SAMPLE FORMAT OF THE ASSIGNMENT

KRIDEY FOUNDATION

WEEK 1 – INTENSIVE AND EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PAPER

WEEK 2 – ARTICLE WRITING AND GROUP DISCUSSION
WEEK 3 – CASE COMMENTARY AND NEWS UPDATE
WEEK 4 – INTERNSHIP REPORT, FUNDRAISING AND SOCIAL
WORK
 WEEK 1

INTENSIVE RESEARCH

SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

1. Introduction

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is a significant legislation governing Hindu marriages in
India. Section 13 of this act provides the grounds for divorce, ensuring that couples have
recourse when their marital relationship becomes untenable. This research work aims to shed
light on the various aspects of Section 13, including its historical background, key provisions,
judicial interpretations, and societal implications. Any marriage solemnized, whether before or
after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the
wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party.

While Clause 1 of Section 13 presents the general grounds of divorce that are available to both
the parties involved in a broken marriage, Clause 1-A, introduced in the Act of 1955 by the
Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, 1964, provides two further grounds for obtaining a divorce
decree. Clause 2 of Section 13 specifically provides four grounds that can be availed for getting
a divorce only by the wife. Divorce grounds can be viewed from two perspectives:

I. Marriage is an exclusive relationship, and if it is not, it is no longer considered

marriage. Marriage also indicates that the parties would live in peace and trust with
one another. Cruelty, or the threat of cruelty, undercuts this fundamental condition of
marriage. The essential premise of marriage is that both parties will live together,
however, if one party abandons the other, this premise is no longer valid. As a result,
infidelity, abuse, and abandonment are all detrimental to a marriage’s basis.
II. From a different perspective, the above acts are marital offences committed by one of
the marriage partners. There is a semblance of crime here. Divorce is viewed in this
light as a means of punishing the partner who has proved himself or herself unworthy
of association. The guilt or offence theory of divorce which states that the offence
 must be one that is recognised as a basis for divorce is the consequence of the
discussed perception.

2. Grounds for Divorce as per Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13 of this Act deals with the conditions of Divorce amongst the Hindu marriages.
According to Sec 13(1) any marriage solemnized whether before or after the commencement
of this Act can file a petition for divorce which is presented either by the husband or the wife,
that may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, for obtaining the decree of divorce the
following conditions must be satisfied. They are as follows:

(a) Voluntary Sexual Intercourse: According to Section 13(1)(i), if any person after the
solemnization of marriage had voluntary intercourse with any person other than his or
her spouse, then the other person can file a suit for divorce in the court of law. For
example, A, after the solemnization of his had a voluntary sexual intercourse with B
,then A’s spouse, C can file a suit for divorce and the court of law may grant the decree
for divorce if the intercourse done by A was proved voluntary.
(b) Cruelty: This is one of the main reasons of divorce among the parties to the marriage.
Domestic violence and cruelty has taken a rise in the past few years. According to
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act , if any person, after the solemnization of his or her marriage
has treated the other with cruelty then that person can file a suit for divorce in the court
of law. For example, A, the husband of B, always hits B for no particular reason, B can
file a suit for divorce in the court of law.
(c) Desertion: Desertion means leaving the partner for a period of time without informing
them about the reason of leaving. Thus, according to Section 13(1)(ib), if one of the
parties to the marriage has deserted the other for a continuous period of two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, then that person can file for
divorce under the court of law. For example, A, the husband of B, deserted his wife B
for four long years and has still not returned before the presentation of the petition, then
B can get the decree for divorce by the court of law.
(d) Eased to be Hindu: According to Section 13(1)(ii) of the Act, any person who has
ceased to be a Hindu by converting to any other religion, after the solemnization of
marriage, then the other party to the marriage can file for a suit for divorce under this
 Act to the appropriate court of law. For example, B, a Hindu, became a Christian after
his marriage by way of conversion, A, his wife, did not like his conversion and thus file
a suit for divorce. The court will grant the decree for divorce if the conversion is proved.
(e) Unsound Mind: According to Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act, any person who is of
unsound mind and cannot possibly be cured or has been suffering continuously or
temporarily from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent, that it makes
impossible for the other person to live peacefully. In such a case, that person can file a
suit for divorce under this section.

Note
Expression mental disorder has two types(i) mental disorder i.e. mental, illness, disability etcs.
(ii) psychopathic disorder i.e. persistent disorder or disability of mind etcs.*

3. There are some grounds which are provided in Section 13 of HMA 1, which are given
below as:

(a) Communicable Disease

As per Section 13(1)(v) of this Act, if any parties to the marriage are suffering from
Communicable Disease which affect/risk to the life of the other party, then the other
party can file a suit for divorce as per this section.
(b) Leprosy
According to Section 13(1)(iv) , if one of the parties to the marriage are suffering from
a virulent or incurable form of leprosy, then the other party can file a suit for divorce
under this Act.
(c) Missing for 7 years or more
According to Section 13(1)(vii), if any person, after the solemnization of the marriage
is not heard as of being alive for a period of seven years or more by those people who
would have normally heard if that person was alive, then the other party can fie a suit
for divorce under this ground.

