0

Bhopal To Vizag: A Jurisprudential Analysis Of Tortious Liability For Companies

Articles ,

ABSTRACT

Industrial disasters such as gas leaks are nothing new to us, as we have seen several events ranging from the Bhopal tragedy and oleum gas leakage in the past to the Vizag gas leakage in the present. The major cause of these sorts of accidents is the industry’s management’s desire to decrease costs and increase profits. They believe that by missing the obligatory processes, they would save money, but they are not aware of the cost of their greed, which will result in massive losses to the lives of people living near the factories and environmental harm. We may presume that the executives in these industries have no sense of social duty. Instead of taking precautions to avoid industrial disasters, they aim to avoid penalties. This can be prevented if the government imposes stringent limits on penalizing them as well as government employees who are neglectful in their duties to ensure that these industries obey safety norms and laws. To ensure that victims receive their compensation as soon as feasible, the Supreme Court established the idea of ‘absolute obligation, without exceptions to pay victims. In all such situations, strict liability is not considered, since industry executives attempt to avoid legal scrutiny by invoking exceptions as defences. As a result, the company is obligated to pay the victims as well as the environmental harm caused, with no exceptions. This paper discusses the jurisprudential aspect of the tortious liability of a company by discussing the cases of Bhopal and Vizag.  

INTRODUCTION

A tort is the basic principle of the common law. The idea behind it is that “When there is an injury there is a remedy. When put simply, a tort is a civil wrong. The definition of tortious liability is: “Tortious liability is when it emerges from the breach of a duty that is principally established by law.” This responsibility is owed to all individuals, and its breach should be remediable by an action for general damages. There are numerous facets to tortious liability but here the focus is on absolute liability and strict liability.

When we speak of a company, we are referring to an artificial, legal entity. Consequently, it also has certain rights and responsibilities. A company’s obligation is of two types which are civil and criminal. Criminal Liability of a company is defined as a crime committed by an individual or an association of individuals who, in the course of their occupation, commit acts or omissions that are prohibited by law and with a guilty mind for the benefit of the corporation or any individual out of the association of individuals.

Tortious liability is a form of a company’s civil liability. Separate entities and common seals are two of the most significant characteristics of a business. A company has personally distinct from that of its directors. Under the company’s common seal, every transaction is conducted in its name. Therefore, the organization is accountable for the activities of its members. However, if this person exceeds the scope of his or her authority, he or she would be held accountable.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

How the Court judgment changed for civil liability of  the company with time from Bhopal Gas Tragedy to Vizag Gas Leak Case.

TORTIOUS LIABILITY OF COMPANIES

According to legal scholar Sir John Salmond “A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages and which is not primarily a violation of contract, a breach of trust, or a breach of another simply equitable obligation.” Taking into account the uncodified Law of Tort, civil culpability is obligated to fall on the tortfeasor in the event of a wrongful conduct or a violation of rights. Strict Liability was established in the landmark case of Rylands v Fletcher in 1868 and approved by the House of Lords. Strict responsibility is one of the numerous types of Tort that arose to secure the imposition of duty on an individual or entity in the event of conduct resulting in damages or losses, even if these acts were unintentional outcomes. As a result, strict responsibility is often known as ‘No-Fault Liability.’ The narrow line that establishes severe responsibility for negligence is the immateriality of purpose and appropriate care. The defendant is permitted to participate in such risky actions as long as he is willing to recompense those injured. If this regulation were to be repealed, it would result in an unfair balance of rights between the perpetrator and the victim.

According to the concept of Strict Liability, when a harmful object escapes from the Tortfeasor’s premises and harms someone or something, the liability is said to be strict liability. However, one is only held culpable when there is non-natural usage of land; the idea also reduces liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, God, or the person injured, when it occurs with the approval of the person injured, or when it occurs with legislative authorization.

Absolute liability is a form of non-liability that differs from strict liability in that it does not include any of the statutory exemptions that are permitted under the latter. There were allegations that there was a gas leak in December in a unit of the well-known food and fertilizer company Shriram, which was owned by Delhi Cloth Mills. These allegations were brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of India in 1985 when it was hearing the case of MC Mehta vs. Union of India.[1] The problem was that part of the oleum gas used in the industry had made its way to a certain neighbourhood in Delhi. Because of the leak, a significant number of people were affected. The supreme court then developed the absolute liability rule based on the strict liability rule and declared that the respondent is to be answerable for the damages caused without taking into account the limits of the strict liability rule. This meant that the respondent was held responsible for the damage regardless of whether or not the strict liability rule was taken into account. The court observed that the old principle of strict liability, which dates back to the 19th century could not be applied in this situation. As a result, the court announced that it would develop a new principle that would be suitable for the socio-economic as well as the environmental condition that exists in India. In accordance with the theory of strict liability, which was established in Rylands v. Fletcher, the Supreme Court of India later established the principle of liability without fault as a fundamental component of the Indian Tort Law. In addition to this, it was made abundantly clear that the new no-fault liability rule did not adhere to any of the aforementioned conditions that were stipulated under the Rylands rule.

LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS

A director could be held accountable for tortious liability if they intentionally participated in the act, authorized or instructed others to participate in the act, or knew engaged in the act themselves. On the other hand, it’s possible that the precise level of accountability won’t be immediately obvious. Because the corporation breached its general obligation, it is generally accepted that the business will be held liable for any damage or loss that was inflicted on a third party who exercised the typical level of knowledge and care.

The protection afforded to a corporation by the presence of a corporate veil can be breached if individual directors and shareholders are made personally responsible for the activities of the organization. However, if directors and shareholders argue that the actions were carried out on behalf of the company, they will not be protected from tort liability.

The obligation that shareholders have is significantly less than that which is placed on directors and officials. This is the unavoidable consequence of the partnership between shareholders and management, in which shareholders have appointed executives as their representatives to maximize e or at least protect their investment. Shareholders have chosen to establish this partnership.

