0

Supreme Court ruled that a Pre-condition to bail prohibiting the members from engaging in Political Activities violates their Fundamental Rights

Case title: Siba Shankar Das @ Pintu Vs The State of Odisha & Anr.

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2523-2527 of 2024

Decision on: March 22nd, 2024

Quoram: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case

The issue in this case pertains to the imposition of restrictive conditions on the political engagements of the appellant.

Siba Shankar Das, who was a member of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) party before joining the BJP, found himself entangled in multiple criminal cases after switching allegiances. The Orissa High Court granted a conditional bail which prohibited him from engaging in any political activities, directly or indirectly, and from causing any public unrest. The appellant aggrieved by this decision sought recourse before the Supreme Court contending that it violated his constitutional rights.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court declined the plea of the respondent-State to provide an extension in time, on account of delay in the notice delivery and proceeded to adjudicate the matter. The Supreme Court ruled that imposing restrictive conditions and prohibiting the appellant from engaging in political activities as a pre-condition to bail would breach his fundamental rights and held such conditions to be invalid. It thereby, overturned the decision of the High Court.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Allahabad High Court Took The Initiative Too Safeguard The Future Of Kids In Child Care Institutions

Title: In Re: (Suo Moto) v/s  State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: PIL No. 2495 of 2023

Decided on: 19.10.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot

Introduction:

Inspection of various child care institutions throughout the State of U.P. was conducted by Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot, revealed various shortcomings and deficiencies in the running of the institution which directly implicate the fundamental rights of children of the said homes under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The shortcomings and deficiencies in running of the institution affects the Fundamental Right of children, the fundamental right to live with liberty under article 21 of the constitution is being violated due to shortcomings in the running of these child care institutions. Some of the shortcomings noticed are as follow:

  • The children are living in cramped conditions with little or no access to sunlight, fresh air, playgrounds or open spaces. The living conditions will impede a holistic growth of the children.
  • The staff in such homes is the most critical part of the functioning. In many cases the homes are not being headed by duly appointed supervisors and other staff members are not adequately trained
  • The budget allocation for the food items/diet, and other necessities of live has not been revised in many years
  • The educational facilities also need to be upgraded and diligently monitored.
  • Emotional development and physical activities of the children in these homes need special attention since they live in circumstances very different from other children.
  • The girl child has to be taken special care of and lady counsellors should appointed

Judgement and Analysis:

The living condition in these child care institutes are worst than prison cells, Various directions have been issued by the Juvenile Justice And POCSO Committee of this Court requesting the State Government to forthwith initiate measures to shift the homes where children live in overcrowded conditions to more spacious places with adequate facilities.

The State Government was directed to undertake an exercise for admission of the children in schools of repute in the vicinity of the homes. children of the homes shall be given the benefit of reservation in schools of repute in the Right to Education Act. Court also added State Government may consider waiving the requirement of income certificate of families for the purpose of grant of such benefit.

The Principal Secretary was directed to disclose the number of observation homes of different categories whether run by the Government or private agencies in the State of U.P. and with the aid of the Government on the next date and the number of children of different age groups residing in such institution.

“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: Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgment

0

The Amendment to the Information Technology Rules is not intended to suppress criticism of the Government: Central Government to the Bombay High Court

Kunal Kamra vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

CORUM: Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale

Background of the case

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics code) amendment rules, 2023, which give the Union government the authority to establish a distinct unit for fact-checking content from digital media and to order its removal if found to be “fake, false, or misleading,” was challenged by comedian Kunal Kamra in a petition filed with the Bombay high court on April 6,2023. The petition challenged the provision on the grounds that it violates Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

As a political satirist, Kamra had asserted that he is compelled to remark on the conduct of the Union government and its employees through the extensive internet and social media platforms in order to spread his work. His capacity to parody politics would be unjustly and excessively restricted if his content were put through an obviously subjective, hand-picked ‘fact check’ by a unit chosen by the Union administration. Therefore, he argues that satire does not lend itself to such a fact-checking effort by its very character. If political comedy were to be examined by the Union government and banned for being “fake, false, or misleading,” it would completely destroy the point of the genre.

Kamra argues that the ambiguity of “in respect of any business” and “reasonable efforts” will result in a chilling effect wherein intermediaries choose to resort to removing any data flagged by the fact-checking unit of the Union government rather than risk losing safe harbour.

Recent Developments in the Case

During the hearing of the petitions contesting changes to the Information Technology Rules of 2023, the Central government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday that humour or satire of any kind directed at any governing body is always acceptable as long as it is not offensive or contains obscenity.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, stated that the laws are simply meant to control false news and do not forbid any expression of opinion or criticism against the government.

“Whether we like it or not, any sarcasm or humour directed towards the political establishment has nothing to do with this rule. Unless the humour crosses lines with inappropriate content like abuse or pornography. In any form, humour satire is always welcome. It can’t be forbidden. The administration is solely concerned about the spread of false information and the anonymity of the media. There is not even the slightest chance that any humour or satire would fall under this law.”

The Rules call for the creation of fact-checking units (FCUs), and the petitioners have particularly disputed Rule 3’s authority for FCUs to identify and tag what they deem to be “false or fake online news” in relation to government actions.

Solicitor General outlined how the fundamental rights of five different stakeholders—the internet user, the middleman, the recipient, the government, and the general public—have been taken into account when drafting the Rules. Also made clear that nothing is made illegal or contains any penal provisions in the Rules of 2023. He clarified that the Rules only govern the content and settle disagreements between the content provider and the harmed party.

According to him, the intermediary has three alternatives when FCU flags content: remove it; don’t remove it but add a statement that it has been flagged; or dismiss communication from FCU. The court questioned the need for the change if the government was not going to oblige intermediaries to abide by the FCU’s instructions.

There is a wider public interest on the one hand, and a statute with confusing language on the other. Will it ever allow us to include qualifiers that don’t actually exist? How may “shall” (stated in rule 3) be given a different colour to preserve the safe harbour clause) and how can we read information as fact? Is it legal to interpret clauses in this way? The court posed the query after the session was over. If a person is offended by the message, they might take the middleman to court, which would ultimately determine whether or not the content was true. the change was necessary because it would prevent intermediaries from using the “safe harbour” defence provided by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act to avoid liability.

The recent clarification given by the Central Government to the Bombay High Court is significant reassurance. However, there is still cause for concern due to the rules vagueness, especially in regards to the operation of fact-checking units and the potential chilling impact on intermediaries. Our legal system must strike a fair and just balance as this case progresses, protecting both the freedom to criticise the government and the need to combat the dissemination of false information. This case illustrates the importance of ensuring the appropriate and accountable application of democratic values and the free expression they entail, even in the digital era.

 

 

“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: Shivanshi Singh

0

An Analysis of Begging as an offence in India.

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.