Land Acquisition Act Amendment 2014

Source: The Times of India dated 1st January 2014

120-yr-old land Act ‘buried’, new law from today

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 

New Delhi: The new land acquisition Act, enacted by Parliament in September to provide just and fair compensation to those whose land is taken away for constructing roads, buildings or factories, will come into force from Wednesday, replacing the 120-year-old legislation. 
    The Act, meant for bringing transparency to the process of acquisition of land, provides for generous compensation and rehabilitation of those affected by the takeover. 
    The new law — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act — stipulates mandatory consent of at least 70% of affected people for acquiring land for Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects and 80% for acquiring land for private companies. 
    Now, state governments will have to set up at least six bodies, including the state-level Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, to hear disputes arising out of projects where land acquisition has been initiated by the state or its agencies. The new law was enacted as the archaic Act of 1894 suffered from various shortcomings including silence on the issue of resettlement and rehabilitation. 
    Under the new legislation, compensation for the owners of the acquired land will be four times the market value in rural areas and twice in urban areas.

Supreme Court in 2013

To read a review of the Supreme Court of India cases of 2013 by Adv. Saurav Datta, go to the following link:  http://dnai.in/bXFe

Source: The Times of India dated 30.12.2013

HC waives ‘rethink’ period in divorce

Swati Deshpande TNN 

Mumbai: A “deed of divorce” signed by a notary is not an authorized divorce under the law, the Bombay high court clarified, surprised that a family 
court judge had accepted it as valid. 
    In a peculiar case that came up in the Bombay high court as an appeal against an order passed by the Bandra family court in October, an educated Mumbai couple were under the belief that their marriage was lawfully dissolved two-and-half years ago by an alleged ‘divorce deed’. Their marriage, solemnized in 2007, had run into trouble with differences cropping up between them. On advice, they prepared a ‘deed of divorce’ which a notary—an advocate licensed by the state to authenticate legal documents—signed in 2011. 
    The wife was soon remarried to a DTP operator in the US. It was only when the US authorities denied her a visa on the 
ground that she was unable to produce a valid divorce decree that she realized that her earlier marriage still legally existed. 
    Her ‘former’ husband agreed to file for a mutual consent divorce before the family court. Their joint petition for divorce also sought waiver of the mandatory six-months cooling off period. She wanted to process her visa swiftly and gave details of the fact that she and husband had lived as a divorced couple since 2011. 
    The family court however rejected their plea for divorce and observed that they were already divorced through the mutual “agreement’’ as “part of the custom’’. The agreement, it said, can be set aside only if it was a result of “fraud or misrepresentation’’. 
    The couple then moved the Bombay high court against the family court order. The HC was critical of the family court order and its reasoning. It directed the family court to decide the case expeditiously on January 2 and waive the six-months cooling period. The HC said since both had acted on the “bona fide belief’’ that their marriage had legally ended with the alleged “deed’’ and had remarried, a reconciliation or reunion was ruled out. 

Law doesn’t give automatic right to divorce: HC 
Mumbai: The HC bench of Justices V K Tahilramani and V L Achliya said the case concerning the Mumbai couple’s deed divorce was “very peculiar and unusual’’. 
    “Marriage under the Hindu law is not considered a contract between two individuals. It is treated as a sacrosanct relation between two human beings, placing certain obligations and duties… No provision in Hindu law gives either party to the marriage an automatic right of divorce.’’ 
    The high court said the family court when faced with a mutual consent divorce plea “must confine’’ itself to inquire whether there was a valid marriage and if the couple was unable to live together for over a year and had mutually sought the divorce. 
    However, the HC came to the couple’s rescue. Justice Achliya, who penned the judgment which was delivered on December 23, said the six-month period, intended to provide the couple time for a final rethink, must be waived in theinterest of justice. 
    The HC said courts are meant to impart justice by overcoming technical difficulties. 
    “The waiver though not specified in law, be read into it as the main object of the provision is to liberalize divorce,’’ and added, “It was never the intention of the legislature that such period is to be observed irrespective of the facts; where a marriage has irretrievably broken and there are no chances of a reunion, as it would be futile to wait for six months.’’

How to Choose a Judge

To read an article about How to choose a Judge and the Collegium system in the Indian Express dated 26.12.2013, click on the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2121635

Mind the legal gap

To read the opinion of Upendra Baxi on Sexual harassment at the workplace in context with the Justice Ganguly case, click on the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2077883

When misreading becomes law

When misreading becomes law: the Victorian-era IPC created the legal category of 'unnatural offences' - to read this article in the Indian Express dated 12.12.2013, click on the following link:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2055087

Justice denied: by upholding section 377, the court has undermined constitutional values

Justice denied: by upholding section 377, the court has undermined constitutional values - to read this article in the Indian Express dated 12.12.2013, click on the following link:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2055050

Sebi’s insider trading rules now cover public servants of all kinds

[Source: DNA dated 12.12.2013] Sebi’s insider trading rules now cover public servants of all kinds

Nitin Shrivastava @nitinpshri

Mumbai: Public servants having access to corporate-related unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) would no longer be able to trade in securities of such companies, markets regulator Sebi has stipulated. UPSI essentially relates to information that is not generally available and which on becoming public would materially affect the price of securities to which it relates. A Sebi-instituted high-level committee, headed by former Kerala and Karnataka chief justice N K Sodhi, reviewed the two-decade-old Prohibition of Insider Trading (PIT) regulations, and on Wednesday proposed stricter norms to curb growing incidence of insider trading. As per Sebi’s annual report, the regulator investigated 24 such cases last fiscal and 28 the previous fiscal, a contrast to an average of 11-12 cases in the previous ten years. Under the new rules, the definition of “insider” has been broadened and would now include all persons having access to UPSI – whether employed directly or in any contractual or fiduciary relationship with the firm concerned. And that includes public servants. Even persons in frequent communication with the officers of a company and their immediate relatives in certain cases would now come under the purview of insider trading. This means, all those involved in formulating policies which in turn can have material impact on the share price of listed securities, would now be restricted from trading. Public servants may include a judge on some complex cases, policymakers who set prices of natural resources, even those deciding on foreign investment limits, so on. The proposed regulations, however, have now made a provision for certain insiders having access to price-sensitive information throughout the year to formulate a trading plan and execute it at least six months after the plan is publicly disclosed. This will help those in senior management and those who are promoters to trade easily as, otherwise, they would be incapable of trading in securities throughout the year. The new regulations also provide for stricter disclosure obligations where in trades by promoters, employees, directors and their immediate relatives are required to be disclosed to the company. The company concerned is required to keep record of all holdings by all employees, but is entitled to require third-party connected persons to disclose their trading and holdings in securities.

