0

The Allahabad High Court held that section 17 UP-Lokayukta And Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta Act Does Not Preclude High Court’s Authority Under Article 226

Blog ,

Title: Masood Ahmad Khan v. State of UP and Ors.

Decided on: 06 November, 2023

+ Writ- A No. 10788 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Munir J

Introduction

Based on a review of its ruling by any court, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the bar established in Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 does not apply to the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Facts of the Case

Due to accusations that the petitioner had falsified his birthdate in the service record, his services were terminated. The writ court overturned the termination judgment on the grounds that he had already reached superannuation age. This was predicated on allegations that he had falsified his birthdate in the service record. Nevertheless, the petitioner was suspended pending further investigation. The petitioner’s attorney argued that the High Court had already overturned the petitioner’s termination without allowing the Nagar Palika Parishad to take up the case again. Because of this, the respondents lacked the authority to suspend the petitioner and bring legal action against him for allegedly falsifying his birthdate in the service book.

Courts analysis and decision

The Court decided that manipulation is not just “overwriting” or “cutting,” but that it can also be accomplished in other ways. Therefore, the absence of “overwriting” or “cutting” does not prove that the records were not altered. The Court decided that Nagar Palika Parishad is still free to carry out additional investigation despite this fact being noted in the decision. The Court noted that Section 17(2) solely restricts the regular jurisdiction of the Courts and cannot be interpreted as limiting the High Court’s authority under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the Court denied the petition and instructed the inquiry officer to wrap up the investigation in three months.

“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- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

India that is Bharat: A legal perspective (NCERT Panel is set to use Bharat instead of India in textbooks)

Articles , , , ,

NCERT to change India Into Bharat in textbooks:

The recommendation of a high-level committee appointed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to update the social sciences curriculum for schools is to replace the word “India” in school textbooks with the word “Bharat,” which has infuriated opposition politicians. The NCERT stated that it was “too premature” to comment on the matter, emphasizing that the panel’s recommendations had not yet been accepted.

four months ago, the idea was submitted to the NCERT, which approved the suggestion to substitute “Bharat” for “India.” Referencing the Hindu Vishnu Purana, he argued that the term “Bharat” was a more fitting moniker for the nation.

Prof. Shinde stated, “Everyone on the panel has decided to replace India with Bharat.” Additionally, the committee suggested that all Indian dynasties be included equally in textbooks rather than just one or two. We have also suggested that the syllabus be updated to reflect the ongoing national discoveries. Prof. Shinde said, “These discoveries can be historical or archaeological, among other things.

The history of the name India:

The name India originated from a geographical aspect, the name India originates from the river Sindhu. Originally the word India did not exist the Aryans in 600 BCE to 300 BCE used to call the Indus River Sindhu River (Sindhu being a Sanskrit word). Then a Greek explorer named Scylax of Caryanda explored the river Indus and it gave birth to the word Indos. And with the passage of time, Indos became India. This name was also used for the civilization which was across the Sindhu/Indus River and the civilization we are talking about is the Harrapan Civilisation. Which was also called the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Origin of the word Bharat:

When we talk about the name Bharat it is not a geographical or a foreign term given to us, but quite the opposite to that it has been a part of our culture and history for a very long time. The first time ever that the term Bharat was used in the oldest Vedic Sanskrit text the Rigveda and it was written by Ved Veyas. The term Bharat is used as a reference to Bharata who was the king of the Bharata clan. King Bharata won the battle between 10 kings after which for the first time our country was united.

Another significant indication of Bharat being attached to our culture and history is the holy book “Mahabharat”, the book also talks about the Bharata clan and the battle of Mahabharat that took place in the northern part of our country. Apart from these references in the books, around 2100 years ago in Odisha in the Hathigumpha Caves, the word Bharatvarsh was carved. The term Bharatvarsh was used for the gigantic region of our country and not the whole country.

In the Vishnu Purana, there is a geographical description of Bharat. It says, “Uttaram yat samudrasya, Himadreschaiva dakshinam, varsham tad Bharatam nama Bharati yatra santatih”. It means that Bharatam, or Bharat is the country that lies to the north of the ocean and to the south of the snowy mountains.[1]

Constitutional say on the term Bharat:

The adaption of the term Bharat for our country is not something new and alien introduced by the government, rather it also has been a part of our constitution Article 1 states:

“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule
⁠The territory of India shall comprise —
(a) the territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified[2]

So the government’s initiative to use the term Bharat instead of India is not unconstitutional or illegal. Apart from just being lawful the term Bharat connects us to the roots of our country and directs us in the direction of understanding the origin and history of our country. The same history has been manipulated and erased in the Mughal and the Colonial period.

