an Indian company called McLeod Russel Ltd for Rs 170 crore. The name was changed to Eveready Industries India Ltd, which continues to operate in India.

In December 2010, the Union Government filed a curative petition against the 1989 settlement and sought additional funds of over ₹7,400 crores from the company. A Curative Petition is the last chance available for a party to ask the Court to reconsider a case it is filed after the court refuses to review a Judgment. 

On September 20^th of 2022, the matter appeared for hearing before a Constitution Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul. On October 11^th of 2022, the Union informed the Court that it would pursue the petition and make a demand for higher compensation for the victims. 

The Bench heard arguments for three days from January 10th-12th, 2023 and reserved Judgment in the case.

CONCLUSION

All we can do for now is wait for the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and have hope in the justice system.

References:

• Union Carbide Corp v UOI (AIR 1992 SC 248)
• ‘Environmental Law in India’, P Leelakrishnan, Lexix Nexis
• ‘10 Judgements that changed India’, Zia Mody, Sdé Shobhaa Dé BOOKS.
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/adequacy-of-compensation-paid-to-bhopal-gas-tragedy-victims/#:~:text=On%20April%204th%2C%201988%2C%20the,Court%2C%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court.
• https://www.dnaindia.com/india/column-did-ucc-mislead-india-while-seeking-licence-1405358

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Article by Aditya G S

FIRECRACKERS BAN: ANALYSIS OF INTERPLAY BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

INTRODUCTION:

Since time immemorial Hindus have continuously followed it and it is also entitled to be protected as a core and essential religious practice under Article 25 of the constitution as a fundamental right. On the other hand, the protection of the environment is not only a duty of the state but the citizens and therefore, the use of firecrackers violate various provisions in the Constitution like the right to live in a noise-free and clean environment that is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

LAWS AND REGULATION TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION:

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 aims to protect, control and abate air pollution and aims to preserve the quality of air by establishing ambient air quality standards.

The Air Prevention and Control of Pollution (Union Territory) Rules, 1983- The Central Government laid down the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution (Union Territory) Rules, 1983 by exercising the powers conferred by Section 54 of the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981 and consulting the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution.

Article 253 in the Constitution of India, 1949- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986 were promulgated under Article 253 in The Constitution of India, 1949.

STATES WHICH HAVE BANNED FIRECRACKERS:

DELHI: The Delhi government had already passed an order banning the shortage, sale, and use of all types of firecrackers in the national capital till January 1, 2023.

PUNJAB: The Punjab Government had given a window of 2 hours from 8 to 10 pm which will be open for bursting crackers on Diwali.

HARYANA: The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) had prohibited the manufacturing, sale and use of all kinds of firecrackers, excluding green crackers, immediately.

WEST BENGAL: The West Bengal government had allowed only green fireworks during the Kali Puja on October 24.

FOLLOWING ARE THE CASELAWS WHICH ENABLE US TO UNDERSTAND THE INTERPLAY IN A BETTER WAY:

GAUTAM ROY vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL: NOVEMBER 2021

In the case of Gautam Roy vs. State of West Bengal Special Leave Petition No. 26640/2021, the Calcutta High Court noted the spike in pollution in the State of West Bengal after festivals like Diwali, Durga Pooja etc. In the light of the same, The High Court in an order passed on 5^th November 2020 issued a state-wide ban on the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers. One of the grounds taken into consideration by the High Court while issuing this ban was the COVID-19 pandemic situation in the state. Several people were admitted to the hospitals already and a sudden spike in air pollution would have resulted in worsening of their health conditions. Also, the restrictions on public gatherings in the state were also taken into consideration. The order was passed keeping in mind the duty of the judiciary and the state to protect and ensure the safety of the lives of human beings in the state.

The Calcutta High Court in October 2021 ordered a complete ban on the sale and use of firecrackers in the State of West Bengal. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court and was set aside by the Supreme Court.

The court herein held that there cannot be a blanket ban on firecrackers and only those firecrackers are banned that are harmful to the environment and to the health of the citizens, especially elderly citizens and children. The Supreme Court further directed the pollution control authorities to keep a check on the sale of firecrackers and to ensure that no chemical firecrackers are being sold under the guise of green firecrackers. It also noted that the right to health of the citizens cannot be infringed on account of the celebration of festivals. However, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court partly where the High Court had placed a ban on the import of firecrackers.

TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN MOTION vs. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTRY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: DECEMBER 2020

The National Green Tribunal initiated suo-moto proceedings to analyze the impact of the issue of the use of firecrackers on the environment and issued detailed guidelines to prohibit the same. The court noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the risk to lives of human beings in the country was already very high. If this was to be coupled with the increase in pollution that is caused by extensive bursting of firecrackers, then the adverse effects that will be caused to the patients at risk will be doubled. The NGT noted that it was in the interests of the public at large that precautionary steps be taken to prevent such immediate spikes in air pollution. The NGT issued the following directions:

1. There shall be a total ban on the bursting of firecrackers from November 9^th 2020, to November 30^th 2020, in the NCR. This ban will be applicable to all the cities wherein the average air quality was recorded as poor in the previous year.
2. For those cities where the average sir quality was rated moderate and above, the state was empowered to issue directions for allowing the bursting of green firecrackers for a maximum period of two hours. In case the state does not issue any directions in this regard, the timings would be 8 to 10 pm on Diwali and Gurpurab, 6 to 8 am on Chatt pooja.
3. At all other places, the state is empowered to determine the use of green firecrackers in accordance with the rules laid down in this regard in the case of Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India.

ARJUN GOPAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the case of Arjun Gopal vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 728/2015 the Supreme Court passed a judgement on 23-10-2018. In this particular case, petitions were filed by 6 month and 14 months babies through their fathers who felt due to degradation of air quality and pollution, petitioners may come across various health hazards. Prayer also included banning use, in any form of firecrackers and minor explosives, in any form. The court held that the pollution caused by firecrackers violates Article 48A and Article 51A, which gives citizens the right to a healthy environment. These articles come under the ambit of Article 21 right to life and cannot be violated. The court decided that the country’s environmental law’s precautionary principle did not necessitate thorough analyses.

The precautionary principle has been established as a part of customary international law. About the precautionary principle, it was held in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum a case that the State Government and other statutory authorities must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation. The court also relied on the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Case concerning Article 19(1)(g) and stated that environmental protection is a component of Article 21 and that it must take precedence over the freedom to conduct business entrenched in Article 19(1)(g). It also held that Article 25 is subject to Article 21 and that if a religious practice endangers people’s health or lives, it cannot be protected by Article 25.

COMPLETE FIREWORK BAN BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT:

The Calcutta High Court in Anasua Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal Writ Petition No. 15465/2019 banned the manufacture, sale and bursting of firecrackers of any type including the green crackers approved by the Supreme Court during any festivals in the State of West Bengal. Ironically, on the same day, the Supreme Court observed that there was no blanket ban on the use of firecrackers but only crackers with barium salts were prohibited. The judgement caused an uproar in the firecracker industry as it was the time when the firecracker business peaks. It led them to file a review petition in the Supreme Court. The rationale behind the judgement was that Article 21(6) is applicable to both the general public and the firecracker manufacturer.

CONCLUSION:

Given the facts demonstrating the negative effects of burning crackers on humans, cracker production should be prohibited entirely. Even though a ban on manufacture puts thousands of people’s livelihoods in jeopardy, the fundamental health threat created by the creation and burning of firecrackers impacts millions of lives in some way. A complete ban on firecrackers that was advocated by the Supreme Court initially has not been continued in recent times, Instead, the Supreme Court has tried to create a balance between the right to life of the citizens and the right to carry out the trade of selling firecrackers. In the light of the same, it has allowed the manufacture and sale of green firecrackers and has restricted the time periods in which firecrackers have to be burst. While the government must work together and make significant efforts to address this problem, we must also do our part to help the environment. It is critical not only to follow the Constitution’s fundamental duty to have compassion for our surroundings, but also to respect the moral responsibility that is vested in us to safeguard mother nature and make it a better place to live in.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

ARTICLE BY CHANDANA SHEKAR

Background:- As we all know that India is a secular country with different religions in which we respect the ” liberty of thought, belief, faith, & worship” of the citizen. But some people does not respect, or accept the belief of others. For this reason the 42nd amendment of The Constitution Act, 1976 has inserted the word ‘Secular’ in the preamble. This Article is about Marriage outside community and the freedom of religion under Article 25.