SC Makes Homosexuality A Crime Again

SC Makes Homosexuality A Crime Again

Overturns Historic Delhi HC Verdict, Activists Break Down In Court, Shock & Dismay Across Country Upholds Section 377 Of IPC, Which Prescribes Jail Up To Life

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN [Times of India dated 12.12.2013]

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a cruel blow to lakhs of homosexuals, many of whom had started living together after the Delhi high court decriminalized same-sex relationships four years ago, by making it a crime again, even if it is consensual and between adults in private. The ‘crime’ will attract a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. 
    The bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya reversed the Delhi high court’s 2009 verdict and held that the 150-year -old Section 377 criminalizing gay sex, “does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality”. The SC judgment will turn the clock back, and is being viewed in India and globally as retrograde. The possibility of police harassment of homosexuals can no longer be ruled out. 
    The bench said, “In the light of plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC will apply irrespective of age and consent.” It added that the section does not discriminate against any group with a particular sexual preference, a stand diametrically opposite to that taken by the Delhi high court. 
    “It is relevant to mention here that Section 377 of the IPC does not criminalize particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which, if committed, will constitute an offence. Such prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation,” Justice Singhvi said. 
    A crowd of gay activists, quite a few of whom were in advocate’s uniform, had waited inside a packed court room No.1 in expectation of a positive verdict. At 10.30am, Justice Singhvi, for whom it was the last day in office, sat with Chief Justice P Sathasivam (as is the tradition of honouring a judge on his last day).Three minutes later, Singhvi finished reading the concluding part of the 98-page judgment, and pronounced that the Supreme Court was overturning the Delhi high court’s verdict. Smiles disappeared. Some of the activists cried loudly. 
    However, a clarification followed. The judges said, “Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the attorney general.” 
    The AG, G E Vahanvati, had argued that a group of ministers which looked into the issue relating to the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC had recommended that there was no error in the HC order. In other words, the government didn’t have a problem with the decriminalization of gaysex—buttheSCcouldtakeafinalview. 
    Vahanvati had also said, “The declaration granted by the high court may not result in the deletion of Section 377 IPC from the statute book, but a proviso (exception) would have to be added to clarify that nothing contained therein shall apply to any sexual activity between two consenting adults in private.” He had also stressed that the “court must take cognizance of the changing social values and reject the moral views prevalent in Britain in the 18th century.” 
    The apex court observed that the Law Commission of India, in its 172nd report, had recommended the deletion of Section 377 of the IPC. 
WHAT NEXT? Naz Foundation has said it’ll go for a review petition against this judgment Govt has said it will support anyone who seeks a review of the SC verdict Govt could amend Section 377, but given the logjam in Parliament, is unlikely to do so before next Lok Sabha polls Parliament has not amended law, says apex court 
    The court said though the Law Commission of India in its 172nd report recommended deletion of Section 377 and that the Centre has chosen not to challenge the Delhi high court verdict, “Parliament, which is undisputedly the representative body of the people of India, has not thought it proper to delete the provision.” Parliament has not amended the law either, it added. 
    Section 377 of IPC, enacted by British 153 years ago in 1860, terms consensual anal sex an “unnatural offence” and provides punishment equivalent to that for the offence of rape under Section 376. It even outlaws oral sex between man and woman, while holding that only penile-vaginal sex was not “against the order of nature”. 
    It says: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” It also explains that “penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section”. Allowing the appeals against the HC verdict, filed by a host of organizations whose arguments were tinged with religionguided views, the bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377. 
    On July 2, 2009, the HC division bench of then Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar had declared “Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21 (right to life), 14 (right to equality), and 15 (non-discrimination on grounds of sex and gender) of the Constitution.” But the SC said Naz Foundation, on whose petition the HC had given the ruling, had “miserably failed to furnish particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the state agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them”. 
    “While reading down Section 377, the division bench of the HC overlooked that a miniscule (sic) fraction of the country’s population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or trans-genders and in the last more than 150 years less that 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing offence under Section 377 IPC and this cannot be made a sound basis for declaring the section ultra vires (violative of) the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution,” the apex court said.