(d) Renunciation of the World

According to Section 13(1)(vi) of this Act, if any person has renounced the world by
entering into a religious order, after the solemnization of marriage , thereby leaving the
other party , then such party can file suit for divorce in the court of law. For example,
 A ,after his marriage, thought that he was not meant to be a family person , so he
renounced the world and became a sanyasi, his wife, B , can file a suit for divorce under
this section of the Act.

According to Section 13(1A), either party to the marriage, whether solemnized before or after
the commencement of the Act, can present a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree
of divorce on the following grounds:

(e) No resumption of cohabitation for one year or more

According to Section 13(1A)(i),if there has been no resumption of cohabitation between
the parties for a period of one year or more after passing the decree for judicial
separation in a proceeding where both were parties, then the court may, on such ground
grant the decree for divorce to both the parties.
(f) Restitution of Conjugal Rights
According to Section 13(1A)(ii), if there has been no restitution of conjugal rights
between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or more after the passing of
the decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which both were parties , then the
court may grant the decree for divorce to both the parties.

Supreme Court removes 6-month waiting period for divorce (Landmark Ruling)

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday said that it has the discretion to
dissolve a marriage on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown”. This can be done through
exercising of its power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution.
Article 142 of the Constitution deals with enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court
to do “complete justice” in any matter pending before it. As per Article 142(1), a decree passed
or an order made by the apex court is executable throughout the territory of India.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said the Supreme Court can
dissolve a marriage by granting divorce through mutual consent while dispensing with the 6-
month waiting period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act tackles divorce by mutual consent and sub-section (2)
to this provision provides, after the first motion has been passed, the parties would have to
move the court with the second motion, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meanwhile, after
six months and not later than 18 months of the first motion.

The bench was hearing several petitions related to whether the top court can grant divorce
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution when there is complete and irretrievable breakdown
of marriage in spite of the other spouse opposing the prayer. “This question is also answered
in the affirmative, inter alia, holding that this court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its
irretrievable breakdown,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka,
Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari. “This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete
justice’ to the parties, wherein this court is satisfied that the facts established show that the
marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together,
and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified,” it said. While delivering the
judgment, the judges used an example of a 2014 case filed in the apex court, titled Shilpa
Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, where both the parties had asked for a divorce under Article
142 of the Indian Constitution.

REFERENCES-

Businesstoday News

[Link]

[Link]/

[Link]

[Link]
 EXTENSIVE RESEARCH PAPER

JUDICIARY AS THE SUPREME BODY IN INDIA

Introduction
The judiciary holds a pivotal position in the Indian democratic system, serving as the
supreme body responsible for upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights,
and ensuring justice for all. As an independent and impartial institution, the judiciary in
India plays a critical role in safeguarding the principles of democracy, maintaining the
balance of power, and ensuring the accountability of the government and its agencies.
The roots of the Indian judiciary can be traced back to the colonial era when the British
introduced a legal framework to administer justice in their Indian territories. However,
it was with the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950 that the judiciary acquired
a central role in the governance and protection of fundamental rights. Recognizing the
importance of an independent judiciary, the framers of the Constitution enshrined its
principles and functions, establishing it as one of the three pillars of the Indian
democratic system.
At the apex of the Indian judiciary stands the Supreme Court, endowed with the
authority of judicial review. This power empowers the Supreme Court to interpret the
Constitution and ensure the adherence of all branches of government to its provisions.
The decisions and judgments of the Supreme Court serve as binding precedents for
lower courts, fostering consistency and uniformity in the application of law across the
country. This ensures that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are
upheld and protected.
One of the distinctive features of the Indian judiciary is its independence, which is
crucial for the effective functioning of a democratic society. The Constitution provides
various safeguards to maintain the judiciary's independence and protect it from undue
influence. The appointment of judges follows a rigorous process that involves
consultation between the judiciary and the executive, ensuring transparency and
minimizing political interference. Additionally, the judiciary enjoys financial
autonomy, enabling it to make decisions impartially without fear of financial
repercussions.
The significance of the judiciary as the supreme body in India cannot be overstated. It
acts as the custodian of the Constitution, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of
individuals are not violated and that the government's actions are in conformity with
the Constitution's principles. By exercising judicial review, the judiciary serves as a
check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches, preventing any
encroachment upon constitutional limits and maintaining a system of checks and
balances.
Moreover, the judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting the marginalized and
vulnerable sections of society. It acts as a champion for social justice by interpreting
and applying laws in a manner that upholds the rights of all individuals, regardless of
their socio-economic background. The judiciary's commitment to fairness, equality, and
non-discrimination helps create a just and inclusive society where everyone has equal
access to justice.