When natural individuals run a business, it complicates the process of determining whether or not the business has breached a duty of care that it owed to another person. The law has enacted attribution laws so that it can determine whether or not the actions of an individual, such as a representative or an employee, are to be considered the actions can typically be linked back to a company to establish legal responsibility.

LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL

Following the companies act of 2013, “lifting the corporate veil” refers to the practice of ignoring the fact that a company is a separate legal entity, as required by the companies act of 2013, attention is turned away from the distinct identity of the company and toward the actual shareholders who are in charge of running the company.

The distinct personality confers a regulatory advantage, but it can serve no other function than to ensure compliance with the law. Individuals who commit fraud by misusing the legal system cannot expect to be able to hide their identity behind the screen of a corporate persona whenever or wherever such activity takes place.

The relevant authority will crack this company’s veneer and file civil charges against the persons who are responsible for such a transgression. According to the companies act of 2013, this action is referred to as the “lifting of the corporate veil.”

BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY

Facts- The Indian government initiated legal action against the Union Carbide Corporation in the United States in the District Court in February of 1985, claiming damages in the amount of $ 3.3 billion. But by 1986, every one of these lawsuits had been filed in the U.S.  District Court had been moved to India on the basis that it was a more convenient forum. It indicates that the case ought to be moved to a forum that is better suitable for it so that the trial can proceed without any problems. During this time, in march of 1985, the Bhopal Gas leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) act was passed into law. This act gave the central government the authority to become the sole representative of all the victims in any and all types of litigation. This was done to ensure that the interests of those who were affected by the disaster were fully protected and that the claims for compensation were pursued as quickly as possible. in 1987, complaints were brought before the Bhopal District Court, which ultimately issued an order compelling the Union Carbide Corporation to pay an interim compensation amount of 350 crores. However, the temporary injunction could not be decreed, and as a result, the UCC refused to pay the amount that was requested. This interim compensation figure ultimately ended up being reduced to 250 crores when it was brought before the High Court. Against the judgment handed down by the High Court, both the Union of India and the UCC opted to appeal suing the special leave.

Issue- whether the company should be held liable or not?

Judgment- Union carbide and the Indian government made an out-of-court settlement to pay $470 million in compensation for all of the damage caused by the release of MIC gas from an industrial premise. The court also ordered the company to pay compensation to the victim by 15th November.

  • In the case of the Bhopal gas tragedy, the court convicted eight accused which also includes Keshub Mahindra (chairman of Union Carbide), which shows how the corporate veil was lifted in the case, and the company directors who were running the company were held liable.
  • As seen in the case of M.C Mehta the concept of absolute liability was used to determine the liability of the company. Similarly, in the case of the Bhopal gas tragedy, the same principle was used to determine the liability of the company. In situations where absolute liability is taken into account, it is possible for a company to be held liable for an incident even in the event that the company in question did not act negligently.

VIZAG CASE

Facts: On May 7, 2020, an unexpected Styrene vapour release occurred from one of the Styrene storage tanks at a company, RR Venkatapuram, Visakhapatnam (M6 Tank). For the first time, an uncontrolled release of Styrene vapour from a storage tank into the atmosphere happened in India. After the Bhopal gas tragedy, it was the first time when the country faced something like this. The name of the company was Hindustan Polymers. However, it was owned by a South Korean company named LG Chem. LG Polymers was the company’s new name at the time. It is involved in the production of polystyrene from styrene. Styrene is used to make numerous parts of electronic equipment, food packaging, and other products. The event occurred on May 7, 2020, when the styrene exceeded its optimum temperature (the ideal temperature for styrene storage is 15-18 degrees Celsius). The rise in temperature approached the boiling point of styrene, resulting in chemical self-polymerization. This converted the chemical into a gas which resulted in leakage of styrene in the atmosphere. The tragedy claimed the lives of 12 individuals and at least 500 people were hospitalized. In addition to causing cattle and vegetation damage.

This incident is widely known as the “Vizag Gas Leak tragedy”.  It was decided that a team from the NDRF’s CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) unit in Pune, along with an expert team from the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in Nagpur, would be rushed to Vishakhapatnam immediately to assist the State Government in crisis management. The National Disaster Management Authority prepared for a special aircraft to transport a joint team of four reaction specialists from the 5th Battalion of the NDRF Pune, as well as PPE, other equipment, and five environmental experts from Nagpur. The aircraft arrived in Visakhapatnam on May 7th, and the team promptly assisted the local authority in resolving the crisis. Further, the National Green Tribunal took Suo-motu cognizance over it.

Issue: Is the company liable for the leak and damage caused by the accident?

Judgment: The National Green Tribunal (hereafter ‘NGT’) levied an interim penalty of Rs. 50 crores on LG Polymers India Pvt Ltd the day after the gas leak event, and requested responses from the Centre and others for the “harm to life, public health, and the environment.” It also formed a five-member investigation committee to investigate the case and report back to the court. Former Andhra Pradesh High Court judge B. Seshasayana Reddy will oversee this group. The NGT chair’s assessment, released on May 28, 2020, discovered that storage turns were antiquated and lacked temperature sensors, enabling styrene vaporisation to go unnoticed. The study blamed the event on “severe human failure and a lack of fundamental safety requirements” with plant workers and the entire crown enabling the styrene vaporization to go unnoticed with factory workers and the overall business inexperienced in storing Tanks of such dangerous chemicals. The NGT asked the government of Andhra Pradesh to identify the government personnel accountable for their carelessness and take strict action against them for enabling the LG Polymers facility to operate without statutory approvals, and to produce a report. It also asked the Central Government to form an expert committee to produce a report on how to avoid similar situations in the future.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has notified both the Centre and the state of Andhra Pradesh about the occurrence, taking note of the violation of human rights, particularly the right to life under article 21 of the constitution.

According to the court, the principle of strict liability was applied, a person who introduces something likely to cause harm into the territory is obligated to pay compensation if the object escapes and causes injury but the substance should be of unnatural use. Here all the condition of strict liability was fulfilled and the NGT opinionated “Leakage of hazardous gas at such a scale adversely affecting a public health and environment attracts the principle of Strict Liability against the enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry.” Furthermore, two out of twelve directors were held liable and have been arrested in this case. The doctrine of the lifting of the corporate veil was applied as there was misconduct by the company and this could be done when there was a fault by the natural person which cannot be a company so the people and officials involved were arrested.

