Thursday 27 October 2022

Differences between Law and Act

 Differences between Law and Act

By:

Adv. Vijay Sardana

Law 

Act

The law is an outcome of the Act.

A law is defined as an assemblage or collection of rules and regulations that are indispensable and must be followed
An Act is a decree that is passed or approved by the respective legislature i.e. in India’s case State Legislative Assembly or Parliament of India
Law holds its single purview over the larger picture means this has a wider scope.An Act is a sub-set of Law mean more specific in its scope.
Law ensures that the people will strictly follow the defined rules and regulationsAn Act is employed in specific situations meaning establishing regulations and rules in specified domains. An example of this is the Indian Companies Act which regulates the formation and functioning of companies or corporations in India.
Law is more generic in its nature of operations and is not that complicated to comprehendActs are conditional and specific depending on the domains they have been applied for.
Law can be enforced as it has been established by the regulatory proceduresAn Act is represented by the bill it is passed for and will not be enforced until it becomes law
A law is defined to stop malpractices, maintain public order and most importantly protect Fundamental RightsActs are made to make people aware of certain rules and regulations that are in place. Sometimes reflects the aspiration of society as well. 
A law is an established phenomenon, derived from the Act.An Act is originally a bill which is proposed by the Parliament first and when it gets approval from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and the President as well, it becomes an act
Laws are under regulation by government authority and hold sovereignty in them.Acts are provisions enacted by a legislative body or the government for the people understand the meaning of specific circumstances

Monday 15 August 2022

The Constitution of India and Fundamental Duties of Citizens

The Constitution of India and Fundamental Duties of Citizens

By:
Vijay Sardana
Advocate & IIMA Alumnus
Techno-legal Expert & Corporate Advisor
Supreme Court of India, High Court and NGT


The fundamental duties of citizens were added to the constitution by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 under Article 51A Part 4A, upon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. 

Initially while drafting the Constitution of India fundamental duties were not part of the Constitution of India. The essential duties were inspired by the constitution of the USSR (now Russia). 

Facts about Fundamental Duties:

Fundamental Duties are categorised into two – Moral Duty & Civic Duty

  1. Moral Duty: cherishing noble ideals of freedom struggle, they contain just a codification of tasks integral to the Indian way of life.

  2. Civic Duty: respecting the Constitution, National Flag and National Anthem

Initially ten in number, the fundamental duties were increased to eleven by the 86th Amendment in 2002, which added a duty on every parent or guardian to ensure that their child or ward was provided opportunities for education between the ages of six and fourteen. 

The other fundamental duties obligate all citizens to respect the national symbols of India, including the constitution, to cherish its heritage, to preserve its composite culture and assist in its defence. 

They also obligate all Indians to promote the spirit of common brotherhood, protect the environment and public property, develop scientific temper, abjure violence, and strive towards excellence in all spheres of life. 

Importance of Fundamental Duties- Part IV-A

Fundamental Duties are an inalienable part of fundamental rights. The importance of Fundamental Duties is given below:

  1. They remind Indian Citizens of their duty towards their society, fellow citizens and the nation

  2. They warn citizens against anti-national and anti-social activities

  3. They inspire citizens & promote a sense of discipline and commitment among them

  4. They help the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law

The violation of fundamental duties is not a punishable offence unless it is backed by Legislative enactments like the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, Forest Act, Environment Act, Pollution Act, and others.

The Supreme court has ruled that these fundamental duties can also help the court to decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature. 

There is a reference to such duties in international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 51A brings the Indian constitution into conformity with these treaties.

The fundamental duties noted in the constitution are as follows:  It shall be the duty of every citizen of India — 

a) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

b) To cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom; 

c) To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; 

d) To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so; 

e) To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; 

f) To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; 

g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures; 

h) To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; 

i) To safeguard public property and to abjure violence; 

j) To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement; 

k) Who is a parent or guardian, to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. The duty was included in the list of fundamental duties by 86th Amendment to the constitution of India in the year 2002.

The Supreme Court has used the Fundamental Duties to uphold the Constitutional validity of statutes which seek to promote the objects laid out in the Fundamental Duties.

These Duties have also been held to be obligatory for all citizens, subject to the State enforcing the same business valid law. The Supreme Court has also issued directions to the State in this regard, with a view toward making the provisions effective and enabling citizens to properly perform their duties.

Criticism of Fundamental Duties

The Fundamental Duties mentioned in Part IVA of the Constitution have been criticised on the following grounds:

  1. They have been described by the critics as a code of moral precepts due to their non-justiciable character. Their inclusion in the Constitution was described by critics as superfluous. This is because the duties included in the Constitution as fundamental would be performed by the people even though they were not incorporated into the Constitution.

  2. Some of the duties are vague, ambiguous, and difficult to be understood by the average person.

  3. The list of duties is not exhaustive as it does not cover other important duties like casting votes, paying taxes, family planning and so on. In fact, the duty to pay taxes was recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee.

The critics said that the inclusion of fundamental duties as an appendage to Part IV of the Constitution has reduced their value and significance. They should have been added after Part III to keep them on par with Fundamental Rights.

Swaran Singh’s Committee recommended more than 10 Fundamental Duties, however, not all were included in the Constitution. Those duties recommended by the committee which were not accepted were:

  1. Citizens are to be penalised/punished by the parliament for any non-compliance with or refusal to observe any of the duties.