Historical Evolution of the Indian Judiciary

The historical evolution of the Indian judiciary is a fascinating journey that spans
centuries, reflecting the country's complex legal and judicial development. From
ancient times to the present day, the Indian judiciary has undergone significant
transformations, influenced by various legal systems, colonial rule, and the country's
struggle for independence. This evolution has shaped the judiciary into the independent
and impartial institution it is today.
Ancient India had a well-established system of justice that was guided by religious and
philosophical principles. The ancient texts, such as the Manusmriti and Arthashastra,
provided guidelines for governance and the administration of justice. During this
period, justice was primarily dispensed by the king or the ruler, who acted as the
ultimate authority in legal matters.
With the advent of Muslim rule in India, Islamic legal principles influenced the
administration of justice. The Sultanate and Mughal rulers introduced their own legal
systems, with Qazis and Qadis appointed to adjudicate disputes based on Islamic law.
The Islamic legal system coexisted alongside traditional Hindu and customary laws,
creating a diverse legal landscape in the subcontinent.
The arrival of the British East India Company in the 17th century marked a significant
turning point in the Indian judiciary's history. Initially, the British followed their own
legal system, applying English common law and equity in cases involving Europeans.
However, they recognized the need to administer justice to the Indian population and
established courts that applied a mix of Hindu, Muslim, and customary laws.
The establishment of the Calcutta Supreme Court in 1774 marked the beginning of a
more formalized legal system in British India. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction over
the presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay and applied English law in
commercial and civil cases. The court's decisions were subject to appeal to the Privy
Council in England.
In 1861, the Indian High Courts Act was passed, which led to the creation of high courts
in major cities across India. These high courts became the highest judicial authorities
in their respective regions and played a crucial role in the administration of justice. The
decisions of the high courts, along with the Privy Council's rulings, formed the basis of
the emerging Indian legal system.
The most significant milestone in the evolution of the Indian judiciary came with the
adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950. The Constitution established an
independent judiciary as one of the pillars of the democratic system. It created a
Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority with the power of judicial review,
allowing it to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violated its
provisions.
Over the years, the Indian judiciary has witnessed several landmark judgments that have
shaped the legal landscape and reaffirmed the judiciary's role as the guardian of the
Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, which established the doctrine of
 basic structure, and the Maneka Gandhi case in 1978, which expanded the scope of
personal liberty, are examples of such influential judgments.
Furthermore, efforts have been made to strengthen the independence and efficiency of
the judiciary. The establishment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) in 2014 aimed to reform the process of judicial appointments, but it was later
struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 2015. The judgment upheld
the collegium system, which involves a panel of judges making recommendations for
judicial appointments.
Furthermore, efforts have been made to strengthen the independence and efficiency of
the judiciary. The establishment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) in 2014 aimed to reform the process of judicial appointments, but it was later
struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in 2015. The judgment upheld
the collegium system, which involves a panel of judges making recommendations for
judicial appointments.

Structure of the Judiciary

The structure of the judiciary in India is designed to ensure an effective and independent
judicial system that upholds the rule of law and protects the rights of citizens. The
Indian judiciary is a hierarchical system consisting of various levels of courts with
distinct jurisdictions and functions. The structure can be broadly classified into three
tiers: the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts.
1. Supreme Court: At the apex of the Indian judicial system is the Supreme Court of
India. It is the highest court and the final authority for interpreting the Constitution and
resolving disputes of national importance. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief
Justice of India (CJI) and a maximum of 34 judges, appointed by the President of India.
The court exercises both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals
from the High Courts and has the power of judicial review, allowing it to review the
constitutionality of laws and government actions. The decisions of the Supreme Court
are binding on all other courts in the country.
2. High Courts: Each state in India has a High Court, which is the highest judicial
authority within the state's jurisdiction. The High Courts are headed by a Chief Justice
and comprise several judges appointed by the President of India. High Courts have
original jurisdiction, which means they can hear certain types of cases directly, and they
also have appellate jurisdiction, hearing appeals from subordinate courts within their
territorial jurisdiction. The High Court’s play a crucial role in interpreting state laws
and ensuring uniformity and consistency in legal principles within their respective
states.
3. Subordinate Courts: Below the High Courts are the subordinate courts, also known as
district courts. These courts are established at the district level and are presided over by
judges appointed by the state government. The subordinate courts include civil courts,
criminal courts, and other specialized courts such as family courts, labour courts, and
consumer courts. They have jurisdiction over specific geographical areas and handle a
wide range of cases, including civil disputes, criminal matters, and administrative
 issues. Subordinate courts function under the administrative control of the respective
High Courts.
Apart from these three main tiers, there are also various specialized tribunals and quasi-
judicial bodies established to address specific areas of law and dispute resolution. These
include the National Green Tribunal, the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, and others. These tribunals are designed to provide speedy and
efficient justice in their respective domains.
The structure of the judiciary in India is intended to ensure the separation of powers,
with an independent judiciary acting as a check on the executive and legislative
branches of government. The judiciary's hierarchical nature allows for a system of
appeals, ensuring that parties dissatisfied with a lower court's decision can seek a review
by a higher court. This structure also provides for specialization, with different courts
handling specific types of cases, promoting expertise and efficiency in the
administration of justice.
In recent years, efforts have been made to strengthen the infrastructure and functioning
of the judiciary, reduce pendency of cases, and improve access to justice. Initiatives
such as e-courts, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and the appointment of
more judges have been undertaken to streamline the judicial process and ensure timely
delivery of justice.