Whatever I had to say I wrote in my 2009 judgment: Justice Shah

Whatever I had to say I wrote in my 2009 judgment: Shah

TIMES OF INDIA dated 12.12.2013

New Delhi: The legal community reacted with disappointment at the Supreme Court verdict on homosexuality on Wednesday. Senior lawyers criticized the judgment, lamenting that a great opportunity provided by the Delhi HC has been lost. 
    Leading lawyer Harish Salve, in a volley of tweets, said the judgment was a huge letdown. “Such a case should never have been heard by two judges only. Article 145 of the Constitution mandates important questions of constitutional law should be heard by a bench of five judges.” He urged: “It would be a good argument in a fresh petition challenging Section 377 to argue that this precedent be ignored.” If the court is happy to examine fiscal policies, deference to law when human dignity is concerned is a turnaround in jurisprudence, he tweeted, adding: “A battle lost is not a war lost. The issue of decriminalisation should be raised over and over again until accepted — it HAS to be accepted… Today gay sex. Tomorrow atheism? Day after, refusing to wear black pants on, say, Saturdays? Nanny state? Morality can and should be the basis of all laws.” 
    Additional solicitor general Indira Jaising said the penal provision for homosexuality reflects a “medieval mindset” and raises questions as to why the bench looked to the legislature to decide on the issue when the SC reviewed so many other matters. She said, “It’s surprising the court, which does judicial review on many issues, has put the ball in the Parliament’s court to decide on homosexuality.” 
    Former attorney general Soli Sorabjee, who supported the PIL movement against section 377 IPC from the outset, termed the order retrogressive. “The Delhi HC didn’t legalize samesex marriage. It only decriminalized homosexual activities between two consenting adults in private. You can’t blame people for having different orientation.” He added, “They can ask for reconsideration of the judgment before a different bench.” 
    Co-author of the HC verdict, retired Delhi chief justice A P Shah, couldn’t hide his disappointment. But Shah declined to give a view, saying, “I haven’t read the SC judgment so it’ll be difficult to comment. Whatever I had to say I wrote in my 2009 judgment.” 
    WHAT THE SC JUDGES SAID 
    Section 377 of Indian Penal Code does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Delhi high court (decriminalizing consensual gay sex between adults in private) is legally unsustainable 
    Competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Sec 377 from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the AG 
    In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Sec 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the high court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions (foreign countries) 
    Though these judgments (from foreign countries) shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature 
    The writ petition filed by Naz Foundation was singularly laconic in as much as except giving brief detail of the work being done by it for HIV prevention targeting MSM community, it miserably failed to furnish the particulars of the incidents of discriminatory attitude exhibited by the state agencies towards sexual minorities and consequential denial of basic human rights to them 

There’s Room For Review of SC judgment

There’s Room For Review

Manoj Mitta TNN {Thr Times of India dated 12.12.2013]

New Delhi: The last time the Supreme Court hit global headlines was in the Novartis case in April when it raised the bar for patents and made a life-saving drug more accessible to cancer patients. The reason this time for making waves around the world could not have been worse. Among the repercussions of its ruling on Wednesday in the Section 377 case is that HIV/ AIDS patients among LGBT persons may not any longer be able to access public health facilities without running the risk of being harassed or even arrested. 
    While setting aside a 2009 Delhi high court verdict, the SC put its imprimatur on, what additional solicitor general Indira Jaising described as, the “medieval mindset” of this colonial vintage provision in the 1860 Indian Penal Code. If the mindset were indeed of the medieval age, it might not have been from India. Consider the graphic depiction of homosexuality in the medieval temples at Konark and Khajuraho. Adding to the irony is the coincidence that the SC restored the blanket ban on homosexuality just when Britain is set to recognize same-sex marriage. 
    Thanks to the retrograde decision made by the SC, India will no more be in the category of liberal democracies which decriminalized homosexuality. It was put in that honourable category barely four years ago by the high court, when it read down Section 377 in such a manner that this criminal provision applied only to non-consensual acts of homosexuality. In the high court’s judgment, Section 377 violated the fundamental rights of LGBT persons unless its ambit was confined to non-consensual sex. 
    By doing away with the device of reading down the provision, the SC upheld the constitutionality of Section 377 without any qualification. As a corollary, cops can now book gay persons even for consensual sex and they are liable to severe punishment extending to life imprisonment. After all, the provision expressly penalizes whoever “voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. The religious groups, which appealed against the high court decision and claimed that Section 377 was in tune with Indian culture, have had their way in the SC. 
    In the tussle between “public morality” and “constitutional morality”, the SC tilted the balance in favour of the former. The HC had held a contrary view: “Moral indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals’ fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.” Though this was the heart of the high court verdict, the SC glossed over the issue of constitutional morality. 
    Instead, in its parting observation, the SC passed the buck to Parliament saying it was “free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same”. In effect, the SC put the matter in the domain of an elected body which is even less likely to place constitutional morality above public morality. 
    Rather than giving due regard to constitutional morality, the SC held that the HC’s perception of homosexuality had been influenced by developments in other countries. Though these judgments elsewhere shed light on the plight of sexual minorities, it said that they could not be “applied blindfolded” for deciding the constitutionality of Section 377. 
    For all the judicial precedents cited by it, the SC verdict is sketchy on why Section 377 in its pristine form did not violate any of the fundamental rights. On the face of it, Section 377 is so vaguely worded that even a heterosexual act that deviated from “the order of nature” – penile vaginal intercourse – was liable to attract punishment. Yet, all that the SC explained was that “while analysing a provision the vagaries of language must be borne in mind and prior application of the law must be considered.” 
    This is because the SC accepted the contention of the religious groups that Section 377 had been sparingly used. It said that the highcourthad“overlookedthata miniscule fraction of the country’s population” constituted LGBT persons and that in 150 years less than 200 persons had been prosecuted for committing the offence. But then those statistics covered only the cases in which judgments had been delivered. They ignore the larger reality of LGBT persons being prone to moral policing, blackmail and other such misuse of Section 377. Indeed, there is much scope to review this surprisingly illthought out judgment. 


IMPLICATIONS OF SC VERDICT 

After 4-yr gap, it recriminalizes homosexuality Even consensual sex between gay persons is criminal Heterosexual acts such as fellatio, anal sex also liable 
    Recent widening of rape definition makes it easier to repeal Sec 377 
    In event of repeal, there’ll be void only in relation to bestiality 377. Unnatural offences | Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against order of nature with man, woman, animal... punished with imprisonment for life 
Explanation | Penetration sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse necessary to offence described here 
SC accepted claim of religious groups that Sec 377 had been sparingly used, that in 150 years less than 200 persons had been prosecuted for committing the offence. But these statistics are only for cases where judgments had been delivered. They ignore the larger reality of LGBT persons being prone to moral policing, blackmail.