FINDINGS

As time passed India faced various cases of civil liability of company came into existence where various companies were imposed by tortious liability. The first case was where the principle of absolute liability came and imposed absolute liability on the company. From here the cycle of tortious liability came into being and then in the case of Union of India v. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996)[2] the Supreme Court supported the polluter pays principle and unlimited culpability once more in this instance. The court ordered the companies that produce Sulphuric Acid and other poisons to pay the victims for failing to follow safety rules during toxic waste disposal and causing pollution. Similarly, in the case of Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti & Anr. v. Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. & Ors (2014)[3] In this judgement, Section 17(3) of the NGT Act was granted a broader meaning to make it relevant to circumstances that did not involve hazardous industries.  

In the case of the Vizag gas tragedy, by using the principle of strict liability,’ the NGT not only provided an opportunity for the company to build its defence by demonstrating that there was no negligence on its part, but it also acted ultra vires under Section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which directs the NGT to apply the no-fault principle even in cases of accident. This got a lot of backlash as it gave the company LG polymers the authority to defend themselves by using exceptions and for negligence.

In these cases, the company could not use the doctrine of the corporate veil. In these cases, the lifting of the corporate veil doctrine is applied to make the individuals and people of the company who are liable for the loss that occurred. In both the cases of Vizag and Bhopal the individuals involved were held liable along with the company.

A company is a legal entity. It does not have a natural personality, but it is managed by natural entities such as directors. They serve as the company’s brain. Through its activity and interactions, the firm is given the characteristics of a natural person. As a result, the assets owned by the company are not the directors’, but rather the companies. Similarly, the firm is held accountable for its actions since it can sue and be sued.

CONCLUSION

In the case of the Bhopal gas tragedy, though the directors and company were held liable, however, even after 37 years since the accident, the government has been unable to provide the victims of the gas disaster with proper compensation, thorough medical treatment, or economic rehabilitation. Even the compensation that was paid out was a complete farce, as each victim of the gas leak received an amount that was less than one-fifth of the total money that was supposed to be granted even according to the provisions of the settlement. Even now, 37 years later, the Bhopal gas victims have not received justice, and their children and grandchildren are also suffering from the aftermath of the disaster.

[1] M.C. Mehta vs Union of India  AIR 1987 965

[2] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal vs Union Of India And Ors 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212

[3] Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd vs. Anuj Joshi & Ors 1 SCC 769

0

Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Business~ An Analytical Study

Articles , , ,

ABSTRACT

This research examines CSR as a universal idea throughout the world in an effort to provide a comprehensive grasp of the topic. The paper begins with an explanation of CSR and the reporting thereof, then moves on to an examination of the legal paradigm surrounding CSR reporting in India, touching on such topics as the applicable sections of the Companies Act of 2013 and the National Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct. The research shows how is CSR important and its relation with the fundamental rights. This study includes many instances and an analysis of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting framework in India. Last but not least, it analyses the role of CSR in the international and national developmental agenda and goals pursued by Indian corporations, as well as the systems and instruments of reporting that have been implemented for this very purpose, and presents a case study of the TATA group terminating the paper. This research was conducted with the intention of bridging the gap in knowledge on the importance of various CSR reporting mechanisms in the Indian setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION

  1. What is the scope of CSR in India?
  2. Why is CSR important?

INTRODUCTION

Across the globe, businesses are adjusting to a new role: providing for the demands of today’s consumers without jeopardising the future prosperity of their descendants. It is becoming more expected of businesses to account for the effects of their actions on the communities and ecosystems in which they operate. Companies are also being encouraged to incorporate sustainable practises into how they operate. Voluntary steps taken by a company that show they are considering the needs of society and the environment as they do business and engage with their stakeholders are what we term “sustainable.”

As corporate social responsibility (CSR) concerns grow more ingrained in contemporary business operations, the term “responsible competitiveness” or “corporate sustainability” is increasingly being used to describe this phenomenon.

It’s important to keep in mind that CSR is just a relatively new idea that has yet to settle on a single, unified definition. To put it simply, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is how businesses openly and transparently address social, environmental, and economic issues in their value systems, culture, decision-making, strategy, and operations in order to foster better business practises, generate wealth, and better the world at large. CSR increasingly includes discussions of how the private sector responds to pressing concerns of sustainable development.

ANALYSIS

Commonly seen as a synonym for “Corporate Sustainability,” the phrase “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) is used interchangeably across the world. However, CSR in India has a few unique characteristics that set it apart from its global counterpart. In India, CSR focuses on the areas of social development and environmental preservation as detailed in Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013.

Corporate Sustainability, on the other hand, has been accepted on a worldwide scale, and it refers to the practise of integrating sustainability into company value chains and supply networks so that all business activities adhere to a sustainable or responsible model. Integrating responsible behaviour into every aspect and action of a company’s operations is a fundamental tenet of responsible business practise. Any and all business dealings with natural resources, including sourcing, procurement, production, distribution, etc., should be conducted in an ethical manner. It also includes engaging in socially responsible actions.

CSR IN INDIA

Although CSR in India mostly still takes the form of monetary donations to charitable causes, the focus has shifted from infrastructure development to community improvement across a range of fields. In addition, as the world grows more interconnected and as local communities become more vocal and demanding, a clear trend has emerged: while corporate social responsibility (CSR) is still focused primarily on development initiatives, it is increasingly becoming linked with business rather than monetary donations to nonprofits, and many businesses are disclosing the work they are doing in this area in their annual reports.

The Companies Act of 2013 has brought the concept of CSR to the forefront, and it tell-or-explain mandate is contributing to a rise in transparency and openness. Community involvement is highlighted in Schedule VII of the Act, which details CSR initiatives.

WHY IS CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IMPORTANT?