Independence of the Judiciary

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle that ensures the judiciary can act
impartially, free from external pressures or influences, and make decisions solely based on the
law and justice. It is a cornerstone of a democratic society and is essential for upholding the
rule of law and protecting individual rights. Here is an elaboration on the independence of the
judiciary:
 Separation of Powers: The independence of the judiciary is closely linked to the
concept of separation of powers, which divides the functions of the government into
three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The judiciary acts as a
separate and independent branch, distinct from the other two, ensuring a system of
checks and balances. This separation prevents the concentration of power and enables
the judiciary to function independently.
 Appointment and Tenure: The independence of the judiciary is safeguarded through
the appointment and tenure of judges. In India, the judges of the higher judiciary,
including the Supreme Court and High Courts, are appointed by the President in
consultation with the Chief Justice and a collegium of senior judges. The process aims
to ensure the selection of competent and impartial judges. Additionally, judges are
provided with security of tenure, which means they cannot be easily removed from
office, ensuring their independence from political or other external pressures.
 Financial Autonomy: Financial independence is crucial for the judiciary to function
effectively. It ensures that the judiciary has adequate resources to operate independently
and efficiently. The budgetary allocation for the judiciary is made directly to the
 judiciary, separate from the executive, to prevent financial control or influence that
could compromise its independence.
 Judicial Ethics and Code of Conduct: Judges are expected to uphold high standards
of integrity, impartiality, and ethical conduct. They are bound by a code of conduct that
guides their behaviour and ensures they act independently and without bias. The code
of conduct includes principles such as maintaining integrity, avoiding conflicts of
interest, and refraining from engaging in political activities. These ethical guidelines
promote public confidence in the judiciary and reinforce its independence.
 Judicial Immunity: Judges enjoy certain immunities and protections to safeguard their
independence. They are granted judicial immunity, which protects them from personal
liability for their judicial acts. This immunity encourages judges to make decisions
without fear of reprisal or retribution, enabling them to act independently and without
external influences.
 Judicial Review: The power of judicial review is an important aspect of judicial
independence. It allows the judiciary to review and strike down laws or executive
actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution. This power acts as a check on the
legislative and executive branches, ensuring that their actions are within the limits set
by the Constitution. Judicial review safeguards the rights and liberties of individuals
and prevents the abuse of power.
 Public Confidence and Accountability: Independence is not an absolute privilege; it
comes with the responsibility to maintain public confidence and be accountable. The
judiciary should be transparent in its functioning, provide reasoned judgments, and be
open to scrutiny. While judges are not subject to political pressures, they are
accountable to the Constitution and the people. The judiciary's independence must be
balanced with its accountability to ensure trust and credibility in the justice system.
The independence of the judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law, protecting
individual rights, and ensuring a fair and just society. It allows the judiciary to act as a
neutral arbiter, applying the law impartially and without fear or favour. Upholding and
preserving judicial independence is a shared responsibility of the judiciary, the legal
profession, the executive, and the citizens to maintain a robust and independent
judiciary.

Landmark Judgments and their Impact

Landmark judgments are judicial decisions that have a significant impact on the
interpretation and application of the law. These rulings often involve important legal
principles, constitutional rights, and social issues. Landmark judgments shape legal
precedents, influence future legal proceedings, and have a profound impact on society.
Here is an elaboration on landmark judgments and their impact:
 Constitutional Interpretation: Landmark judgments play a crucial role in interpreting
and defining the provisions of a constitution. They help establish the scope and limits
of constitutional rights and principles.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) resulted in a landmark judgment that outlined
the basic structure doctrine, which restricts the power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution. Such decisions lay down foundational principles that guide the
interpretation and evolution of constitutional law.
 Protection of Fundamental Rights: Landmark judgments often involve the protection
and expansion of fundamental rights. They shape the understanding of individual
liberties and provide legal remedies for violations.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Indian Supreme Court
expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life
and personal liberty, to include the right to travel abroad. Landmark judgments thus
contribute to the development and protection of fundamental rights.
 Social Reform: Landmark judgments have been instrumental in driving social reform
and addressing societal issues. They have played a vital role in challenging
discriminatory practices, promoting equality, and protecting marginalized
communities.
In the Navtej Singh Johar case (2018), the Indian Supreme Court decriminalized
consensual same-sex relationships, striking down a colonial-era law that criminalized
homosexuality. Landmark judgments like this promote inclusivity, challenge social
norms, and pave the way for progressive change in society.
 Judicial Activism: Landmark judgments often demonstrate judicial activism, where
courts actively interpret and apply the law to protect rights and promote justice. In cases
where legislative or executive action is inadequate, courts can step in and fill the void.
In the Vishaka case (1997), the Indian Supreme Court laid down guidelines for
preventing sexual harassment in the workplace in the absence of legislation. Such
judgments showcase the judiciary's proactive role in addressing societal issues and
promoting the welfare of citizens.
 Legal Precedents: Landmark judgments establish legal precedents that guide future
legal decisions. They provide a framework for interpreting similar cases and ensure
consistency and predictability in the legal system. Precedents set by landmark
judgments serve as a reference point for judges, lawyers, and litigants, shaping the
course of legal arguments and influencing the outcome of subsequent cases. They
contribute to the development of a robust and predictable legal framework.
 Public Awareness and Discourse: Landmark judgments often generate significant
public awareness and discussion on important legal and social issues. They stimulate
public debate, raise awareness about rights and liberties, and contribute to the
development of a legal consciousness in society. Landmark judgments act as catalysts
for social change by creating awareness, challenging orthodoxies, and inspiring public
discourse on critical issues.
 Legislative Reforms: Landmark judgments can prompt legislative reforms by
highlighting gaps or inconsistencies in existing laws. When courts strike down laws as
unconstitutional or call for specific reforms, it puts pressure on the legislature to address
the issues raised by the judgment.
 The Supreme Court's judgment in the Vishaka case led to the enactment of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013
in India. Landmark judgments can therefore drive legislative changes and lead to the
formulation of new laws or amendments to existing ones.
Landmark judgments have a far-reaching impact on the legal system and society as a
whole. They shape the interpretation of laws, protect fundamental rights, drive social
reform, establish legal precedents, stimulate public discourse, and often influence
legislative reforms. Through their significant impact, landmark judgments contribute to
the evolution of the law, the protection of individual rights, and the pursuit of justice.