  2. The punishments/penalties decided by the Parliament shall not be called in question in any court on the ground of infringement of any of Fundamental Rights or on the ground of repugnancy to any other provision of the Constitution.

  3. Duty to pay taxes.

The Fundamental Duties are confined to Indian citizens only and do not extend to foreigners unlike a few Fundamental Rights

They are also nonjusticiable like the Directive Principle of State Policies. There is no legal sanction against their violation.

Follow on Twitter: @vijaysardana


Wednesday 6 July 2022

Why are Indian Courts not adopting Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct?

Why are Indian Judiciary not adopting the Globally accepted "Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct"?


The judicial Integrity Group by the UN system was formed to regain the confidence of the people in the judicial system around the world.
The Judicial Integrity Group took two major decisions in its very first meeting.
First, it agreed that the principle of accountability demanded that national judiciaries assume an active role in strengthening judicial integrity by effecting systemic reforms in line with their judiciaries’ competence and capacity. 
Second, it recognized the urgent need for a universally acceptable statement of judicial standards that was consistent with the principle of judicial independence and that could be respected and ultimately enforced by national judiciaries without the intervention of either the executive or legislative branches of Government. 
The participating judges emphasized that, by adopting and enforcing appropriate standards of judicial conduct among its members, the judiciary had the power to take a significant step towards earning and retaining the respect of the community. 
Accordingly, they requested that the codes of judicial conduct adopted in some jurisdictions be analysed and a report be prepared by the coordinator of the Judicial Integrity Group, Nihal Jayawickrama, concerning 
(a) the core considerations that recur in such codes; and 
(b) the optional or additional considerations that occur in some, but not all, such codes and that may or may not be suitable for adoption in specific countries.
According to the President of the UK Supreme Court, the Guide to Judicial Conduct (2019) is necessary because. , Every court should have a Code of Judicial Conduct that sets out the standards of ethical conduct to be expected of the Court. Such a Code serves several purposes. It provides guidance to the members of the Court. It informs those who use the Court of the standards that they can reasonably expect of its judges. It explains to members of the public how judges behave and should help to secure their respect and support for the judiciary.
Not only many countries have adopted the Bangalore Principles, but others have even modelled their own principles of judicial conduct on them. 
International organizations have also looked at them in favour and endorsed them. The United Nations Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 2006/23 of 27 July 2006, invited States Members of the United Nations to encourage their judiciaries, in line with their domestic legal systems, to take into consideration the Bangalore Principles when reviewing or developing rules on the professional and ethical conduct of the members of the judiciary. 
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has actively supported the Bangalore Principles, which have also been recognized by bodies such as the American Bar Association and the International Commission of Jurists. The judges of the member states of the Council of Europe have also given the Bangalore Principles their favourable consideration. The Bangalore Principles and the amended commentary were adopted at those meetings and thereby given increased weight and authority. 
The Bangalore Principles, an instrument that is of immense potential value, not only for the judiciaries of all nations but also for the citizens and public and for all those concerned with laying down a firm foundation for a global judiciary of unimpeachable integrity. 
Every citizen and public representative of India must ask the following:
  • The question is when the Indian judiciary will adopt these guidelines? 
  • How long we will continue to work on outdated 1999 guidelines which have not inspired any confidence in the common people of India. 
  • Why do our law colleges not discuss and teach Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct?
The people of India waiting for a reply from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.
In democracy and in civilized societies, a judiciary of undisputed integrity is the bedrock of democracy and the rule of law. Even when all other protections fail, the judiciary provides a bulwark to the public against any encroachments on rights and freedoms under the law. These observations apply both domestically—in the context of each nation-State—and globally, for the global judiciary is seen as one great bastion of the rule of law throughout the world. Ensuring the integrity of the global judiciary is thus a task to which much energy, skill and experience must be devoted. How much effort our Judges in Supreme Court and High courts are doing in this direction should be studied by all law colleges and PhD researchers. Parliamentary standing committees must investigate this aspect.

This is precisely what the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity (the Judicial Integrity Group) has sought to do since 2000. The Group commenced as an informal gathering of chief justices and superior court judges from around the world who combined their experience and skill with a sense of dedication to this noble task. Since then, the Group’s work and achievements have grown to a point where they have made a significant impact on the global judicial scene. 

The principles were first worked out only tentatively but have increasingly been accepted over the past few years by the different sectors of the global judiciary and by international agencies interested in the integrity of the judicial process. As a result, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct are seen more and more as a document which all judiciaries and legal systems can accept unreservedly. 

In short, these principles give expression to the highest traditions relating to the judicial function as visualized in all cultures and legal systems. Reaching agreement on these core principles has been difficult but the Judicial Integrity Group’s unwavering commitment to achieving a result which would command universal acceptance has allowed it to surmount the barriers in its path.

Courts keep asking when India will adopt police reforms, and now people are asking when Courts will adopt the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct?

Saturday 14 May 2022

गेहूं और आटे का दाम घटाने के लिए सरकार कुछ बड़ा करने वाली है |


गेहूं और सरकार

गेहूं और आटे का दाम घटाने के लिए सरकार कुछ बड़ा करने वाली है |

Differences between Law and Act

  Differences between Law and Act By: Adv. Vijay Sardana Law  Act The law is an outcome of the Act. A law is defined as an assemblage or col...