In today’s world, it’s more important than ever that businesses prioritise doing good for society. ‘Social responsibility’ is shorthand for a company’s dedication to achieving long-term objectives that are good for both its workers and the greater community.

  1. Corporate Social Responsibility has the potential to increase customer loyalty: Organizations may find help in CSR in their efforts to enlist more customers in their causes. Many CSR initiatives call for interaction between companies and members of the public who aren’t necessarily customers or prospects. They may instantly ask customers what they think of their goods and services. Customers who are helped by a business’s efforts in the community are more likely to recommend that business to others. So, it’s a great promotional tool in the same vein.
  2. It’s possible that consumer perception of a brand might improve as a result of CSR efforts: It might be difficult for firms in today’s market to differentiate themselves from customers’ perspectives due to the intense competition. However, businesses that prioritise social responsibility are more likely to succeed in building brand awareness and attracting new consumers. By bringing attention to and sparking discussion about important topics, CSR may help businesses grow. Eventually, it may help build trust.
  3. Branding Depends Upon CSR:  In order to construct a strong brand and keep consumers loyal, businesses must earn their trust. In my opinion, a company’s CSR efforts may help build trust and loyalty among its clientele. A company can only succeed with a committed customer base. Customers would rather show their support for a company that cares about more than just making a profit.
  4. Community service shows dedication to shareholders:  Investors may be more attracted to companies that prioritise social responsibility. That’s because most shareholders want more out of the investment than they put in. Companies that are able to efficiently manage their finances and make charitable contributions to their communities also tend to be transparent in their dealings. Rather from seeing corporate social responsibility expenditure as frivolous, investors see it as a “sign of a business culture less prone to expensive blunders like financial fraud,” according to a 2016 Aflac analysis.Extra than half of customers, according to a 2015 Nielsen poll, are prepared to spend more for a product or service from a company that prioritises sustainability. This suggests that customers prefer and reward companies whose motivations extend beyond making a profit.
  5. Savings are realised as a direct result of CSR efforts:  CSR may help a business in a number of ways, including recruitment and retention of staff and, as said, attracting a more loyal client base prepared to pay a higher price for items made by a socially accountable firm. Since employee turnover may cost businesses thousands of dollars, this is significant.  In conclusion, companies that prioritise profit above all else endanger themselves, society, the economy, customers, and even their own workers. In order to attract and retain the greatest workers, businesses should think about ways they can contribute to the community. After all, happy customers and dedicated workers are the backbone of every thriving business.

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE COMPANIES ACT OF 2013

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not optional for businesses since it is required by law under the Companies Act of 2013. Section 135 of the Act requires all companies that satisfy certain requirements to establish a CSR Committee, create a CSR policy, and allocate at least 2% of their average net income from the three fiscal years before to the current fiscal year to CSR initiatives. 

  • Organization with a net value of at least Rs. 500 Cr;
  • Organization with a turnover of at least Rs. 1000 Cr; or
  • Organization with a net profit of at least Rs. 5 Cr in the most recent fiscal year.

If a company does not meet any of the criteria for CSR application (net worth, turnover, or net profit), then CSR does not apply to that company. In the case of Bilfinger Neo Structo Private Limited[1], it was determined the same thing.

CASE LAWS

  • This was the case with Technicolor India (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies[2], where the company explained in its Director’s Report why it had spent less than the minimum required by Section 135 of the Companies Act on corporate social responsibility during the fiscal year in question (2017–18), despite meeting the net profit criteria, U/ s 135 (5). However, it was discovered that the Director’s report inaccurately recorded the total spending on CSR and related data, therefore the business filed an application with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Bangalore. The company’s request to amend its report was granted by the tribunal, opening the door for it to seek compounding in accordance with Section 441 of the Act.
  • This Compounding Application was filed with the Registrar of Companies in the Indian state of Chattisgarh (henceforth referred to as RoC) on behalf of Alok Pharmaceuticals and Industrial Company Private Limited[3], Rapid Estates Private Limited[4], and Avinash Developers Private Limited[5]; the RoC has since reported on the application and sent its findings to the National Company Law Tribunal in Mumbai. The Learned RoC informed the Company that this application was filed because the Company failed to provide an explanation for the non-spending of the CSR amount for the Financial Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 in the relevant Director’s Report, in violation of Section 134(3)(o) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter as Act) and Rule8 of the Companies (Corporate Social Responsibility Policy) Rules, 2014. It has been noted that submitting an application pursuant to 441 of the Act may result in the compounding of an offence for a breach of Section 134 (3)(o) for failing to provide information about the CSR policy in the Board’s Report.

CONCLUSION

The Sustainable Development Goals, Nationally Determined Contributions, and Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 were all drafted simultaneously. India has a number of rules, guidelines, standards, and regulations pertaining to corporate social responsibility (CSR), but Indian corporations seem to be in a state of confusion as to which, if any, of these should be included into their CSR policy, strategy, and implementation.

In order to create a framework that enables companies to operate sustainably across multiple jurisdictions, it is necessary to align Corporate Social Responsibility, National Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct (NGRBC), and some of the key International CSR Standards to Sustainable Development Goals.

“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.”

Written by- Mansi Malpani

[1] 2019 SCC OnLine NCLT 108

[2] Technicolor India (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, 2020 (7) TMI 423

[3] 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 28915, C.P. No. – 396/441/ND/2018

[4] 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 545, C.P. No. 11/441/ND/2017

[5] 2018 SCC OnLine NCLT 29665, CP No. 2710/441/NCLT/MB/MAH/2018

0

PATENTABILITY CRITERIA

Articles , ,

 When a person uses his intellect to invent something new, he must be rewarded for the same. Patent protection is granted to such inventions, so that no one else can copy or use those inventions without the permission of the Inventor. This gives monopoly rights to the inventor to use his invention however he likes and is considered a reward. This not only encourages more inventions but also contributes to the development of a country.

The word “patent” has been derived from the Latin word “patere” which means “to lay open,” or to make available for public at large.

