by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
In 2018, the Supreme Court of India unanimously held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,that criminalized consensual homosexual sex as unconstitutional. Inspired by this view, petitions were filed before the Singapore Court to decriminalize section 377A. But on 30th March 2020, the Singapore Court upheld the colonial-era law that criminalized homosexuality between two consenting adults and held that S.377A of the Singaporean Penal Code does not violate Articles 9(1), 12(1) and 14 of the Constitution and hence held the section constitutional and disagreed with the interpretation of the Indian Supreme Court in decriminalizing the section that violated one’s basic rights provided by the Constitution.
This paper critically analyzes the judgment delivered by the Singapore Court on criminalizing consensual homosexual sex, wherein a special mention of the recent judgment given by the Indian court decriminalizing the same had been highlighted. The paper takes into account historical differences between the two countries on the concept of homosexuality and provides a comparative analysis of the interpretation of Article 12 and 14 of the Constitution by the respective courts. Finally, this paper focuses on the need for the Singapore courts to divert their primary focus on traditional principles to govern the judiciary and shift to basing judgments on the spirit of the Constitution and human rights.
by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
This paper tries to analyze the pertaining situation existing between the Supreme Court and Parliament of Indian from 1950s to 1990s with the help of various case laws. Parliament, Executive and Judiciary are the three major indispensable branches of the state, with their own well-defined authority and spheres. Parliament of nation represents the branch of law formulation, the Executive is answerable for imposition of laws, and the Judiciary is decisive for the interpretation of the laws and statues as well as working as a mechanism for dispute resolution. Each of these branches acts as a check and balances over the powers of others. The drafted words of the Constitution is a valuable printed document for the whole nation, no doubt there may be some diverse in opinion which can also be regarded. For example, many human may consider Quran, Geeta, Bible as a valuable script, but while looking over the entirety of the nation in which we live that assures Rule of Law, moreover which is the regarded as the source of every citizens basic rights and if any human who believes in Rule of Law has to believe that the most important printed document for any nation is the Constitution. In this paper we will we examine about, how the relationship between Parliament and Judiciary have evolved from beginning in relation to Constitutional enactment and its interpretation by the Courts with relation to such written words along with we will also look upon the judgment of Keshvananda Bharati’s Case and will discuss about it’s future influence abovethe Constitution of India.
Keywords: Supreme Court, Parliament, Rule of Law, Constitution, Relationship, Check and Balance, Keshvananda Bharati Case.
by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
On 17th March, 2020 a Mumbai High Court bench consisting of RI Chagla, J. and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ disposed off an extraordinary and unusual Writ Petition [Sabah Manal Colabawalla v. Union of India, WP (L) No. 871 of 2020 – Mumbai High Court] under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
The Writ Petition was filed by (Ms. Sabah Manal Collabawalla) the mother of a 19 Year girl (Ms. Nyla Imaan Samee) who had been stranded at the Dubai International Airport since the past 6 days- without any help whatsoever. The same was alleged to be due to a gross misinterpretation of the Circular regulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 11th of March with the title “Consolidated Travel Advisory for Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)” read in consonance with the Bureau of Immigration’s Travel Advisory for travellers arriving to India from COVID-19 affected nations.
by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
Narendranath Bhattacharjee, better known as M.N. Roy has been a name who has confounded Communists and Socialists alike all over the world. While many consider him to be the father of the Mexican and the Indian Communist movements and a man deeply devoted to public service and the welfare of the proletariat, others saw in him a school-boy communist turned Right-Wing renegade who embezzled money via opportunism and his rosy image of his efforts towards a Communist revolution, and was eventually chucked out of the Comintern in 1928. This project aims to delve into a very important chapter in the mysterious life of MN Roy, specifically on his meteoric rise to the pinnacle of Mexican politics and how his views on Marxist Theory changed during the process. It also seeks to provide background information about the Socialist scenario in India and for Indian Revolutionaries abroad in order to set the narrative tone of the Article. It is careful in not to give any of the two aforementioned narratives on Roy’s life any advantage on the outset, but seeks to collect and analyse various sources and accounts on the life of a man who has constantly split public opinion. The Article is divided into two concise segments- Indian Revolutionaries prior to the emergence of MN Roy and The Rise of MN Roy in Mexico.
by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
“The quest for justice for yesterday’s victims of atrocities should not be pursued in such a manner that it makes today’s living the dead of tomorrow” The international community has long since debated over the peace versus justice conundrum without coming to any definitive conclusion. It has turned the war between the oppressors and the oppressed into a never-ending cycle of victims turning into perpetrators and giving rise to yet more classes of victims. The pursuit of countries to resolve this conflict has also been an incessant chain of either sacrificing peace to deliver justice to the victims or paying the price of justice in order to obtain peace. This multifaceted puzzle between the peace first or justice first approach adopted by peace negotiators has largely ignored the grim realities of the victims living and surviving through the perpetrator’s atrocities. Although this paper does not intend to provide a concrete solution for this debate that has been unsettled amongst the scholars for decades; it attempts to throw light on a nuanced approach for satisfactorily gauging the actual impact of this from the victim’s perspective. It endeavours to highlight the harsh reality of the dichotomy that exists between the meaning of peace and justice for a country against the actual needs of its people. And finally, it explores the Columbian model of ‘pardon for peace’ that emphasizes holding violators accountable through a justice mechanism in order to facilitate victim catharsis and obtain a balance between justice for the victims and peace for the nation.
Keywords: Armed Conflict, Atrocities, Conflict Resolution, Forgiveness laws, Justice, Peace, Perpetrators, Victims
by IJLMH | Jul 5, 2020
Mediation is a tool to secure the justice through mutually agreement between the parties. It was supposed to be an instrument of tool to secure the ends of justice through the involvement of third party. But, instead of securing the justice it has rather resulted more into dilution of justice in India. This was also supposed to be a help for the Indian Judiciary to overcome the burden of matters on it but in this case also it has rather enhanced the burden on Judiciary as the parties were dissatisfied by the mechanism of Mediation or I would say an Alternate Dispute Resolution. The basis on which Alternate Dispute Resolution works in India is simply that it protects the privacy of the family matters. Due to Alternate Dispute Resolutions like, Arbitration or Mediation the family matters, or the Company’s reputation matters are dealt privately without any interference of people other than known to the parties and given a majorly the Company an opportunity to opt for it as it protects their Company’s name and fame. But, the question is do the Alternate Dispute Resolutions have in reality resulted in achieving the aim they were established for?