Challenges Faced by the Judiciary

The judiciary, as an essential pillar of the democratic system, faces several challenges
in discharging its duties effectively. These challenges can impede the smooth
functioning of the judiciary and hinder its ability to provide timely and impartial justice.
Here are some key challenges faced by the judiciary:
 Backlog of Cases: One of the most significant challenges faced by the judiciary is the
backlog of cases. The sheer volume of pending cases, coupled with limited judicial
resources, leads to delays in the disposal of cases. This backlog not only affects the
timely delivery of justice but also undermines public trust in the judiciary. Efforts are
being made to address this challenge through the establishment of specialized courts,
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and procedural reforms.
 Insufficient Infrastructure: Inadequate infrastructure, including courtrooms, staff,
and technology, poses a significant challenge to the judiciary. Many courts face resource
constraints, resulting in congested courtrooms, insufficient support staff, and outdated
technology. These limitations can impact the efficiency of court proceedings and delay
the resolution of cases. Investment in infrastructure and modernization initiatives is
crucial to address this challenge.
 Shortage of Judges: The shortage of judges is a pressing challenge in many judicial
systems. The increasing caseload and the limited number of judges lead to delays in
hearings and judgments. It is essential to address this issue by appointing more judges,
improving the recruitment process, and enhancing judicial capacity through training
and professional development programs.
 Lack of Access to Justice: Ensuring access to justice for all segments of society,
especially marginalized and economically disadvantaged individuals, remains a
significant challenge. Barriers such as high legal costs, complex procedures, and
geographical constraints limit the ability of many people to seek justice. Expanding
legal aid programs, simplifying procedures, promoting alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, and increasing awareness about legal rights can help address this
challenge.
 Judicial Independence and Accountability: Maintaining judicial independence while
ensuring accountability is a delicate balance that the judiciary must uphold. External
pressures, political interference, and lack of adequate safeguards can undermine judicial
independence. At the same time, the judiciary must also be accountable for its actions
and decisions. Establishing robust mechanisms to safeguard judicial independence,
ensuring transparent appointments and promotions, and promoting judicial ethics and
accountability are crucial in addressing this challenge.
 Technological Advancements: While technology has the potential to streamline court
processes and improve efficiency, its effective integration into the judicial system
remains a challenge. Resistance to change, limited technological infrastructure, and the
need for comprehensive training hinder the adoption of technology in court
proceedings. Embracing digitalization, implementing e-filing systems, and providing
training to judges and court staff on technology can help overcome this challenge.
 Public Perception and Trust: Public perception and trust in the judiciary are vital for
its effective functioning. Any perception of bias, corruption, or inefficiency can
undermine public trust in the judiciary. It is crucial to maintain transparency, ensure
accountability, and promote public awareness about the judiciary's role and processes
to address this challenge effectively.
Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach involving collaboration
between the judiciary, government, legal professionals, and civil society. Continued
efforts to strengthen the judiciary, improve infrastructure, enhance access to justice, and
uphold judicial independence are essential for a robust and effective judicial system.