A ‘Patent’ is an intellectual property right which protects any new invention. It is an exclusive right that protects the rights of the inventor and prevents other people to unauthorizedly use and misappropriate the registered patent. A patent is granted for a term of 20 years from the date of filling of the application.

Patents being territorial in nature are valid only in those countries where the applicant has actually applied and received patent protection. For example, a person has registered his invention of a massaging sofa-chair in India. So, the patent protection would be available only in India. If someone in America is copying his invention, he has no power to take any action for his patent is not registered in America.

In India, Patents are governed by Indian Patents Act, 1970. A person who has obtained a patent is called “Patentee” or a “Patent-holder.”

Types of Patents

Depending upon what is protected by the patent, the patents are classified into many types which are as follows:

  • Product patent – This is the patent which protects the actual invention. No one else can manufacture the same invention without the permission of the Patentee. This is especially helpful in addressing reverse engineered manufacturing.
  • Process Patent – The process of manufacturing the invention or a new way of manufacturing an existing product can be patented under Process patent.

There are also utility patents which protect processes, compositions of matter, machines. Design patents are used to patent designs or exterior ornamental design on something.

Patentability Criteria

According to Section 2(j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, an invention means “a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.” This definition highlights as to what qualifies to be a patentable invention.

An invention to be patentable must:

  1. Not be under Sec.3 and 4 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (patentable subject-matter)
  2. Novelty
  3. Utility
  4. Non-obviousness

1.Patentable Subject-matter:

Any invention that comes under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Patents Act, 1970 cannot be patented. Some of the subject-matters listed under Sec. 3 are:

  1. Frivolous invention – invention against the laws of nature or without any purpose. For example, a device that can give answer without any inputs or a device that can boost even 100% efficiency.
  2. Inventions against morality or public order – Inventions like a device that can cleanup after murder, a device that can open locked cars, a device used to cheat in exams etc.
  3. Mere discovery of naturally occurring substances – The mere formulation of an abstract theory, the finding of any living entity or non-living object happening in nature, or the discovery of any scientific principle is not enough. There must be some human ingenuity involved to make it patentable.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty[1]– The scientists added 4 plasmids to a bacterium, which enabled it to breakdown various components of crude oil. This was opposed on the grounds that it was only a discovery of a naturally occurring bacteria. The Court held that the bacterium was modified because the inventor had added plasmids and that could be patented for it was a non-naturally occurring manufacture or a composition of human ingenuity having distinct character and use.

Association for Molecular Biology v. Myriad Genetics[2] – Myriad discovered the precise location and sequence of 2 human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, mutations of which could   increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. This knowledge was used to test the cancer risk of patients and Myriad obtained a number of patents on this. Later, the Petitioner filed a suit that Myriad’s patents were invalid under S.101 of US Code for being mere discovery of naturally occurring substance. The US SC revoked the patent as there was no modification of the genes and therefore, it did not create anything. It was merely a discovery of naturally occurring substance.

4. Mere discovery that does not enhance any knowledge

Mere discovery of substances like new salts or new forms of a new substance that does not add to any existing knowledge cannot be patented.

Novartis AG v. UOI[3] – The case arose on the order of rejection of Novartis AG’s application for a patent on a product named Gleevec/Glivec, used for treating blood cancer (leukamia) and Gastro-Intestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST). The Cancer Patients Aid Association of India, Mumbai, and the companies producing the generic versions of the product opposed the grant of patent as it lacked novelty, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that it was merely a “new form” of a “known substance” and that as required by the new section 3(d) there was no proof of enhancement in the efficacy of the substance. The Patent Office refused to grant patent on the ground that it did not meet the requirement of the new section 3(d).

After appealing before IPAB, Madras HC, the SC was finally approached. Dismissing the appeals filed by Novartis, the Supreme Court stated: “We have, therefore, no doubt that the amendment/addition made in section 3(d) is meant especially to deal with chemical substances, and more particularly pharmaceutical products. The amended portion of section 3(d) clearly sets up a second tier of qualifying standards for chemical substances/ pharmaceutical products in order to leave the door open for true and genuine inventions but, at the same time, to check any attempt at repetitive patenting or extension of the patent term on spurious grounds.“

5. A substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the component

6. Mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way

7. Section 3(h): a method of agriculture or horticulture; A method of agriculture or horticulture is not patentable as it would not be capable

8. Section 3 (j) “Plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals.

Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and others v. Monsanto Technology LLC[4]– Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and others filed for the revocation of patent on the ground that the technology is not an invention but a mere discovery and as such is not a patentable invention under section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty[5]

9. section 3(k), a mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes per se and algorithms are not considered as patentable subject matter.

Sony Communication Network v. USPTO – The subject of the application was of a method for facilitating exchange of electronic messages between two parties, where the message can be sent only if the receiver of the message has signified that he or she is willing to receive any message from that sender. The functions of this invention were controlled by software running on the computers. The Examiner held that the invention was excluded by section 1(2)(c) of the UK Act, which disentitled a business method and a programme for a computer from patentability. Holding that the invention was a case of using known technology to solve a business problem, the Patent Office ruled that it was excluded from patentability as a method of doing business and a program for a computer as such.

10. 3 (l)“A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions” Following type of work comes under the domain of Copyright Act, 1957, hence not-patentable

11. 3 (m)“A mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game”- Mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental acts or method of playing games, are not patentable because these simply comes from human mind

12. Traditional Knowledge– An invention that effectively duplicates or aggregates the known properties of a traditionally known component or components is defined in Section 3(p). Traditional knowledge is information that was previously available (in prior art). This wisdom has been passed down from generation to generation for a very long, ancient, and historical time.

Turmeric Case[6] – University of Mississippi had gotten a patent for “wound healing properties” of turmeric. CSIR, India challenged the grant of patent on the grounds that it was traditional knowledge of India. They were able to prove it with ancient texts and therefore, USPTO revoked the patent granted to them.

