 Fundamental rights as per the Constitution of India are broadly given here: Right to Equality: Article 14-18 Right to Equality is the first of fundamental rights to be listed in the Indian Constitution. The right is meant to provide equality to all citizens before law and also equal protection of law. Furthermore, Right to Equality also prohibits discrimination of any kind. Right to Freedom : Article 19-22 Right to Freedom is one of the most important and widely contested fundamental right of the Indian Constitution. Right to Freedom is further divided into the following parts:
Right Against Exploitation : Article 23-24:Right Against Exploitation offers two main provisions:
Right to Freedom of Religion : Article 25-28 Right to Freedom of Religion is covered in Article 25-28 and provides religious freedom to all citizens of India and has four main aspects.
Cultural and Educational Rights : Article 29-30 Article 29-30 talk about the cultural and educational rights that were administered mainly to protect the interests of minorities (religious or otherwise) in the country. Two major provisions have been made under these rights:
Right to Constitutional Remedies : Article 32-35 Article 32 of the Indian Constitution has provisions for legal enforcement of the fundamental rights. According to the constitution, the state is the biggest violator of fundamental rights thus the right to constitutional remedies protects the rights of the citizens by giving them provisions to approach the court in case of violation. Right to Education : Article 21(A) This right was added to the constitution in 2002 but was only enforced in 2009 after the Right to Education bill was passed. Under this right, every child from the age of 6-14 has the right to receive education, |
  M. Manohar |
|
The Fifth Generation Rights as they are recognized by this name are not limited to humans but extend to all habitats. Recently, a bench of Uttarakhand High Courts on 20th March 2017 has decreed that the Ganga and Yamuna as well as their tributaries and sister bodies be declared as legal and living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities. The above order gives a new dimension to the laws framed for protection of environment. |
M. Manohar |
|
Aggrieved Persons can now file cases relating to cheque bounce at the place where
the cheque is presented for clearance, and not at the place of issue, as
per the amended Law {Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015} which came into existence after the President's assent on 26th December 2015. Interestingly, there are an estimated 18 lakh cheque bounce cases across the country, of which about 38,000 are pending in High Courts. Some litigants have to travel to different places from where the cheques were issued and not honoured, putting them under undue redress in order to get justice and dues. |
M. Manohar |
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) with Justice J.S. Verma at the head, had established the Collegium System in 1993. The Collegium System prescribes appointment of judges by a panel comprising five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, with the power to enforce appointments despite disagreement, if any, from the Government. The SC is now hearing the suggestions from Government and other petitioners on the issues of eligibility criteria, establishment of a secretariat for the collegium and evolving a mechanism of complaint redress. It is a general feeling that there is a need for greater transparency in the appointment for judges for the higher judiciary through the collegium system. The 20-year-old collegium system prescribes appointment of judges by a panel comprising five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, with the power to confirm appointments despite resistance, if any, from the government. |
 Pooja Sharma |
 Deleted |
Pooja Sharma |
|
Supreme Court on 6th July 2015 has given a landmark decision
wherein naming or getting a consent from the father of the child
(outside of wed lock) is not required to get the guardianship by the mother. It is to be noted that in case of applying for the passport such as
declaration is also not required.
This will greatly help those mothers who on their own want to raise children born out unpleased/ forced relationships which did not turn into marriage. |
M. Manohar |
|
Culpable homicide is an offence under
§299 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and defined as "Whoever causes death by
doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.". This section
provides some scope for defining the rash driving or druken driving
as an act of driving with an intention of causing bodily injury to
other people on/ off road. The Culpable Homicide is punishable for a maximum jail term of 10 Years as per Section 304.
However, the state of mind of the driver in both cases (rash as well as drunken) is considered to be not a healthy one and rash or drunken driving is considered merely a negligent act. Therefore, in most road accident cases Section 304A of IPC is applied which deals with cases other than culpable homicide and murder. The section 304A reads as under:
304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Supreme Court of India in March 2015 has made an observation that the punishment for causing death due to rash driving under section 304A is not an adequate deterrent for the offenders. |
 Raginee |
|
Section 66A of Information Technology Act (created through an amendment in 2008) defines the punishment for sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine. This section of Information Technology Act is often in the news due to vagueness associated with the word "offensive". This word has a very wide connotation, and is open to distinctive, varied interpretations. It is subjective, and what may be innocuous for one person, may lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest under Section 66A if the police prima facie accepts the latter person’s view. |
Raginee |
|
The Supreme Court has scrapped a contentious law on 24th March 2015 that was seen as a major infringement of the freedom of speech online because it allowed the arrest of a person for posting offensive content. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, introduced in 2000, has been declared unconstitutional. Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine." |
Arvind Sharma |
|
The "online Shopping Cart" was patented in USA by Soverain Software. However, it has been challenged by Newegg on the basis of obviousness. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has given a decision in February 2015 stating that "Shopping Cart" and related e-commerce patents were invalid. |
 Swati Arora |
In case a person fails to get a response from the PIO within the prescribed period or is aggrieved by the response received, then he/ she can file an appeal as given below:
Important Notes:
|
 Reena Gaur |
|
Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. Therefore responsibility of investigating agency becomes too much considering the trial is going to take so many years and the number of cases to be dealt is in thousands. If a crucial witness dies or turns hostile, the case generally turns in to merely a motion providing enough scope for acquittal. It has been seen in the past, in many high profile cases, the witnesses have been targeted or killed. Much deliberation has been done on the issue of adoption and effective implementation of a witness protection programme in the country. However, no concrete statutory implementation of the same has materialized despite the Law Commission of India submitting a comprehensive report on the subject in 2006 advocating for implementation of witness protection schemes. On the other side, the Supreme Court in the Best Bakery case has observed that the State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses so as to avert the trial getting derailed and the truth becoming a mere casualty, to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, those who have political patronage and those who could wield muscle and money power. Certain positive measures have been incorporated in the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010, with respect to the protection of witnesses and protection of the identity of complainants, the same would be effective only after being implemented as a Law. |
Raginee |