Rashtrapati Bhawan extended invites for a G-20 luncheon on September 9 on behalf of the “President of Bharat,” which gave rise to the India-Bharat dispute last month. The usage of the word Bharat in English has been condemned by opposition political parties since it has been a long-standing desire of the RSS.

The administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often said that they lean towards using the term “Bharat.” In 2022, PM Modi made a number of promises to the people during his Independence Day address, one of which was to eradicate all signs of slavery. The adoption of Bharat as the new name might be seen as a symbolic move in the direction of valuing the cultural character of our country.

Conclusion:

Adopting the name Bharat instead of India for our country is a well-thought-out step taken in the positive direction, this will help the minds of the nation move past the colonial norms and practices. For the new generation, this step is crucial as it will connect them with our original roots and will help in making them keen on our rich culture and history.

“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 falls into the 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: Sushant Kumar Sharma

 

[1] Srishti Singh Sisodia, Explained | Origin of the name ‘Bharat’ – India’s past, present and future, WION (Sep 6,2023,4:30PM), https://www.wionews.com/india-news/explained-origin-of-bharat-indias-past-present-and-future-632906

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 1, cl. 1.

0

An Analysis of Begging as an offence in India.

Articles , , , , , ,

Abstract:

There is no central law in India that criminalizes begging. In India 22 states and union territories have their own anti-begging laws. These laws vary from state to state, but they generally make it an offence to beg in public places. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, is the most common anti-begging law in India. This law defines begging as “the act of proffering, or soliciting or receiving alms in a public place”. It also makes it an offence to employ a beggar or to abet begging. The anti-begging laws have been challenged in court on the grounds that they violate the fundamental rights of beggars. The Supreme Court has ruled that the laws are constitutional, but only if they are implemented in a fair and just manner. In practice, the anti-begging laws are often used to harass and discriminate against beggars. Beggars are often arrested and detained without trial, and they may be forced to undergo rehabilitation programs that are not in their best interests.

Keywords: Begging, Exploitation, Trafficking, Fundamental rights.

Introduction:

Begging is the practice of imploring others to grant a favour, often a gift of money, with zero expectation of reciprocation. A person doing such is called a beggar or panhandler. Beggars may operate in public places such as transport routes, urban parks, and markets. Besides money, they may also ask for food, drink, cigarettes or other small items. In India, begging is a complex issue with a long history. It is estimated that there are over 500,000 beggars in India, and the problem is particularly acute in urban areas. There are many reasons why people beg, including poverty, disability, mental illness, and addiction. The Indian government has enacted a number of laws to regulate begging, but these laws have been criticized for being ineffective and for violating the fundamental rights of beggars. The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, for example, makes it a crime to beg in public places. This law has been challenged in court and has been found to be unconstitutional.  There are a number of reasons why begging is illegal in India. One reason is that it is seen as a form of vagrancy and a social nuisance. Begging can also be a form of exploitation, with beggars often being forced to beg by their pimps or traffickers. Additionally, begging can be a threat to public health, as beggars may be carrying diseases or parasites. The penalties for begging under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act vary depending on the circumstances. If a beggar is found begging for the first time, they may be warned or fined. If they are found begging a second time, they may be imprisoned for up to three months or fined up to Rs. 500. If they are found begging a third time, they may be imprisoned for up to one year or fined up to Rs. 1,000. There are a number of ways to address the issue of begging in India. One way is to provide social welfare programs that can help to prevent people from becoming beggars in the first place. Another way is to crack down on the exploitation of beggars by their pimps or traffickers. Additionally, public awareness campaigns can be used to discourage people from giving money to beggars. It is important to note that begging is not always a sign of poverty or desperation. In some cases, people may beg as a way to make a living or to support their families. Begging can also be a symptom of deeper social problems, such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of education. It is important to remember that beggars are human beings who deserve our compassion and understanding. We should not criminalize begging, but we should work to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion that force people to beg in the first place.

Constitution and Begging:

The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention begging. There are a few provisions in the Constitution that could be interpreted to prohibit begging.

  • Article 23(1) prohibits forced labour and other forms of exploitation. This could be interpreted to include begging, as it can be seen as a form of exploitation.
  • Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This could be interpreted to mean that the government cannot force people to beg.
  • Article 39(e) and (f) of the Directive Principles of State Policy state that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to adequate means of livelihood, and that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. This could be interpreted to mean that the government should take steps to address the root causes of begging, such as poverty and unemployment.

The anti-begging laws in India are based on these constitutional provisions. These laws vary from state to state, but they generally make it an offense to beg in public places. The penalties for begging can include imprisonment, fines, and/or detention in a beggars’ home. The constitutionality of the anti-begging laws has been challenged in court several times. In some cases, the courts have upheld the laws, while in other cases they have struck them down. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled definitively on the constitutionality of the anti-begging laws.