SC upholds Section 377 of IPC

A Queer Judgment

Bowers vs Hardwick offers precedents for how SC’s gay ban will play out

Vikram Doctor [Source: The Times of India dated 12.12.2013]

In 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States passed a controversial decision in Bowers vs Hardwick. By a bare majority of 5 to 4 it held that the Constitution did not confer ‘‘a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy”. Chief Justice Warren Burger called homosexuality an ‘‘infamous crime against nature’’ and ‘‘a crime not fit to be named”. 
    In 2003, in another case, Lawrence vs Texas, the court reversed its decision. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy strongly rebuked the earlier decision: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers vs Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” In just 16 years the US court had reversed its position to the point where the earlier decision was seen as entirely wrong. 
    The Supreme Court of India has now had its Bowers moment. In deciding on the appeal against the Delhi high court verdict in the Naz India case, which decriminalised same-sex relations between consenting adults, Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhyay have entirely set aside the earlier verdict. They had options like referring the matter to a constitutional bench or watering down the Delhi high court’s sweeping verdict, but preserving basic decriminalisation. Instead they have set aside the decision in full and referred it to Parliament where, as they well know, all legislation is so stalled that an issue like this will have almost no hope of making headway. 
    What can account for such a perverse ruling? It could hardly be the calibre of counsel or arguments that the opponents of Naz gave in court. Suresh Kaushal, the astrologer who was the lead petitioner against Naz suggested that decriminalising homosexuality would lead to breakdown of army discipline since our jawans in remote outposts would start 
having sex with each other! Most of the arguments against Naz consisted of these ludicrous fears and hatreds, with none of the petitioners showing how they were personally affected by decriminalisation. 
    Against this, supporters of Naz were able to marshal some of the senior-most counsel, all happy to appear pro bono for such a strong human rights cause and they cited ample cases of people harmed by the law, and who would be harmed if it remained. The law had been exercised by blackmailers and bullies against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders, and these are the people who will be empowered again with this decision from Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhyay. 
    Could it be the government’s loudly expressed concerns over judicial trespassing into the realm of the legislature and executive? That would seem strange coming from Justice Singhvi who has shown no hesitation in asserting the judiciary’s duty to enforce justice where the state has lagged. Moreover, in this case the government had appeared in favour of Naz India in the Supreme Court, with Attorney General Vahanvati testifying in court that the government saw nothing wrong with the Delhihigh court’s decision. Why would the judges suddenly become solicitous of the judiciary’s limits at a time when they know well that the executive and legislature is unlikely to act in its place? 
    Bowers may have one answer for why the judges have acted like this. Because one of its saddest aspects was how it turned on one judge, Lewis Powell, who went with the majority without having any strong feelings on the matter. As he told one of his clerks, he didn’t know any gay people and didn’t feel the case merited more than 30 minutes of his time. (The irony is that the clerk he told this to was gay, but hadn’t really come out to him.) Powell could not personalise the case and so voted with the majority. Years later, in a very rare admission for a judge, he admitted he could have been wrong. 
    Perhaps it was as simple as this in the Supreme Court. The judges didn’t know any people of alternate sexuality, and so the many cases submitted to them of how such people have suffered under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code did not ring as real as might the problems suffered by people they could identify with. Theirs could be a failure of imagination as much as a failure of courage to decide on a controversial issue. This was a case which would have cost the judiciary no more than the simple generosity needed to extend equal rights for all, yet they couldn’t do it. 
    But if they could not, it is certainly not true of others. The decision has drawn almost uniform outrage across the media, from international organisations which had seen Naz India as a shining example of India’s commitment to human rights and from all people of imagination and generosity. By contrast the opponents of Naz India drew on fear and falsities, and these offer no good foundation for any future growth. Bowers was overruled because the judges finally realised that they knew gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people too, and they were no different, in any way that really matters, from everyone else. This will happen in India too and one can only hope the Supreme Court doesn’t make us wait 16 years for this.

City's longest pending case

1969 suit is city’s longest-pending case

Endless wait | The case pertains to properties in SoBo and suburbs, with estimated current value worth over Rs1,000cr

Mustafa Plumber @plumbermushi

A case pertaining to a property dispute, originally filed in 1969, is the longest-pending case in the Bombay High Court. While the case papers pertaining to it seem to have been lost, the Central Bureau of Investigation is currently probing into the reconstruction of the documents. The suit pertains to properties in south Mumbai and suburbs, estimated to be worth over Rs 1,000 crore at current market rates. They were owned by textile baron Mathuradas Gokuldas in the 1920s. The properties were mortgaged to the Gwalior Darbar in 1924 for a loan. Post independence, the properties were vested with the Indian government and the Provident Investment Company of the state of Madhya Pradesh. While the disputed properties are located at Chowpatty, Mazgaon, Parel Tank Road, Walkeshwar and Thane, most of them have been sold off by the company. Prothonotary and senior master D V Sawant said, “This is the longest pending case, but there is a dispute due to records missing from the registry and a CBI inquiry is going on. There are also other suits pending since 1980. The reasons for their pendency are different.” In 1969, Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved’s (legal heir of the Gokuldas family) had filed a suit, seeking redemption of the mortgaged properties. However, no steps were taken by either of the parties. In 2008, Ved moved the HC again, seeking to trace the documents pertaining to her case. When the case papers could not be located, acting on Ved’s plea, the prothonotory and senior master of the court in January 2009 ordered the registry to reconstruct the records. Provident Investment Company, which is in possession of the properties, then moved a plea before a division bench, challenging the order to reconstruct the suit. During pendency of the appeal, attorney general Goolam Vahanvati, representing the central government, a defendant in the suit, had sought a CBI inquiry. Ved’s counsel, Iqbal Chagla had opposed the plea for CBI probe contending it was nothing but another attempt to stall trial of the suit. However, in January 2012, a division bench of justices DY Chandrachud and A Sayyed ordered a CBI inquiry.  The bench observed, “The inquiry (high court had earlier ordered a departmental inquiry) has now prima facie established that the records were destroyed in order to obliterate the proceedings of the suit.”

Laws and Technological Developments: Driving with Google Glass

Article about how laws lag behind technological developments, case of a woman fighting a driving ticket for driving while using Google Glass, in the Indian Express dated 5th December 2013, click on the following link:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2020417

CIDCO sets up kiosk for voluntary disclosure of land allotment files

Article in the Indian Express dated 2nd December 2013 about CIDCO's kiosk for voluntary disclosure of land allotment files to reduce RTI queries and help citizens check the status of their files:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/2003413

RTI ACT UPDATE

Source: The Economic Times dated 30th November 2013, pg. 3 

RTI Not for Research: Govt

Information officers told to provide matter with authorities and not draw inference

AMAN SHARMA NEW DELHI 

The government is not supposed to conduct ‘research’ on behalf of the citizen in response to Right to Information (RTI) pleas by way of deducing a conclusion from available material, states an update on the RTI Act, 2005 prepared by the Department of Personnel and Training. 

