0

Constitutional Validity of Ordinance mandating 60% Kannada in sign boards

Blog , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka State government recently passed an ordinance which puts imposition on establishments such as shops, enterprises, and institution sign boards to use 60% Kannada. The Kannada Language Comprehensive Development (Amendment) ordinance ensures that all signboards and nameplates of commercial establishments, industries, hospitals and organizations will compulsorily have 60% information in Kannada[1].

In December, several establishments such as Starbucks were vandalized because of the lack of Kannada language in the signboards.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

Article 345 of the constitution of India states that a state can have its official language for the matters of promotion and publication of the majority-speaking language. It reads as,

“ 345. Official language or languages of a State[2].—Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State:

Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provided by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.”

As per this provision, the Kannada language was adopted as the official language. The main objective was to develop the regional language in furtherance of which the state enacted the Karnataka Official Language Act, 1963 and Karnataka Local Authorities (Official Language) Act, 1981.

Further in the year of 2015, Kannada Language Learning Act, 2015 was enacted to ensure the learning of Kannada as one of the languages in all schools in the state of Karnataka[3].

NEED FOR THE ORDINANCE :

The government’s fundamental reason for enacting such rules was that despite such enactments, notifications and orders, there is no progress in the implementation of the official language. It was presumed that the Kannada language was not taught up to expectations by the schools. This pattern was specifically seen in the higher or technical or professional education classes.

Another main reason was that there was no implementation of the Kannada language in offices, industries, shops and establishments. The ordinance states that :

“Considering the scenario, to ensure the extensive use and propagation of Kannada Language and to coordinate the activities relating to the implementation of Kannada as Official Language new law is essential”

Other features of the Act also include setting up obligations for businesses to issue the directions of use in Kannada, reservation of seats for students who have studied in Kannada medium, establishing kannada cells by manufacturers to promote kannada in daily work. The ordinance also mandates that for non-kannada speaking employees teaching units to be set up[4].

ANALYSIS :

The amendment of the language act proposes the promotion of the Kannada language in an indirect manner. It is contemplated that these rules if not followed would only lead to more harm and violent behaviour from mobs. The primary question that arises is, whether this rule along with the bill is unfair to other citizens of the country who are domiciled in Karnataka.

Under the ambit of Article 14, the state should ensure that there is equal treatment to all the citizens and that should be upheld by the state machinery. The Supreme Court held that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly in various instances[5]. The rules put an imposition on the businesses to employ persons who are fluent in Kannada. This disposes of the idea of equality as the enjoyment of privileges only by the “Kannadigas” is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Additionally, it is a fundamental right of the citizens to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Adding an arbitrary rule on how business should express or the employees must be hired based on language seems purely not in line with the law. The Supreme Court also held that giving preference based on language gives undue advantage to less meritorious candidates must be followed[6].

It has been held multiple times by the courts that forcing someone to learn a language goes beyond all ideas of democracy. The free state concept, that is the right citizens hold to express themselves is an absolute privilege that must not be regulated. In the case of the Kailash Chandra Sharma V State of Rajasthan[7], The Court noted that treating a person with permanent residence in Tamil Nadu or who speaks Tamil, differently in Karnataka may violate his right against discrimination and freedom to freely move through the country.  It also noted that it would derecognise the essential unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent states. 

While it is completely reasonable to promote language as it is constitutionally valid, the balance between extensiveness and intensity of such promotion should be met. Noncompliance with the rules comes along with the penalty of fines to the establishments.

In a survey, it was identified that in over 12 districts of Karnataka, at least 10% of the domicile residents are non-kannada speakers[8]. This gives the idea that the implementation of such rules would make the everyday lives of non-kannada speaker extremely difficult as they are forced to learn a new language.

CONCLUSION :

The Chief Minister of Karnataka gave way for 60% Kannada in signboards of various institutions including hospitals in the doorway of promoting the language. The CM has also stated that the rest of the board can be in any other language. However, the problem arises in interpreting the 60% and the violent reactions for non-compliance despite there being a law to provide a penalty.  The rule should be in such a way that it does not hamper business and maintain peace and order in the country. It should be kept in mind that in a democracy like India, where all cultures and practices are welcomed, the rules should be made in consonance with the same neutral perspective.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Yamini CS, “Karnataka cabinet approves 60% Kannada language rule on sign boards”, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Jan 06, 2024) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/bengaluru-news/karnataka-cabinet-approves-60-kannada-language-rule-on-sign-boards-101704523506007.html

[2] Constitution of India, Art 345

[3] THE KANNADA LANGUAGE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2022

[4]The kannada language comprehensive development bill, 2022 – State legislative brief https://prsindia.org/bills/states/the-kannada-language-comprehensive-development-bill-2022#_edn10

[5] Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., 2000.

[6] Sunanda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995), AIR1995 SC 914.

[7] Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002), AIR2002 SC 2877.