Introduction

India is a secular country. In preamble of the India the word Secular was added in 42nd amendment of the Constitution of India. In S.R. Bommai V/S UOI , The Supreme court of India has held that “Secularism” is a basic feature of the Constitution of India. In India, the law governs inter-faith marriages in the country, is The Special Marriages Act, 1954. As Article 25 of the Constitution says that one can practice any religion of one’s choice. So, one can marry other person from different religions by the procedure of civil court. In 2021 petitions were filed in Supreme Court to strike down several provisions of Special Marriages Act, 1954. Under Article 226 a writ petition was filed in Supreme Court. 

About Special Marriages Act, 1954

1. It is the legislation made to validate and register inter-religious and inter-caste marriages in India.
2. It allows two to solemnise their marriages through a civil contract. No religious formalities are needed to be carried out under this Act.
3. This act includes all the religions i.e, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jains, & Buddhists marriages.
4. This Act applies not only to Indians citizen who belong to different caste, and religions but also to Indian nationals who live in abroad.

Key points

• About interfaith marriages :

The matrimonial relations developed between two individuals who are from different religions faiths. It is matter of choice for an adult however there are several issues regarding interfaith marriages.

1. In interfaith marriages are believed to be a forced conversion of one spouses(mostly women)
2. In Muslim if anyone wants to marry non-muslim then conversion of religion is only way.
3. Hindu religion only allows monogamy and if anyone wants to marry 2nd time should take another course.
4. There is no provision regarding caste determination of childern born out from the inter-faith marriages.

• Challenges with contemplating laws for inter-faith marriages :

Interference of the law in an individual’s choice of marriage violates the existing fundamental rights such as :

• Right to equality (Article 14)
• Right to Freedom and personal Liberty ( Article 19)
• Freedom of religion and Right to life (Article 25 and Article 21)

As Article 25 of the Constitution allows the one to practice any religion of one’s choice. Hence, in India interfaith marriages are allowed as one can convert his/her religion for marrying each other.

The term religion is not defined in the Constitution and indeed it is a term which is hardly susceptible to any rigid definition. The Supreme Court has defined the term ‘religion’ broadly. Religion is a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic.

Under Article 25(1) of The Constitution of India a person has a two-fold freedom:-

1. Freedom of conscience;
2. Freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.

The term “freedom of conscience”  is a absolute inner freedom of the citizen to mould his own relation with God in whatever manner he wants and when this freedom becomes articulate and expressed in the form of word then it becomes freedom to profess, practice, and propagte religion.

In A.S. Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that the word “religion” used in Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India is personal to the person having faith and belief in the religions.

In Shafin jahan V/S Ashok KM (2018), it was held by the Supreme court that the right to marry a person of one’s choice as a part of Article 21.

In K.S. Puttaswamy V/S UOI (2017), it was held by the Supreme court that ‘right to choice of a family life’ as a fundamental rights.

Provision which are challenged in petition filed against Special Marriages Act, 1954.

• Section 5 of the SMA Act, 1954 requires couples getting married under it to give a notice to the marriage officer 30 days before the date of marriages.
• Section 6 of the SMA Act, 1954 requires such a notice to be then entered into the marriage Notice Book maintained by the marriage officer , which can be inspected by ‘any person desirous ‘.
• Section 7 provides process for making an objection.
• Section 8 provides the inquiry procedure to ne followed after an objection has been submitted.

The petition contends that these provisions make personal information of thr individuals open to public scrutiny. Due to these provisions , breaching personal liberties, several inter-faith couples approached the court, challenging Section 6 & 7 of this Act. The public notice which was issued during the procedure has been used by anti-social elements to harass  couples getting married.

The Supreme court rejected the petition on the grounds that the petitioner was no longer an aggrieved party as she had already solemnised her marriage under SMA Act, 1954.

Conclusion

Religion is a foundation for value and moral based survival of human being. If there were no values or morals, there would be no social order. It is the right of one’s to practice, profess and propagte religion of it’s choice. Hence, when one can practice any religion of one’s choice then one can marry other person of different religions also by the procedure of civil court and if anyone is expelling members for marrying outside the community will voilates Article 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Interfaith marriages are allowed in India and the conversion of religion is also allowed in India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Article by Namrata Singh