Apparently exasperated by ‘vague’ RTI pleas, the DoPT has laid out rules on what is supposed to be entertained by Public Information Officers (PIOs). “Some information seekers request PIOs to cull out information from document(s) and give such extracted information to them. A citizen has a right to get ‘material’ from a public authority, however, the Act does not require the PIO to deduce some conclusion from the ‘material’ and supply it to the applicant,” the update states. 

The DoPT document also says that PIOs are “not supposed to create information” that is not a part of the record of the public authority. “The PIO is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions,” the document says, stressing only such information can be supplied that is “available and existing”. 

DoPT also wants citizens to not list out their grievances in the RTI plea and rather be more specific on what information they need to avoid ambiguity. “Instead of simply asking why my area is not being cleaned, cleaning schedule of the area should be asked. Similarly, instead of asking when we will get water supply, water supply planning of the area should be asked,” the document says. 

The government has also clarified that the RTI Act gives the right to information only to the citizens of India and not to corporations, associations or companies – which have been filing RTIs in vain. “They are legal entities or persons, but not citizens. However, if an application is made by an employee or office-bearer of any corporation, association, company or non-government organization indicating his name and citizenship, information may be supplied to him. In such cases, it would be presumed that a citizen has sought information at the address of the corporation,” the DoPT guidelines says. 

The guide also says that the government has issued guidelines that certain categories of information should be suo-moto published on their websites by public authorities to avoid RTI pleas regarding them. This includes details on foreign tours of prime minister, ministers and senior officers, information relating to procurement, public-private partnerships, transfer policy and transfer orders and discretionary and non-discretionary grants.

Not on the PIO List

PUBLIC INFORMATION Officer (PIO) not to deduce anything from the material 
NOT SUPPOSED to create information that is not a part of the public record 
NOT REQUIRED TO furnish information which requires making assumptions or interpretations

Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

To read an article about the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace from the Indian Express dated 28th November 2013, click on the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1984174

Medical Negligence and Patient Safety

To read the article on Medical Negligence and Patient Safety in the Indian Express dated 26th November 2013, go to the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1974180

SC Ruling on Civil Services

To read the article on SC ruling on civil services from the Indian Express dated 13th November 2013, copy and paste the following link in your browser:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1906607

SC landmark judgment on Medical Negligence

Times of India, 25th October 2013, p. 14

NRI doc had claimed 102cr for wife’s death

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN 

New Delhi: As part of the Rs 5.96 crore compensation that US-based NRI doctor Kunal Saha will get for the 1998 death of his wife Anuradha due to medical negligence, doctors Sukumar Mukherjee and Baidyanath Haldar have been directed to pay Rs 10 lakh each, while another doctor, Balram Prasad, will pay Rs5lakh.Kolkata’sAMRI hospital will have to pay the remaining Rs5.71crore. 
    The Supreme Court said the hospitalwould also pay an interest of 6% on the amount from the date of filing of claim by Saha. If the interest is taken to be simplein nature,then thehospitalwouldhaveto pay another Rs 6 crore. Abani Roy Chowdhury, the fourth doctor in the case, died during the pendency of the proceedings. Even as Saha went from pillar to post to secure justice, he started an NGO to take up the cause of ethical medical treatment and against excessive/wrong medication by corporatehospitals. 
    Setting a milestone in compensation in medical negligence cases, which the SC observed wason the risein India given the unregulated growth and commercialization of healthcare services, the SC directed the threedoctors andthehospitalto filethecompliance reportof paymentto Saha in eightweeks. 
    Anuradha had contracted toxic epidermal necrolysis and developed rashes over her body. On May 11, 1998, she was admitted to AMRI hospital, where she was treated till May 16. As her condition didn’t improve, she was taken to Breach Candy in Mumbai in an air ambulance. She died on May 28 following complications from bad diagnosis and steroid overdose administered attheKolkata hospital. 
    In 1999, Saha filed a plea before the NCDRC demanding Rs 77 crore from the doctors, AMRI and its directors. He demanded Rs 25.3 crore from the Mumbai hospital,butlater withdrewthat claim. The NCDRC had termed the claim, a total of Rs 102 crore, as perhaps the highest ever claimed for medical negligence before any Indian consumer forum.

Doctors feel SC verdict could demoralize medical fraternity

Times of India, 25th October 2013, p. 14

HEALTH SECTOR RISKS

Docs worried, feel SC verdict could demoralize medical fraternity

Durgesh Nandan Jha | TNN 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court verdict in the Kunal Saha case has left the medical fraternity worried. Doctors say they often operate amid serious constraints which makes the going all the more difficult. Doctors in western countries do not have to face such handicaps. 
    The verdict, they say, could demoralize the medical fraternity. “It’s a black day for the health sector. After this, you should forget lowcost healthcare,” Dr Devi Shetty, founder and chairman, Narayana Hrudayalaya, Bangalore said. “We cannot compare with US healthcare standards. If such penalties are levied, how will doctors risk admitting critically-ill patients or administering emergency treatment,’ he asked. 
    Former head of Medical Council of India Dr S K Sarin said: “First, there is need to bring parity in standard of care, only then can we 
decide if treatment provided for a particular condition is in conformity with it or not. In many cases, there are major differences in medical education standards. This impacts quality of medical care. Medical graduates must go through a common licentiate exam before they can practice.” 
    Still, the medical fraternity failed to convincingly answer why no punitive action was ever taken against doctors against whom charges of neglect were proven. The Delhi Medical Council gets 20-30 complaints of medical negligence every month. Most of these are either disposed of for lack of evidence or the accused is let off with a warning. “No doctor has been barred from practice ever,” Dr Girish Tyagi, registrar of DMC, confirmed. 
    Aman Jesani, editor of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, conceded there were several instances of doctors being saved by their peers. “Getting an honest expert opinion is next to impossible. In many cases experts collude or sympathize with the accused and try to save him. Also, not all patients are aware of technical issues involved as Dr Kunal Saha was,” he said. “Remember, Saha had to wait 15 years to get the judgment. This highlights how difficult it is to get justice here.”