[8] Population Census 2011 : PRS

0

A person in managerial position cannot be termed as an workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 : Bombay HC

Blog , , , , ,

TITLE : Rohit Dembiwal v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav

DATE :  2nd January 2024

CITATION : WP No 10523 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Petitioner was appointed as IT Analyst Grade C-2 on basic salary of Rs.14,500/- per month excluding all other benefits. Few months later he was confirmed in the services of respondent company. However he was terminated the next year and he contends that the due process of law was not followed. The industrial court held that he was in a supervisory position and hence the provisions of labour law would not be attracted

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 :

(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute

Section 3(5) of The Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

(5) “employee” in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in clause (13) of section 3 of the Bombay Act; and in any other case, means a workman as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Central Act;

ISSUES

whether the Petitioner can be qualified as a workmen under the definition of ‘workman’ contained in Section 2(s) of the ID Act and consequently definition of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act

JUDGEMENT

By analyzing the witnesses in the proceedings, it was observed that the petitioner was acting in managerial capacity. It was seen that Petitioner was a Module leader of the assignment given to him. It was seen that Petitioner was empowered to grant planned leave to associates working with him in that module and his signature was appended on the time sheet. Petitioner’s job was to analyse the nature of job, issues concerned, problems faced by the customer and assign the same to team members working under him according to their expertise for resolution of the same.

The court held that the labour court was right in holding that the petitioner does not fall under the category of workmen and upheld the order.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Bombay HC dismisses the order set by appellate authority as the same person rejected the developer’s application for reconstruction

Blog , , ,

TITLE : S.K Realty v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav

DATE :  2nd January 2024

CITATION : WP No 13458 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Appellate authority. The order from the lower authority was that the plots should be treated as separate units to be certified as tenants and grant revised NOC for redevelopment of the property. The order was alleged to have seriously breached the principles of natural justice.

LAWS INVOLVED

The schedule 3 of the MAHADA, 1976 states the scale showing the percentage of built up area to be reserved by the co-operative society for allotment by the board for building reconstructed for residential purposes and commercial purposes

ISSUES

  1. Whether the order passed by the appellate authority valid?

JUDGEMENT

It was found that the authority who passed the order was the same authority who was the vice president and chief executive officer who has rejected the application proposal for eligibility of the developer. The order was set aside on the ground that the authority had prior interest in the developer property.

The court took cognizance of 3rd schedule of the Maharashtra and Area Development Act, 1976 to review the eligibility of allotment of tenants.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Review application is not valid for an order passed by a Quasi Judicial Body : Bombay HC

Blog , , ,

TITLE : Sitara Anil Sharma V The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Madhav J Jamdar

DATE :  19th   December, 2023

CITATION : WP No 15250 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition intended to challenge the order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The committee directed “Respondent No.2 to pay applicable Transit Rent to the Applicant and to register the Agreement (within 10 working days) executed on 20.04.2022 between Respondent No.2 & the Applicant for Permanent Alternate Accommodation”, which was further changed into “This Committee directs Respondent No.2 to pay applicable transit rent to the Applicant and to execute the Agreement (within 10 days) with the Applicant for Permanent Alternate Accommodation.”

Respondent No. 2 Developer agreed to provide Shop premises admeasuring 600 Sq ft (225 sq ft free of cost as per SRA and rules and balance 375 sq ft RERA carpet area from sale building) in regards to same Respondent No.2 also executed agreement dated 26.11.2009

LAWS INVOLVED

The court relied on the Supreme court case to analyse whether review application Is maintainable for quasi judicial orders :

In the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, wherein it has been held that it is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the Review Application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi judicial Orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the Order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction

ISSUES

  1. Whether review by the AGRC valid?

JUDGEMENT

It is a settled rule of law that unless a Statute of rules permit, a review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi judicial orders. What has been done by the AGRC is that under the guise of styling the Order as speaking to the minutes of Order passed on 28th June 2023, the Order was effectively reviewed. The order was set aside.

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Deepfakes and AI : How the government plans to execute a regulatory framework as per the IT rules and IT Act,2000

Blog , , , ,

Introduction

Deepfakes are manipulated versions of pictures of video where techniques like morphing is used to falsely pretend as someone else. It is a tool of misrepresentation which has an abundance of consequences behind it. Recently, many popular personalities have become victim of the deep fake use.

Currently, there are no concentrated regulations to stop these types of innovations. One of the primary legislations for preventing and prohibiting deepfakes currently in India is the IT Act, 2000. It is under the scope of violation of privacy to circulate or publish of a person’s images in mass media[1].

However, the IT act is not sufficient to tackle the specific need for a Deepfake or AI regulation in the country.

Existing Regulation :

The IT Act, 2000[2] and IT Rules[3] specify provisions for the violation of privacy against an individual and also the appropriate punishments.

Punishments :

Section 66A provides that any person who sends offensive or false or misleading information through message is punishable with 3 years along with fine.

Section 66C of the Act provides that if any person does an act which impersonates another person through signature or unique identification feature, shall be punished for 3 years.