Why Begging Should be Criminalized.

  • Begging is seen as a public nuisance.Beggars can be seen as a nuisance to the public, as they can block sidewalks, traffic, and public spaces. They can also be seen as a threat to public safety, as they may be associated with crime or violence.
  • Begging can be exploitative.Some beggars are forced to beg by others, such as pimps or traffickers. These people may take advantage of the beggars’ vulnerability and force them to work in dangerous or exploitative conditions.
  • Begging can discourage people from seeking help.Some people may be reluctant to seek help from social services if they are afraid of being arrested for begging. This can make it more difficult for people to get the help they need to escape poverty and homelessness.
  • Criminalizing begging can help to reduce poverty. By making begging illegal, the government can discourage people from resorting to begging as a way to make money. This can help to reduce poverty by encouraging people to find more productive ways to earn a living.

Why Begging Should be Decriminalized.

  • It violates the right to life.The Constitution of India guarantees the right to life to all citizens. Criminalizing begging puts people in a difficult situation where they have to choose between begging and starving. This is a violation of their right to life.
  • It is ineffective in addressing the root causes of begging.Begging is often a symptom of poverty, lack of education, and mental illness. Criminalizing begging does not address these underlying issues. In fact, it can make them worse by making it more difficult for people to get the help they need.
  • It is cruel and unusual punishment.Arresting and imprisoning people for begging is cruel and unusual punishment. These people are often already struggling to survive, and being arrested and imprisoned will only make their situation worse.
  • It diverts resources away from more effective solutions.The money that is spent on arresting, imprisoning, and detaining beggars could be better spent on providing them with food, shelter, education, and mental health care. These are the things that will actually help them to get out of poverty and become self-sufficient.

Alternatives rather than criminalizing begging:  

  • Providing social welfare programs.The government can provide food, shelter, education, and healthcare to people who are struggling to make ends meet. This will help to reduce the number of people who are forced to beg.
  • Creating job opportunities.The government can create jobs and training programs to help people to get back on their feet. This will give them the opportunity to earn a living and support themselves.
  • Providing mental health care.Many beggars are suffering from mental illness. The government can provide them with access to mental health care so that they can get the treatment they need.

Ram Lakhan vs State (Delhi High Court)

Facts:

The case involved Ram Lakhan, who was convicted of begging under Section 3 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. He challenged his conviction on the ground that the Act was unconstitutional as it violated his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

  • Whether the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India?
  • Whether the mere act of begging can be said to be a crime?
  • Whether the court can order the detention of a beggar in a certified institution without giving him an opportunity to be heard?

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court held that the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the mere act of begging cannot be said to be a crime. The Court also held that the court cannot order the detention of a beggar in a certified institution without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Ram Lakhan v. State is a landmark judgment that has had a significant impact on the law of begging in India. The judgment has helped to protect the fundamental rights of beggars and ensure that they are not subjected to arbitrary detention.

Discussion:

Beggars are often seen as dirty and diseased, and they can be a source of annoyance to pedestrians and motorists. Additionally, beggars can sometimes be aggressive in their solicitation of alms, which can make people feel unsafe. Many beggars are forced to beg by their families or pimps, and they are often not given any of the money they collect. Additionally, begging can be a form of child labour, as many children are forced to beg on the streets. Making begging a criminal offense can deter people from begging and encourage them to find other ways to support themselves. Begging is often a symptom of a larger problem, such as poverty or mental illness. Criminalizing begging does not address the root causes of the problem and may actually make it worse. Making begging a criminal offense canstigmatize beggars and make it even more difficult for them to get the help they need. There is a risk of police abuse if begging is made a criminal offense. Police officers may be tempted to use excessive force against beggars, especially if they are poor or marginalized.  Beggars are often seen as dirty and diseased, and they can be a source of annoyance to pedestrians and motorists. Additionally, beggars can sometimes be aggressive in their solicitation of alms, which can make people feel unsafe. Many beggars are forced to beg by their families or pimps, and they are often not given any of the money they collect. Additionally, begging can be a form of child labour, as many children are forced to beg on the streets. There are a number of laws and policies in place in India aimed at preventing and rehabilitating beggars. The National Policy for the Elimination of Beggary, 2014, provides a framework for the government to address the issue of begging. The policy aims to provide education, skills training, and employment opportunities to beggars, as well as to provide them with shelter and medical care. The government has also set up a number of rehabilitation centers for beggars. These centers provide beggars with food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. They also provide beggars with education and skills training, so that they can find employment and become self-sufficient. Despite the efforts of the government, begging remains a problem in India. There are a number of challenges to addressing the issue of begging, including poverty, illiteracy, and lack of employment opportunities. The government is committed to eliminating begging, and it is working to develop more effective policies and programs to address this issue.