Landmark Supreme Court verdict on medical negligence

Times of India, 25th October 2013, p. 14

Dogged Saha soldiers on with contempt case

Abhinav Garg | TNN 

New Delhi: Dr Kunal Saha, whose long struggle for justice ended on Thursday with a landmark Supreme Court verdict on medical negligence, is pushing for reforms in consumer courts. 
    Through his organization People for Better Treatment (PBT), Saha has filed a contempt petition before the apex court, seeking speedy implementation of a historic 2011 judgment where SC permitted non-advocates and charitable organizations to argue cases before consumer forums. 
    An SC bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Justice R Mukundakam Sharma and Justice Anil Dave had asked the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to frame guidelines to allow non-lawyers to represent, appear and argue cases under the Consumer Protection Act before consumer district forums and commissions. 
    But more than two years later the proposal is stuck in red tape and the guidelines, that ought to have been framed within three months of the order, are nowhere in sight. Last week the Centre again sought four weeks from SC in response to Saha’s contempt plea. In his petition Saha complained that a path- breaking SC order that will enable people like him is being deliberately diluted by the Centre and NCDRC making them liable to be hauled up for contempt. 
    A counter affidavit filed by NCDRC in SC this month shows even though the commission agreed to allow “nonadvocates” to argue cases in consumer courts on behalf of people and framed guidelines in 2011 the law ministry allegedly raised objections. Filed by NCDRC Registrar H D Nautiyal, the affidavit has annexed correspondence between the commission, consumer affairs ministry and the law ministry. 
    The NCDRC has cited opinion given by then additional solicitor-general Mohan Parasaran (now Solicitor General) where he argued SC couldn’t have passed directions to the consumer court without hearing the Centre since implementation of the order must be done by the ministry of consumer affairs. Parasaran advocated the law ministry must approach SC for a clarification that it also be heard. 
    Saha told TOI he is equally determined to follow up the contempt plea as he was in fixing liability for medical negligence. “We will press hard before SC to take immediate measures for allowing NGOs and “non-advocates” to help hapless victims find justice in consumer courts,” he said. 
    The historic 
    Supreme Court judgment does three important jobs. It rekindles the hope for countless of victims of medical negligence. It should tell honest and caring doctors it is time to step forward to cleanse the system. Today’s judgment has uplifted the sagging value of human life in India Kunal Saha 
DR SAHA, WHO LIVES IN OHIO, RUNS A KOLKATABASED NGO TO HELP PEOPLE WITH MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES The doctor-turned-activist showed in 2007 how corruptly-procured blood test kits financed by World Bank were leading to HIVcontaminated blood being used in hospitals in India 
OTHER NATIONS UK | NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE In 2013, official figures showed number of cases registered for medical maplpractice increased by 20% in just a year, by 80% 
since 2008 Increasing numbers of complaints, reported The Telegraph, showed growing lack of tolerance for poor care and patients feeling forced to take legal action because hospitals refused to apologise or explain their failings. More than £1bn spent on settlements 2012 
AUSTRALIA According to WHO, Australia has one of the highest rates of medical error in the world 18,000 people may die every year in hospitals through preventable medical negligence in Australia 50,000 people suffer from permanent injury annually as a result of medical negligence in Australia 80,000 Australian patients per year are hospitalised due to medication errors Laws exist but difficult to prove medical error. Also, doctors band together 

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU SUSPECT MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Times of India dated 25th October 2013, p. 14

NOT ALWAYS THE DOCTOR’S CALL

Medical negligence is any case when a health provider deviates from ‘standard care’ in treating a patient. In the US, records show medical negligence is a leading cause of death. No such study is available for India though medical malpractice is rampant. In the US, $3bn compensation was paid in 2012 alone

WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU SUSPECT MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 
    File complaints with local police, state medical council (SMC) and state consumer forum 
    Police will send complaint to SMC 
    If SMC upholds complaint, depending on charges made against the doctor/hospital, they’ll file a case under relevant sections. Case goes to theappropriate court 
    If it’s a criminal case, it becomes a case of 
state versus the doctor/hospital 
    SMC can 
initiate action 
against the doctor by 
suspending his licence to practise for specific period of time or removing his name from medical register depending on seriousness of charges 
    If charges are upheld in court, doctor can be arrested and jailed 
    If either party is aggrieved by the SMC’s decision, s/he can appeal before the Medical Council of India 
    The complainant can take the SMC decision and 
approach the consumer court for compensation 
    If complainant goes to the consumer forum, either a panel of medical experts will look into its merits or the forum will send it to the SMC to do the same 
    If complaint is upheld, forum decides quantum of compensation to be paid to 
    the complainant 
Consumer forum can only decide compensation amount but cannot punish anyone even if negligence is proved 
If unhappy with the consumer forum’s 
    decision, any of the parties can appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and further on to Supreme Court if needed 
    You can also consult patient advocacy groups 
(Saha’s PBT one such) or legal experts, to help define case and check facts 
    Keep original records | All diagnosis, procedure, advice is noted down in the prescription file. Don’t give originals to anyone 
A SAMPLE STATE 
    Delhi Medical Council, one of the authorities patients in Delhi and NCR can complain to, gets 20-30 complaints of medical negligence monthly 
    Complaints | Overcharging, lack of care, wrong or unnecessary procedure, incompetency of doctors 
conducting particular procedure 
    Majority of cases dismissed. At best, warning issued if doctor or hospital found guilty 
    Not a single doctor has ever been barred from practice by the DMC that can deregister a doctor – the maximum punishment under the rulebook 
WHEN PATIENTS KEPT UP THE FIGHT PRASHANT S DHANANKA | MAY 2009 AWARDED Rs 1cr BY SC | Infosys techie was paralysed waist down after a surgeon damaged his spinal cord at a Hyderabad hospital to remove a chest tumour 
V CHANDRASEKHAR | FEB 1995 AWARDED Rs 19L BY SC | National table tennis player was partially paralysed after treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai 
JAYANT BHUYAN | NOV 2010 | CII executive died after surgery at a private hospital. Delhi Medical Council found the doctor guilty of negligence, ordered hospital to remove his name for a month