Section 66E provides for the violation of privacy against any person. It includes publishing or captures obscene images without consent, shall be punished for three years alongside a fine of upto Rs.2,00,000.

The punishment fir publishing any form of obscene material shall be punished under Section 67 and Section 67A provides punishment for publishing any sexually explicit act. Section 67B punishes any person for transmitting or publishing any obscene media of children.

IT rules :

Rule 3(1)(b) gives directions to intermediaries. Intermediaries are the controllers of data and stores data for their internet application or websites.

Intermediaries are defined under Section 2(w) as:

“―intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”

Rule 3(1)(b) states that :

No intermediary shall host, display, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that :

  • Belongs to another person
  • The content is obscene, invasive of bodily privacy of another person, encourages money laundering etc.
  • Such content is harmful to a child
  • It infringes any intellectual property
  • It misleads the viewer about the origin of the message or communicates any misinformation through its interface.
  • Impersonates another person
  • Is a public threat to the security and sovereignty of India.

However, the IT Act provides that the intermediaries will not be liable under Section 79(1) of the Act :

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him.”

MeitY Advisory notification :

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an advisory notification governing the intermediaries to follow the IT rules in prevention of circulating deepfakes.

The advisory notification mentions that the users needs to be specifically mentioned about the type of content which is prohibited under the IT rules. The communication should be in precise language and must be easily interpreted. The ministry also advised to set up regular reminders to the users on the prohibited content, for example during every login or while registering as a new account in the interface[4].

The users must be informed about the penal provisions attracted to the violation of Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT rules. The penal laws attracting Rule 3(1)(b) are the IPC and the IT Act. It specifies that in the terms and conditions of the application, the intermediaries must clearly highlight that intermediaries/platforms are under obligation to report legal violations to the law enforcement agencies under the relevant Indian laws applicable to the context[5].

 The advisory also emphasised on the Rule 3(1)(b)(v) which states that :

Any content which :

“deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature” shall be removed by the intermediary as a part of their duty.

Furthermore, it added that It is the responsibility of platforms to make reasonable measures to stop users from hosting, displaying, uploading, altering, publishing, sending, storing, updating, or distributing any content that is forbidden on digital intermediaries or information connected to any of the 11 mentioned user harms[6].

Does AI and deepfake need separate legislation :

The IT Act and IT rules no doubt provide an extensive scope for covering AI and deepfake violations. However, the regulations are ex-post regulations. It means that the scope for preventing these issues beforehand is not covered by the Act. The Act and the Rules only provide for the remedy after the damage has been done.

Innovations and new technological advancements is not the drawback of AI and deepfakes, it is the misuse of such which is causing a huge gap between privacy and technological advancement. The mechanism of “cure after damage” should be changed.

It is advised that the technological framework should be of ex-ante regulation which follows the mechanism of preventing a wrong to happen.

It was also stated that the MEITY has no legal enforcement and therefore the big companies and intermediaries are not legally binding to follow the advice [7].

Conclusion :

Things are not what they seem. Especially with the developing technology, it is hard to identify the origin of a particular media format. It is essential for a country like India which has a huge number of internet users to have specific legislation which extends the scope of regulating artificial intelligence and deepfakes.

It is important to recognize the need for artificial intelligence in the existing work culture of the country, however, it should not be done at the expense of violation of one’s right to privacy which is protected under the Constitution along with the new DPDP Act, 2023

“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- Sanjana Ravichandran

[1] Abha Shah and Nitika Nagar, The deepfake Dilemma : Navigating truth and deception in Today’s digital era, MONDAQ (Dec 14, 2023) https://www.mondaq.com/india/new-technology/1401876/the-deepfake-dilemma-navigating-truth-and-deception-in-todays-digital-era#:~:text=Deepfake%20technology%20refers%20to%20a,of%20deep%20learning%20and%20fake.

[2] The information Technology Act, 2000 (Act. No 21 of 2000)

[3] The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S,R. 139(E), published in the Gazette of India.

[4] Deep Fake issue : IT ministry tells social media platforms to comply with rules or face action, MINT (Dec 26,2023) https://www.livemint.com/technology/tech-news/govt-ministry-deepfake-advisory-content-not-permitted-it-rules-must-be-clearly-communicated-to-users-11703598291391.html

[5]PIB Delhi  MeitY issues advisory to all intermediaries to comply with existing IT rules, PIB

( 26 DEC 2023 6:34PM) https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1990542#:~:text=The%20directive%20specifically%20targets%20the,clearly%20and%20precisely%20to%20users.

[6] India: MeitY set to introduce regulations on deepfakes, ONE TRUST DATAGUIDANCE (Nov 23, 2023) https://www.dataguidance.com/news/india-meity-set-introduce-regulations-deepfakes

[7] Aaratrika Bhaumik, Regulating deepfakes and generative AI in India | Explained, THE HINDU (Dec 4, 2023) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11