Conclusion
The Indian judiciary holds a crucial position in the country's democratic system, serving
as the guardian of the Constitution, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring justice for
all. Its historical evolution reflects the diverse influences that have shaped the legal and
judicial landscape in India. The judiciary's structure, with the Supreme Court, High
Courts, and subordinate courts, ensures an effective and independent judicial system
that promotes fairness and consistency in the administration of justice.
The judiciary faces several challenges in fulfilling its responsibilities. One of the key
challenges is the issue of judicial backlog and pendency of cases, which hampers timely
justice delivery. The judiciary is burdened with a large number of pending cases, leading
to delays and frustration among litigants. Efforts are being made to address this
challenge through initiatives like e-courts and the appointment of more judges.
Another challenge is ensuring access to justice for all sections of society, particularly
the marginalized and vulnerable. The judiciary plays a vital role in protecting their
rights and promoting social justice. However, barriers such as geographical, financial,
and social constraints often limit their access to the justice system. Steps are being taken
to enhance access to justice through legal aid programs, alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms, and the use of technology.
Maintaining the independence of the judiciary is also a significant challenge. While the
judiciary enjoys several safeguards, concerns about political interference, executive
influence, and delays in judicial appointments persist. It is essential to uphold and
strengthen the principles of judicial independence, ensuring that judges can act
impartially and without fear or favour.
Overall, the Indian judiciary is a crucial pillar of the democratic system, entrusted with
the responsibility of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. Despite
the challenges it faces, the judiciary continues to play a vital role in ensuring justice,
promoting social equality, and maintaining the integrity of the legal system. Efforts to
strengthen the judiciary's functioning, improve access to justice, and maintain its
independence are necessary to address these challenges and ensure a fair and effective
justice system for all.

References
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
 WEEK-2

ARTICLE WRITING
ARTICLE 21 - RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION

In the realm of constitutional rights, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution holds

immense significance. Enshrined as a fundamental right, Article 21 guarantees the right
to life and personal liberty to every citizen. Over the years, the judiciary has interpreted
this provision expansively, recognizing that it encompasses not only physical existence
but also the right to live with dignity, equality, and freedom. This blog delves into the
evolution, landmark judgments, and broader implications of Article 21, highlighting its
pivotal role in safeguarding the fundamental principles of human rights and justice.

The inclusion of Article 21 in the Indian Constitution was a response to the country's
tumultuous struggle for independence and the quest to establish a just and egalitarian
society. Influenced by global human rights standards and the lessons learned from a
colonial past, the framers of the Constitution aimed to protect the fundamental rights of
individuals, including the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently adopted a progressive and inclusive
approach in interpreting Article 21, recognizing its intrinsic value in ensuring the
holistic well-being of citizens. In landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the court held that the right to life
includes the right to livelihood, shelter, education, and a healthy environment. These
interpretations have broadened the scope of Article 21 and established a jurisprudential
foundation for safeguarding the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals.

Scope of Article 21
Article 21 encompasses a wide range of rights that ensure the protection of an
individual's life and personal liberty. It includes the right to live with dignity, the right
to personal autonomy, and the right to privacy. The Supreme Court of India has
interpreted Article 21 expansively, recognizing additional rights such as the right to a
clean environment, the right to health, and the right to education.

1. Right to Personal Liberty

Article 21 serves as a shield against arbitrary state actions and upholds the principle of
personal liberty. Through its interpretations, the judiciary has consistently emphasized
that personal liberty cannot be curtailed except in accordance with fair and just
procedures established by law. Notable cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal have reinforced the importance of due
process, fair trials, and protection from custodial violence, ensuring that the right to
personal liberty remains inviolable.
2. Right to Privacy
In recent years, the right to privacy has gained paramount importance in the context of
Article 21. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) v. Union of India recognized privacy as an integral aspect of the right to life
and personal liberty. This decision established that individuals have a fundamental
right to autonomy over their personal information and protected them from
unwarranted intrusions into their private lives.

3. Right to Health and Environmental Protection

The interpretation of Article 21 has expanded to encompass the right to health and a
clean environment. The court has recognized that access to healthcare services, clean
air, and water is essential for a meaningful existence. Landmark cases such as
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India have highlighted the state's duty to ensure adequate healthcare facilities and
protect the environment, aligning these rights with the overarching ambit of Article
21.

Significance and Impact

Article 21 has had a profound impact on Indian society. It has provided a foundation
for social justice, human dignity, and the protection of individual rights. The recognition
of the right to life and personal liberty has empowered citizens to challenge oppressive
practices, demand accountability from the state, and strive for a better quality of life.

Article 21 has played a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights of marginalized and
vulnerable groups. It has been instrumental in addressing issues such as custodial
violence, bonded labour, environmental degradation, and access to healthcare and
education.

Furthermore, Article 21 has been invoked in cases related to women's rights, LGBTQ+
rights, and the rights of the disabled. It has been an essential tool in promoting
inclusivity, equality, and social progress.

Conclusion
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stands as a bulwark of human dignity, justice, and
the protection of fundamental rights. Through progressive interpretations, the judiciary
has breathed life into this provision, acknowledging that the right to life extends far
beyond mere survival. It encompasses the right to live with dignity, equality, and
freedom from oppressive forces.