SC Landmark Judgment on Medical Negligence

Times of India dated 25th October 2013, p. 14

NO NEGLECTING MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

‘Verdict will act as a deterrent for hospitals’

After the landmark judgement 
announcing the highest ever 
compensation awarded in a medical negligence case, TOI spoke to Dr Kunal Saha 

Are you satisfied with the judgement? 
    Of course I am happy. This is the end of a long personal battle. The court has awarded a compensation of Rs 5.9 crore with a 6% interest that will have to be paid from 1999 when I had filed the case. So, the total amount comes to around Rs 11 crore. But it was not about money. I had carried on this long struggle to change the prevailing system in India which treats patients like guinea-pigs. It was important to ensure that the compensation was hefty. This will force hospitals and doctors to be careful and act as a deterrent. This is why I had sought Rs 77 crore as compensation. 
How significant is the judgement? 
    It’s a landmark judgement for this is the first time that doctors and a hospital have been asked to pay such a big amount. There have been cases in the past where doctors had to shell out Rs 1 lakh-Rs 2 lakh as compensation which can’t make any difference. It’s less than the price of a secondhand car and doctors didn’t really worry about paying such sums. So, those compensations were never a deterrent. But this judgment is a strong warning to them. It will help curb reckless use of medicines and wrong treatment. 
You have launched a platform to help victims of medical negligence. How far is this judgment going to help that cause? 
    This is indeed a shot in the arm for the movement against medical negligence in India. I had launched People for Better Treatment to help others like me. Over the last several years, we have taken up numerous cases of medical negligence. My personal battle might have ended, but I shall continue to fight for other victims. In fact, this judgment should encourage all those fighting such cases. At least, they shall no longer be receiving a fraction of the amount they spend on fighting the cases. 
    Life can’t be compensated with money. But at least the victim’s family needs an assurance they would get the money back once they win the case. This is why majority of those who file cases of negligence give up after 4-5 years. 
Why are cases of negligence proliferating in Kolkata? 
    It is the leniency shown to guilty doctors which is squarely responsible for this. One doctor who has been held guilty for my wife Anuradha’s death is an advisor to the health ministry in Bengal. I have filed a petition against this in SC and have written to CM Mamata Banerjee. The Medical Council of India cancelled his licence in 2011, but the state medical council has been defending him. The matter is now pending in the High Court. Most doctors are good. We only need to identify and expel the few rotten eggs. 
Finally, did the fact that you are a doctor help you persist with the battle? 
    Being a doctor made a difference, I could make out they had been negligent. We need to have a system in which there will be a provision for investigation and penalty against doctors accused of negligence. There has to be a protocol and victims’ families shouldn’t be left to fight their own battle. The PBT will fight to change the system.

Consumers win cases if they stay the course

Rebecca Samervel, Times of India | Oct 23, 2013

Service providers, be they builders or car makers, have the time and money to drag consumer cases till the national commission. But this should not discourage aggrieved consumers to file cases at district forums or appeal at the state commission. Because, experts say most state rulings favouring consumers are upheld at the national level.

“Many of the appeals are meritless. When the state commission passes a reasoned order, the national commission does not interfere with it,” said consumer activist Dr M S Kamath. “Over 90% of appeals by builders challenging state commission orders are dismissed,” he said.

An RTI query revealed last year that of 24,278 consumer complaints received by the six district forums in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region in 15 years, housing led with 7,499.

Consumer lawyer Uday Wavikar said the majority of appeals by service providers at the national level are not successful. “The matter that concerns the consumer the most is the time such an appeal will take. If two courts have decided in favour of one party, the third court should not even admit it unless there has been any perversion of law. Many appeals are filed on technical grounds,” he said.

The national commission is the last stop for aggrieved parties within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and its orders can only be appealed in the Supreme Court (SC). Even here, consumers often win. Wavikar cites the case of Sanjay Berde that reached the SC. Berde (55) had booked a flat in Shivaji Park in 2004. “The builder refused to hand over possession. Due to escalating prices and a change in government polices, he wanted to make more money on the same flat. So, he asked me to take a refund,” Berde said. The state and national commissions ruled in Berde's favour, as did the SC.

Matrimonial Law and Persons with Disability

To read an article on matrimonial law in relation to persons with disability by Amba Salelkar in the Indian Express dated 23rd September 2013, click on the following link:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1670668

Delhi court passes order in Hindi

Naya Daur: Delhi court passes order in Hindi

An article by Kanu Sarda in the DNA newspaper dated 16.09.2013

Sixty-seven years after India’s independence, the common man in the national capital was able to get a court order in Hindi, rather than the court’s preferred language, English. Family court judge S Jaychandran passed the order in Hindi in a divorce case earlier this week, after a Delhi-based couple pleaded that they be allowed to argue in Hindi as they didn’t understand English. The judge first wrote the order in English and then got it translated by a senior court staff. Incidentally, this happened a few days ahead of Hindi Diwas, celebrated across the country on September 14. The couple got married in 1998 and have two children. The couple pleaded that since their thoughts didn’t match, they be allowed to discontinue the marriage. They have been living separately since 2007. The court, however, gave them six months’ time to make the marriage work, failing which a final decree of divorce would be passed. The court gave the custody of both children to the wife. The demand for Hindi as the official court language in Delhi has been pending for a long time. In 2009, a group of lawyers started a signature campaign in Delhi high court and five district courts, requesting they be allowed to argue cases in Hindi. The campaign collected about 5,000 signatures. “Even Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution says that one can express himself in any language. Denying the use of Hindi in courts is a violation of this fundamental right,” said advocate Ashok Aggarwal. He said the use of English in courts has become “more of a status symbol”. Even Article 348 of the Constitution provides for arguing court cases in English or any other regional language, he said.

