Eat.Sleep.Law

Two Articles of the Indian Constitution become very important in the evolution of this Doctrine i.e., Article 13, which serves as Protector of Fundamental Rights and Article 368, which holds the power to Amend the Constitution.   When we clash Article 13 & Article 368, some very questions come before us. Can the Constitution be amended by the Parliament? Can the Preamble be amended by the Parliament? Can the Fundamental Rights be amended by the Parliament?  Is the Amendment Power under Article 368 being absolute? Are there any restrictions on it? Now the whole discussion was over the tussle of Power and the question is who is supreme, the Supreme Court or the Parliament? And for that, we need to see the series of events. The question is whether FRs can be amended by the parliament under Article 368 came for the consideration of the supreme court within a year of the constitution coming into force. In the Shankari Prasad Case, 1951, the constitutional validity of the first amend

Short Notes: Habeas Corpus:     A writ of habeas corpus is used to compel a person who has detained another to produce such another before the court, so that the court can know the grounds on which the person has been confined and to release the person if there is no legal justification for that person’s confinement. A writ habeas corpus would become infructuous if the detenu is produced before the magistrate. Illustration :   The police arrested A from his home, and no information about A’s where about or place of confinement, condition, was available for days on end. A’s brother B, files a petition before the Supreme Court can issue writ of habeas corpus against the police authorities, directing them to produce   A before the court. Mandamus :  The word “mandamus” translates literally into ‘command’. This writ is issued to provide for remedies for the enforcement of rights where a fundamental right is infringed by a statute, statutory order, or a “non-statu

Savigny’s theory stated that law is the product of Volksgeist, which contains the whole  history of the nation’s Culture and which also reflects the inner convictions of the society which are deep-rooted in the society’s experience. So, Volksgeist drives law slowly to development.   Law develops like a language - Savigny remarked that law has a national character and it develops like language and binds people into one whole because of their common faiths, beliefs and convictions. He pointed out that law grows, with the growth of the society and gains its strength from the society itself and finally, it withers away as the nation loses its nationality. Law, language, customs and government have no separate existence from the people who follow them. Common conviction of the people make all these as a single whole. The central theme of Savigny’s historical jurisprudence may be summarised thus: "Law grows with the nation, increases with it, and dies at its dissolution and is a

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”(art 21 of Indian Constitution ). A five-judge bench, in Gian Kaur (1994) case had held that both assisted suicide and euthanasia were unlawful. It stated that the right to life(art 21) did not include the right to die, hence overruling the two-judge bench decision in P.Rathinam which struck down sec 309, IPC (attempt to suicide) as unconstitutional. In Gian Kaur, the Apex Court held that Art 21 speaks of life with dignity and only aspects of life which make it more dignified could read into this article thereby pointing out that the right to die was inconsistent with it. However, later in Aruna Shanbaug (2011), it held that passive euthanasia could be a nod in case of exceptional circumstances and under strict monitoring of the apex court. After Aruna Shanbaug case, the 241st Report of the Law Commission of India on Passive Euthanasia has also recognised passive

  These questions have long dogged intelligent minds. One of the most celebrated works on justice has been written by Professor John Rawls, who wrote a seminal text named A Theory Of Justice. (John Rawls, A theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, 1972). In his book, Rawls mentioned two principles of justice:        The first Principle of Justice ( Principle of Liberty ): Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.     The second Principle of Justice ( Difference Principle ): Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a)     To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. b)     Attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. The aforementioned principles of justice were formulated by Rawls through a hypothetical situation: drawing upon the “social contract theory”, he assumed that human beings, in what he term

Private Defence Sec 96 to 106 of the IPC(Indian Penal Code) deal with the right of private defence and are a recombination of the right of a person to protect his or her life and property against the unlawful aggression of others. Sec 96 of the IPC states that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Sec 97 of IPC defines the right of private defence of the body and property. Every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body, subject to the restrictions contained in sec 99 of the IPC. Among the restrictions stated in sec 99 of the IPC, the provision stipulated the extent to which the right of private defence may be exercised, namely that it in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. For the plea of right to defence to succeed in totality, it must be proved by the accused that there existed a