Neem Case – WR Grace and the Dept. of Agriculture, USA made a discovery of Antifungal property of neem. They developed a technology with neem-oil formulation to prevent the growth of fungi and they filed an application to obtain a patent over this technology. Indian opposed the grant of patent on the grounds that it is traditional knowledge; already known to India through ancient texts.

13. Inventions relating to atomic energy not patentable – Section 4: Section 4 states that “No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.” Section 4 of the 1970 Act prohibits the grant of a patent in respect of any invention relating to atomic energy falling within section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962

2.Novelty (Newness)

According to section 2(1)(1) a “new invention” means any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e. the subject matter has not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art.  

Simply put, an invention is something that the inventor has himself devised and it could be a product or a process to produce a product. It must be the result of his steps to bring it about and one that did not exist before he commenced his work of invention. This is because, the inventions can be opposed later on the grounds of being prior anticipation or prior claims by someone else.

The invention must be new or something that was not known before or it can be a more developed version of something that is already known. Eg: When mouse was made for the first time, it was considered as an invention. But mouse in a different color is no “invention” as it is different only in its exterior design. However, if a person made wireless mouse, it would be considered an invention for it involves an “inventive step” or is more developed than the previous version.

In Bishwanath Prasad Radhe Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries: The SC held –“ In order to be patentable, an improvement on something known before or a combination of different matters already known, should be something more than mere workshop improvement, and must independently satisfy the test of invention or inventive step. It must produce a new result, or a new article or better or cheaper article than before. The new subject matter must involve “invention” over what is old. Mere collection of more than one, integers or things, not involving the exercise of any inventive faculty does not qualify for the grant of a patent. To decide whether an alleged invention involves novelty and an inventive step, certain broad criteria can be indicated. Firstly, if the “manner of manufacture patented, was publicly known, used or practiced in the before or at the date of patent, it will negate novelty or “subject matter”. Prior public knowledge of the alleged invention can be by word of mouth or by publication through books or other media. Secondly, of the alleged invention discovery must not be the obvious or natural suggestion of what was previously known.”

Mariappan v. AR Safiullah[7] – Manufacturing food grade paper in the shape of leaf is considered as an inventive step and therefore, the validity of the patent was upheld.

Turmeric Case[8] – A US-based University got a patent for a turmeric’s “wound healing properties”. Now, the fact of turmeric being used in India from the ancient times for its wound healing properties is considered traditional knowledge and this was challenged by CSIR on the ground of lack of novelty and inventive step. The USPTO revoked the patent granted to The University for lack of novelty and inventive step.

  1. Non-obviousness

Under Section 2(ja) of the Patents Act provides “the characteristic of an invention that involves technological advancement or is of economic importance or both, as compared to existing knowledge, and invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.” This means that the invention should not be obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the same field where the invention is concerned. It should not be inventive and obvious for a person ordinarily skilled in the same field.

Eg: If a person has made a robot that can finish tasks on voice commands, anybody else in the field of robotics should not be able to make the same. This is non-obviousness. If the invention can be made by anyone else, it is not an “invention” within the meaning of the Act.

The Supreme Court in the Novartis v. UOI[9] case broke down Section 2(ja) into its elements in the following way: “It [The product] must come into being as a result of an invention which has a feature that:

(a) entails technical advance over existing knowledge; Or

(b) has an economic significance And

(c) makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art”

Rado v. John Tye& Son Ltd.[10] – It is: “Whether the alleged discovery lies so much out of the track of what was known before as not naturally to suggest itself to a person thinking on the subject, it must not be the obvious or natural suggestion of what was previously known.

Graham v. John Deere Co[11]. – US SC has devised a test to find out the obviousness of an invention. There must be 3 checks –

  1. The difference btw prior art and challenged claims
  2. The level of ordinary skill in the field relating to the patent
  3. Whether one possessing that level of skill would have deemed to be obvious from the prior art reference.

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.[12] – Pfizer had obtained a patent on it drug “Protonix”. Few years later, Teva & Sun Pharma got a patent on “Pantoprozole”, an essential ingredient of Protonix. They started selling generic version of Protonix and made huge profits.

Pfizer challenged the grant of patent on the ground of it being obvious. They were able to prove that Teva had done this before with another drug called Prilosec where the defendants patented omeprazole. The Court ruled in the favour of Pfizer and Teva and Sun Pharma were asked to huge sums of money as damages.

4.Utility/Industrial Application

Industrial applicability is defined in Section 2 (ac) of the Patents Act as “the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry”. This basically means that the Invention cannot exist in the abstract. It must be capable of being applied in any industry, which means that it must have practical utility in respect of patent.

Eg: You discovered a bacterium which excretes a certain chemical “X”. This alone cannot be patented. There must be some use of the invention in question.

Melia’s application: The person had applied patent for his business model to exchange prison sentence to corporal punishment. The application was refused for the lack of industrial applicability.

CONCLUSION

These are the most important factors to be kept in mind while applying for a patent. Applying for a patent without checking for Subject-matter patentability, novelty, utility and non-obviousness would only lead to waste of time and money. Plus, there is always a threat from others that the invention infringes their patent rights. It is always better to have a thorough check of prior art regarding the invention that it to be patented. Therefore, it is always advisable to conduct a pre-application search for prior claims and obviousness, to avoid opposition later.

“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.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

[1] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

[2] Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013)

[3] Novartis AG v. UOI, 13 S.C.R. 148

[4] Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu & Ors, AIR 2019 SC 559

[5] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

[6] Case of the Turmeric Patent (1997, USPTO)

[7] 2008 (38) PTC 341 (Mad.)]

[8] Ibid, see footnote 6.

[9] Ibid, see footnote 3.

[10]  (1967) R.P.C. 297

[11] 383 U.S. 1 (1966)

[12] Civil No. 2:10cv128.