While significant strides have been made in expanding and protecting the right to life
under Article 21, challenges persist. Inequities in access to justice, instances of
custodial violence, and environmental degradation continue to undermine the full
realization of this fundamental right. It is crucial for the government, civil society, and
citizens to work collaboratively to address these challenges and ensure that the spirit of
Article 21 permeates every aspect of governance and policy-making.
As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, Article 21 remains a
guiding light, empowering individuals, and holding the state accountable. It is through
a robust and evolving understanding of this provision that we can strive towards a
society that upholds the principles of human rights, justice, and compassion for all.
WEEK 3

MC MEHTA VS UNION OF
INDIA,1986

Introduction

MC Mehta known as the Green Avenger of India, is an Indian open intrigued lawyer and natural
extremist who has single-handedly won different point of interest judgments in a few public interest
litigations (PILs) recorded on natural issues. For his exercises and concerns to ensure the
environment, he is additionally known as the “green legal counselor of India”.
The 1986 case titled MC Mehta v. Union of India, with MC Mehta being the petitioner-in-person
himself has ended up a landmark judgment in natural activism in India. The case is critical in different
respects. The judgment, after the dangerous Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, changed the scope,
degree, and application of not as it were the natural laws in India but moreover that of Article 21
managing with the correct to life and individual freedom and Article 32 managing with cures for
infringement of crucial rights of the Constitution of India.

The show article identifies the judgments passed in this case by the Supreme Court of India
conjointly investigates the fundamental legitimate issues and discoveries of the Court as well as a few
recently advanced legitimate standards from this case.

Background

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., had a few units arranged in a single complex
comprising around 76 sections of land in a thickly populated range around it. The endeavor made
different chemicals like caustic pop, chlorine, hydrochloric corrosive, sulphuric corrosive, alum,
anhydrous sodium sulfate, tall test hypochlorite and dynamic soil and routinely utilized items such as
fading powder, superphosphate, vanaspati and cleanser. The caustic chlorine plant in the address was
commissioned in 1949 and had a quality of 263 workers.

After the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, the Central Government designated a firm named ‘Technica’
to examine the caustic chlorine plant claimed by Shriram, and a preparatory report distinguishing
potential zones of concern and recommendations for change were submitted by the firm.

In March 1985, the plausibility and perils of any major spillage from the caustic chlorine plant of
Shriram were examined in Parliament. In reaction to that, a master committee called the Manmohan
Singh Committee was constituted to encourage review of the caustic chlorine plant. They submitted
a report after a point by point assessment with suggestions for different security and contamination
control measures.
The petitioner-in-person MC Mehta recorded the primary Civil Writ Petition 12739 of 1985 under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India to look for a heading for the closure of different mechanical
units possessed by Shriram Foods & Fertilizers Industries (here-in-after alluded to as ‘Shriram’ for
comfort) since they were found in a intensely populated range in Delhi and were perilous to the
individuals living within the region.

Amid the pendency of the above mentioned request, there was an occurrence of spillage of Oleum
gas from one of the mechanical units of Shriram for which grants of recompense were recorded by
both the Delhi Legal Help and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

Another Civil Writ Petition 26 of 1986 was recorded by Shriram challenging the legitimacy of different
orders inquiring to halt their production.

The Supreme Court laid down a few unused legitimate standards within the case. The point of
interest judgments were the result of two Civil Writ Petitions 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986.

The primary arrange, passed by a three judges bench comprising of the at that point Chief Justice of
India, PN Bhagwati together with Justice DP Madon and GL Oza on 17th February 1986, managed
with whether the caustic chlorine plant possessed by Shriram Foods and Fertilizers ought to be
permitted to be revived or not.

Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries recorded an application for clarification. The Court found the
application inquiring for adjustment of certain orders and based on the arrangement for which the
Supreme Court articulated another arrangement on 10th March 1986.

The ultimate judgment independently managing with naturally noteworthy questions was articulated
by a five-judge bench (too known as the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution
of India) on20th December 1986.

Facts

On 4th December 1985, an occurrence of a major spillage of oleum gas happened from one of the
units of Shriram. The spillage physically influenced numerous common open – both the laborers as
well as common individuals' exterior. Additionally, an advocate honing within the Tis Hazari Court
passed on after breathing in oleum gas. The occurrence was affirmed by both the applicant and the
Delhi Bar Association. After two days, another minor spillage of oleum gas took out from the joints of
a pipe on 6th December.

Due to the ensuing two episodes of oleum gas spillage, the Delhi administration quickly reacted by
issuing an arrange under Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which coordinated
Shriram to require the taking after steps:

To halt utilizing hurtful chemicals and gasses within the unit inside two days;
Evacuate the said chemicals to a safer place inside seven days and not keep or store the chemicals
within the same put where the calamity happened once more;
Or, to appear within the Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to appear cause for the non-enforceability
of the specified arrangement on 17th December 1985.
On the following day, both the above-mentioned summons petitions came up for hearing within the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court too took cognisance of the over-arrangement by the District
Magistrate and famously said that due to the “inadequacies”, it isn't conceivable to require the steps
critically.