Certainty of punishment is the real deterrent

To read an article in the Indian Express dated 27.08.2013 by G. P. Joshi arguing that the CERTAINTY of punishment, not its SEVERITY is the real deterrent, click on the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1547393

RS passes bill to make divorce women-friendly

To read about the amendments in Marriage laws in an article in the Indian Express dated 27.08.2013, click on the following link:
http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/1547367

Pendency of cases in Courts: Nearly 4L cases pending, shows RTI

Nearly 4L cases pending, shows RTI: Experts Blame Lack of Infra, Inefficient Use Of Resources
Article by Rebecca Samervel in The Times of India dated 19th August 2013

Mumbai: The problem of pending cases continues to plague the legal system year after year. As on July 31, 2013, 3.72 lakh cases are pending in magistrate courts across the city, revealed a Right to Information (RTI) query. Though the figure is marginally better than that of six months ago—3.82 lakh pending cases as on December 31, 2012—it is still a concern.
    Of the 3.72 lakh cases, 8,464 have been pending for more than 20 years and 51,074 for more than a decade. Nearly 67,721 cases have been pending for more than five years.
    Experts feel that the pendency problem is compounded by lack of infrastructure and inefficient use of resources.
    Lawyer-activist Y P Singh pointed out that when a case can culminate in 10 dates on an average, it still stretches to over 100 dates. “This results in infructuous hearings and dates with prolonged gaps. A lot of the court’s time is wasted,” Singh said, adding that in many instances the main culprit is the non-cooperation by the police and prosecution. “There could be a nexus with the accused. Hence, they indulge in non-service of summons and non-execution of warrants.”
    Singh cited his own case filed in a magistrate’s court reagarding the alleged forced delay in the hit-and-run case in which actor Salman Khan is an accused. “Irrelevant witnesses and absence of parties heap on, leading to a non-consequential hearing. This is eating away a major chunk of court time. There are instances when the court is forced to retire early in the day owing to this,” he said.
    The RTI filed by activist Chetan Kothari also revealed that status quo has been maintained with respect to the number of courts in the last two years. As on July 31, 2013, there are 75 courts, but the the chief metropolitan magistrate’s court is vacant with 3,152 cases pending. “This is very important position and an appointment needs to be made at the earliest. The prolonged absence will also lead to administrative issues,” said an advocate.
    Suggesting solutions to reduce pendency, criminal lawyer Majeed Memon said that magistrates must encourage outof-court settlements or compromise applications wherever possible. “With respect to private complaints, magistrates must avoid frivolous litigations and dismiss them at the earliest,” he said. “In several cases, adjournments are granted easily to both to the prosecution and defence. This needs to be curbed.”
    “Though there are 75 courts on record in Mumbai, they all need to work to their full potential. We also need several more courts to cope with the existing backlog and future litigation,” a legal activist said.

 

Skill gap in the legal profession

Aid the legal eagles

Being good at proving your point or having a good convincing power is not the only quality required to become a lawyer. Experts tell Gauri Rane about the skill gap in the profession

Gauri Rane Source: DNA dated 7th August 2013

Most of us would remember Anil Kapoor as defense lawyer Arun Verma who consumes evidence to prove his client not guilty in the movie Meri Jung. This scene may not ring a bell, but the confidence and hunger to win, which Verma displays will forever be etched in memory.   A doctor’s son becomes a doctor; a lawyer’s a lawyer, this old saying continues to hold true even today. However there are many who do not have a lineage in the profession but nevertheless a desire to don the black cloak. The legal profession has seen a tremendous increase in the number of aspirants over the years. Senior Advocate at Bombay High Court, Shirish Gupte says that there is almost 75 per cent increase in the number of fresh graduates stepping into the legal arena every year. “We didn’t have much of a choice during our time. One could either become a doctor or a lawyer. Today, students make informed decisions to enter the profession,” he reminisces.  However, this increase in numbers is not necessarily a shine on the profession. Experts in the industry are unanimous when they say that graduates coming from various law schools in the country do not have the required skill set. There is a huge skill gap they say. “There is a huge disconnect between what students learn in a law school and the real world,” says Somasekhar Sundaresan, head Securities Law, J Sagar Associates. He lists the various gaps in the teaching methodology. “The course curriculum is not fact oriented. Students do not have practical knowledge, the application of facts which only practice can teach is missing.”    Sundaresan adds another reason for lack of quality in fresh graduates. “Students do not have access to lawyers who practice and hence do not understand the application of theory to real time,” he explains. Cyber expert Vijay Mukhi agrees with Sundaresan. “Our best lawyers do not spend enough time with law students, leaving the aspirants raw and with little knowledge about how to deal with litigation/ non litigation matters.” The reasons are not far to seek.  Law as career is lucrative only if one stands in the courtroom but, the remunerations are very low when it comes to academics. “If our teachers were compensated well, then this would not be the case. While our bright minds earn big bucks for a day’s appearance in the court, they get close to nothing for giving a lecture at a law school,” says Mukhi. Sundaresan has another point to make. He says, “Corporate firms offer a good pay package attracting quality lawyers. There are few who love the profession and want to mentor newcomers.”   While industry experts continue to debate on the visible skill gap, Sundaresan offers advice. “There needs to be a continuous industry academia exchange. Law schools need to stress on practical orientation of the course,” he says. Aspirants need to take up intensive internships in order to understand if he/ she is made for litigation/ non litigation career. Gupte explains, “For a career in litigation one needs to be a good orator, have command over language and most importantly be able to put his/ her point of view convincingly. Whereas for those pursuing non-litigation, a research oriented approach is important.” Law is not an easy profession; one must be up to date with not just the laws, amendments and various acts, but also keep a close eye on judgments that are passed. This means prospective lawyers need to be able to do continuous research and should have a good grasping power. Success solely depends on how many cases one has won. With a proper balance of theory, practical experience and continuous industry academia interactions the law aspirants might as well have a strong case.  gaurirane.zee@gmail.com