0

Protection to Women Under Industrial Laws

Articles , , , , , , ,

Abstract

This essay delves into the historical discrimination faced by women in India and the emergence of feminist movements to address gender inequalities. It focuses on the significance of industrial and labor laws in achieving social justice and gender equality. The paper highlights the challenges women encounter in the labor force, such as unequal opportunities, lower wages, and sexual harassment. It emphasizes the importance of equal pay, employment opportunities, and specialized protection for women. The essay also discusses the need for robust laws and implementation to ensure women’s welfare and empowerment. By examining various laws and protections, including maternity benefits and safeguards against hazardous work, the paper emphasizes the significance of creating a safe and equitable work environment for women. Ultimately, it underscores the importance of continuous efforts towards true gender equality and women’s empowerment through legal provisions and mechanisms.

Introduction

Half of India’s population comprises women, who have historically faced discrimination and continue to suffer in silence. Despite their nobility and fortitude displayed through self-sacrifice and self-denial, women have endured various inequities, indignities, and discrimination. The status of women varies across societies, be it developed, developing, or underdeveloped, yet they consistently occupy a disadvantaged position due to pervasive male dominance.

In response to this unequal treatment, various movements advocating for women’s rights emerged worldwide, leading to the concept of ‘Feminism.’ Feminism encompasses diverse social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, all aimed at addressing inequalities in social, political, and economic contexts experienced by women. In pursuit of this concept, laws have been enacted and rights granted to uplift women, along with various declarations supporting their civil, political, and basic human rights.

Recognizing the social disparities, laws were formulated to achieve social equality and justice and to safeguard women’s rights. The framers of the Indian constitution were also conscious of this issue and incorporated provisions empowering women, leading to the enactment of new laws and amendments to existing ones for the betterment of women’s position in society. As a result of these collective efforts, women now enjoy a stronger and improved standing in society.

The pursuit of gender equality in labor and industrial laws has transcended boundaries, encompassing almost every important sector, including labor regulations. The core objective has been to achieve social justice by creating provisions that protect women’s interests, eliminate gender discrimination, and provide them with various benefits, concessions, and safeguards. These measures aim to secure women from the risks associated with their work and offer them special rights and remedies, particularly in industries such as factories and mines.

Women and Industrial Law

 In the quest for social justice, the legal system should serve as an instrument of distributive justice, ensuring a fair division of wealth and equal opportunities based on the principle of “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” Ensuring gender equality and safeguarding women’s interests in labor and industrial laws are crucial aspects of this pursuit.

Industrial law holds a position of pride in the legal framework, as it not only addresses labor and industrial matters but also encompasses social concerns affecting children, women, and other marginalized sections of society. The Indian Constitution, driven by the vision of securing social, economic, and political justice for all citizens, irrespective of gender, empowers the state to make special provisions for women and children. This empowerment has led to the enactment of several laws, including the Factories Act, 1948, Mines Act, 1952, Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, designed to safeguard women’s interests and rights.

Challenges Faced by Women in the Labor Force

Despite the various laws aimed at strengthening women’s position, the participation of women in the labor force is dwindling due to multiple reasons. Job offers not aligning with their requirements create disparities between their potential and actual work. Moreover, security concerns, such as instances of sexual harassment in the workplace, and job opportunities mainly concentrated in the unorganized sector, further limit their access to benefits. Women also face challenges related to childbirth and domestic responsibilities, impacting their work-life balance. Consequently, women not only require equal rights but also specialized protection to achieve true gender equality.

Employment Opportunity and Equal Pay for Equal Work

Equal employment opportunity refers to providing both men and women with equal chances of employment, similar working conditions, and equal pay for the same or similar work. The principles of equality, recognized as natural law, are protected under Article 14 of the Constitution. Promoting equality in employment involves breaking down both horizontal and vertical occupational segregation.

In the case of Jitendra Prasad Singh v. TELCO[1], the court found that equality principles are substantially in the nature of natural law and that denial of equality would be a violation of the equality article, i.e. Article 14 of the Constitution. Promotion of equality in the workplace is a positive enforcement, as opposed to discrimination prevention, which is a type of negative right or negative equality. This entails dismantling both horizontal and vertical occupational segregation.

Article 39 of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens, including men and women, the right to an adequate means of livelihood and equal pay for equal work. However, despite these provisions, women often face lower wages and limited job opportunities, hindering their career advancement. Eliminating this disparity necessitates further efforts and a concrete law to ensure equal wages and opportunities for women.

The Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 was enacted with the goal of providing equal pay to men and women for the same or equivalent job. This statute requires employers to guarantee that both male and female employees are given equal chances and that there is no discrimination based only on gender. Section 5 of this legislation states that while recruiting for the same or comparable jobs, employers must not discriminate against women unless employment of women in that specific position is forbidden or limited by law. In case Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa[2], the court found that the authority should take a comprehensive view of the subject when determining whether the work is of the same or comparable kind and if the variations are of any practical relevance. This is because “differences in detail” are implied by the idea of similar work. These distinctions should not be used to undermine equality claims on minor grounds; instead, consider the tasks that are actually fulfilled as well as those that are theoretically attainable.

Sexual Harassment at Workplace:

Gender equality extends to protection from sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity, considered a universally recognized basic human right. Sexual harassment, including inappropriate remarks, physical contact, and compromising invitations, violates not only women’s fundamental rights but also their basic human rights. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, aims to protect women from such incidents and provides a mechanism for prevention and redressal of complaints.

Despite the existence of legislation, cases of unreported harassment persist, often due to fear of reprisals and societal disrespect. To empower women to speak against such offenses, stringent punishments and increased awareness about their rights and protections are essential.

In the case of Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors[3]., Supreme Court held that according to Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, sexual harassment of a woman at work would be a violation of her basic rights to gender equality and the right to life and liberty. The court determined that such an Act would be a breach of women’s human rights.

As a result of this case, the first of its kind standards were developed for women’s gender equality rights, which should be free of harassment in both public and private work. This decision prompted the Indian government to pass the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, which went into effect on December 9, 2013. This Act supplanted the Supreme Court of India’s Vishaka Guidelines for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment.

Special Benefits Given to Women

To further support women, various special benefits are provided, including maternity relief under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. This act grants maternity leaves and other benefits to pregnant and lactating women, protecting their well-being during and after childbirth.