In my opinion, making begging a criminal offense is not the best way to address the issue. Begging is a symptom of a larger problem, and criminalizing it does not address the root causes. Instead, the government should focus on providing social welfare programs and services to help people who are struggling to make ends meet. This would help to reduce the number of people who are forced to beg and make it easier for those who are already begging to get the help they need.

Conclusion:

The question of the legality of begging is complex and there are strong arguments on both sides. Some people argue that begging is a form of exploitation and that the government has a responsibility to protect people from it. Others argue that begging is a form of free expression and that the government should not interfere with it. Ultimately, the question of whether or not begging is a crime is a matter of public policy. The government will need to weigh the various factors involved, such as the rights of beggars, the needs of the community, and the effectiveness of the anti-begging laws, in order to make a decision. Instead of criminalizing begging, the Indian government should focus on addressing the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. This includes providing financial assistance to poor people, providing job training and placement services, and providing mental health services. The government should also crack down on trafficking and other forms of exploitation that force people to beg. The government of India is committed to addressing the issue and providing assistance to beggars. With continued effort it is possible to eliminate begging in India and improve the lives of those who are currently forced to beg.

 References:

https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/anti-begging-laws-in-india#:~:text=Begging%20is%20not%20a%20crime,found%20begging%20in%20public%20places.

https://knowlaw.in/index.php/2022/10/21/is-beggary-a-crime/

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13009-criminalization-of-begging-in-india.html

https://www.hindustantimes.com/editorials/the-supreme-court-is-right-on-begging-101627471711972.html

https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/decriminalising-begging

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1367-beggary-laws-in-india-a-constitutional-analysis.html

https://socialwelfare.delhi.gov.in/social/beggary-prevention

http://www.arthapedia.in/index.php/Begging

https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/striking-down-of-beggary-act

https://www.dhyeyaias.com/current-affairs/perfect-7-magazine/beggary-in-india

137 (2007) DLT 173.

Article Written By: Jangam Shashidhar.

0

Burning A Copy of The Constitution: The Court Condemns the Delhi Police for Being Unsuccessful to Complete an Investigation into the 2018 SC/ST Act Case and Issues a Summons to the ACP

Blog ,

Title: State Vs Deepak Gaur

IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS SC No. 360/2018, FIR No. 75/2018 153A/505/120B/34 IPC

Order Dated- 27.05.2023

Introduction

On Saturday, the Delhi Court reprimanded the Delhi Police for failing to conclude an investigation into the alleged burning of a copy of the constitution and the chanting of anti-SC/ST slogans during a protest on Parliament Street in 2018.

Contrary to the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this court has repeatedly urged the investigating officer and senior officers to conclude the investigation that has been lingering since 2018, despite having 60 days to do so. “It is extremely disheartening to note that despite this court’s specific observation regarding the delay in conducting an investigation, the investigating officer has failed to comply,” the court stated.

A copy of the previous order was also sent to the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner and Special Commissioner of Police, according to Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala, with the hope that bringing the matter to the attention of senior police officers will yield some results. The court added that it appears that senior police officers are also napping on the case.

Facts of the Case

According to a report by The Hindu, the FIR was filed “in connection with Youth for Equality protesters burning a copy of the Constitution and shouting slogans against B.R. Ambedkar and the SC/ST community.” Saturday, the police informed the court that the investigation had been assigned to Additional DCP-I/South West District but could not be completed due to a lack of time.

In an order dated 27 May, the court stated that on the last date of the hearing, the Additional Commission/Joint Commissioner of Police was informed that according to the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the investigation must be concluded within 60 days and the supplementary charge sheet must be filed without delay. “However, despite this court’s specific observation and reminder to the Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Police, even the investigation’s status report has not been filed with this court,” the court said.

Courts Analysis and decision

The court described it as a “classic example” where the Supreme Court’s observation in National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights v. Union of India is directly applicable. “The Honourable Supreme Court in Case (supra) stated, ‘We have closely examined the evidence on file, and we are of the opinion that the authorities in question have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The laudable purpose for which the Act was enacted is undermined by the indifference of the authorities,’ the court stated. Instructing IO ACP Ajay Gupta to appear in court on the next date of hearing along with the investigation’s status, the court ordered the Special Commissioner of Police (concerning Range) to expedite the investigation of the case in accordance with the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

“The Special Commissioner of Police (involved Range) is ordered to file a status report by the next date, i.e., June 8, 2023, regarding the measures taken to assure a swift investigation in this case. The Special Commissioner of Police (involved Range) is also directed to file the report under his own signature in accordance with the above order.” The court also ordered that a duplicate of its current order as well as the previous order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, in order to bring to his attention, the conduct of the police officials, namely the Investigating Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and Additional/Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

 

 

“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- Anushka Satwani

1 2 3