Additionally, women are protected from working in hazardous environments, such as mines, where their health and physical fitness may be compromised. Women working night shifts are also provided with safety measures to ensure their well-being.

Conclusion

National and international laws have laid the foundation for women’s welfare and protection, prompting movements towards women’s empowerment in labor laws. Benefits like equal employment opportunity, equal pay for equal work, maternity relief, and protection from sexual harassment have been granted. However, despite these measures, more laws and stringent implementation are needed to achieve true gender equality. A robust redressal mechanism is essential to empower women to raise their voice against injustices they face. To achieve a truly equitable and inclusive work environment, the nation must strive for the effective implementation of laws and protection mechanisms, uplifting women and ensuring their rights and dignity.

“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.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

[1]  Jitendra Prasad Singh v. TELCO, 1999 2 LLJ 43 (Pat.)

[2] Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’Costa, (1987) 2 SCC 469

[3] Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., JT 1997 (7) SC 384 (Bhanwari Devi Case)

0

Do Jails Serve as a Form of Punishment or Rehabilitation? Examining the Destiny of Inmates.

Articles

Each person should be treated with equity, justice, and a moral conscience in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice. After the Supreme Court recognised Niranaram Chetanram Chaudhary’s [1]status as a juvenile in September 1994, he was recently released. He had served 28 years in prison for the seven murders.

Another noteworthy incident involved Father Stan Swamy, who was imprisoned for 270 days before he passed away. Umar Khalid, a former student at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a suspect in the Delhi riots, had been held captive for more than a thousand days.[2] Similar to this, many inmates who have been detained for years without being found guilty are still awaiting trial. These instances provide a glimpse into the circumstances that defendants and inmates deal with, but there is still a lot that the public is unaware of regarding the reality of life in prison cells.

LAW PROVISIONS:

According to criminal law, the accused is given substantial protection; this clause is stated explicitly in the Indian Constitution. A fundamental legal idea known as “presumption of innocence” serves as the foundation for the accused person’s protection under the law[3]. This rule guarantees that a defendant is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The idea holds that the accused always has the benefit of the doubt and is assumed to be innocent until the evidence at trial proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Indian Constitution and particular criminal law regulations protect this constitutional right. [4]According to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), these rights—which include ones for seizure, arrest, and more—can be used before the trial.[5]

An accused person has a right to protection from law enforcement agencies’ arbitrary and illegal arrests[6]. The Court must be cautious to avoid any abuse of authority for personal gain, even though criminal law gives police authorities broad authority to detain and question suspects charged with a Cognizable Offence without bringing them before a judicial officer.

No one should have their legal rights violated, regardless of the alleged crime or offence. Throughout the investigation and courtroom trial, the accused is protected by the law thanks to criminal law.

The rights of the defendant in a criminal trial are clearly defined by the Indian legal system. The rights of an accused person are governed by numerous criminal law provisions and specific laws. Effective defences for the accused during a criminal trial are also provided by legal precedents. The legislation includes safeguards against unfairly punishing innocent people in court.

 

Indian courts have established guidelines and protections that law enforcement agencies must adhere to while in custody and throughout the trial in order to guarantee a fair trial and uphold the principles of natural justice. These rights are intended to safeguard the accused and lessen their physical and emotional suffering throughout the legal process. In order to protect the rights of both defendants and prosecutors, India has adopted the idea of a speedy trial.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

The rights of the defendant in a criminal trial are clearly defined by the Indian legal system. The rights of an accused person are governed by numerous criminal law provisions and specific laws. Effective defences for the accused during a criminal trial are also provided by legal precedents. The legislation includes safeguards against unfairly punishing innocent people in court.

Indian courts have established guidelines and protections that law enforcement agencies must adhere to while in custody and throughout the trial in order to guarantee a fair trial and uphold the principles of natural justice[7]. These rights are intended to safeguard the accused and lessen their physical and emotional suffering throughout the legal process. In order to protect the rights of both defendants and prosecutors, India has adopted the idea of a speedy trial.

The Latin proverb “Nemo Bis Punitur Pro Eodem Delicto” [8]encapsulates the idea that no one should face two punishments for the same transgression or error. A person who has already been tried for a crime cannot be tried again for the same offence in a court of law, according to the principle of double jeopardy.

According to this rule, any additional conviction or acquittal for the same offence would violate both Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[9], 1973 and Article 20 clause (2) of the Constitution if the person has already been found guilty or cleared of a crime by a court with appropriate jurisdiction.

Furthermore, everyone has a right to an equal hearing before an impartial and independent tribunal under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR[10]). Their legal rights, responsibilities, and any charges that may be brought against them will be decided by this tribunal. International agreements on civil and political rights contain the principle of equality before the law in Article 14(1).

CONCLUSION:

The lack of basic amenities in jails, including adequate food, medical care, telephones, mattresses, fans, and even basic lighting, causes serious mental and physical problems for the inmates. Daily torture, isolation, violence, and struggle are endured by them; occasionally, this leads to suicide attempts. With a focus on providing correctional treatment to rehabilitate offenders, various legal principles, from retributive to reformative justice, have been emphasised over time.

These prisoners actually require counselling and a glimmer of hope for a future with a better quality of life. No accused person is incapable of reform, according to the Allahabad High Court, which is why every effort should be made to provide them with opportunities for rehabilitation in the case of Babu v. State of U.P.[11]

[1] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 340

[2] https://www-livelaw-in.svkm.mapmyaccess.com/articles/father-stan-swamy-uapa-martyr-but-political-prisoners-continue-to-suffer-without-bail-232260?infinitescroll=1%20accessed%2001%20August%202023

[3] Article 14 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

[4] Article 22 , right to freedom and personal liberty of the Indian constitution

[5] Section 50 of CrPC

[6] Article 21 to 22 of the Indian constitution

[7] Article 20(2) of the Indian constitution

[8] “Nemo bis punitur por eodem delicto.” A Law Dictionary, legal maxim in United States.

[9] Section 300 of CrPC

[10] Article 10 of Universal declaration of human rights

[11] 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 365

1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 79