Analysis

The Supreme Court managed with different lawful issues within the two judgements passed
individually on 17th February and 20th December, 1986.

The primary judgment examined the scope of open intrigued case within the region of natural laws
and for the most part managed with:

Whether the Incomparable Court had the specialist beneath Article 32 to choose Shriram to restart
its caustic chlorine plant?

What are the fundamental conditions to be fulfilled in order to run a mechanical unit in an intensely
populated region?

The choice of structure of Environmental Courts in India territorially.

The constitutionally imperative questions were talked about in detail within the last judgment. The
legal issues tended to in that are as takes after:

Whether the ward and specialist of the Supreme Court beneath Article 32 can be expanded;
Whether applications for compensations to casualties are viable beneath the said Article;
Whether Shriram falls beneath “other authorities” as specified in Article 12;

Whether the correct to life under Article 21 is accessible against a private enterprise like Shriram;
On the off chance that a letter tended to to any person judge is viable as open intrigued case; What is
the risk of any perilous industry in case of a mischance? Whether the concept of strict obligation
established within the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) appropriate in such a circumstance? What
ought to be the sum of stipend within the case of a mischance happening due to a dangerous
industry?
Whether a unused legitimate guideline can be developed in case fundamental where the existing
legitimate standards are not appropriate; and
In conclusion, whether the Supreme Court of India is bound to take after the choices laid down in
remote case laws.

The final decision by the Supreme Court was to allow Shriram authorization to revive the specified
plant. In spite of the fact that the prior two orders passed by the Inspector and Assistant
Commissioner of production lines dated 7th and 24th December, 1985 were not cleared, both the
orders were suspended. The Court gave brief consent to run the plant and set ten conditions to
entirely take after, together with fines. The Court too specified that disappointment to preserve the
conditions would result within the cancellation of the authorization allowed by the Court.
Conclusion

Since of the open intrigued case, an industry, for the primary time in Indian legitimate history, was
held completely obligated for a mischance and was required to pay a huge entirety as recompense.
The judgment was too able to re-establish the confidence of the legal in common individuals due to
the emphasis of epistolary ward. The judgment is interesting since the Court did not announce a
cover boycott on industrialisation since it would halt all logical and mechanical advancements.
Rather, it took into consideration the requirement for industrialisation and the reality that
mischances are unavoidable and in like manner accentuated requirement for arrangements to
anticipate mischances and ensuing obligation in case of mishaps.

The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) has ever since risen as a point of interest case not as it
were in natural activism but moreover in legal activism. It still acts as a point of reference whereas
choosing comparative cases.
 NEWS UPDATE WRITING
BAN ON RS. 2000 NOTES: A POLITICAL MOVE BY THE
GOVERNMENT?

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has chosen to retract the Rs 2000 denomination banknotes from
circulation. However, the current notes will remain valid currency, as declared by the RBI on Friday.
The primary bank has suggested the general public to deposit Rs 2000 banknotes, which were
introduced subsequent to the withdrawal of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes during the demonetization
process six years ago, into their bank accounts and/or swap them for banknotes of different
denominations at any bank branch.

WHAT LED TO THE DISCONTINUATION OF RS 2000 NOTES BY THE RBI?

The RBI Act, 1934, authorized the introduction of the Rs 2000 note in November 2016, primarily to
swiftly fulfill the currency demand of the economy following the withdrawal of legal tender status for
Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes. Once this purpose was achieved and an ample supply of notes of different
denominations became available, the production of Rs 2000 notes ceased in 2018-19.

The RBI circulated a significant portion of the Rs 2000 denomination notes before March 2017, and
these notes have now reached the end of their projected lifespan of 4-5 years. Presently, this
denomination is not widely utilized for transactions. Additionally, there is a sufficient supply of
banknotes in alternative denominations to fulfill the currency demands.

"In consideration of the aforementioned factors and in adherence to the 'Clean Note Policy' of the
Reserve Bank of India, the decision has been made to withdraw the circulation of Rs 2000
denomination banknotes," stated the RBI.

WHAT DOES THE CLEAN NOTE POLICY ENTAIL?

The Clean Note Policy aims to provide the public with currency notes and coins of high quality and
enhanced security features, while removing worn-out notes from circulation. The RBI previously
made a decision to withdraw all banknotes issued prior to 2005, as they had fewer security features
compared to those printed after 2005.

Nevertheless, the banknotes issued before 2005 are still considered legal tender. Their withdrawal
from circulation aligns with the standard international practice of not having multiple series of notes
in circulation simultaneously.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT WORTH OF CIRCULATING RS 2000 NOTES?

Approximately 89% of the banknotes with a denomination of Rs 2000 were released before March
2017 and have reached the projected lifespan of 4-5 years. The overall value of these banknotes in
circulation has decreased from its peak of Rs 6.73 lakh crore as of March 31, 2018 (representing
37.3% of the total notes in circulation) to Rs 3.62 lakh crore, accounting for merely 10.8% of the
notes in circulation as of March 31, 2023.

WAS IT A POLITICAL MOVE?

The decision to discontinue the circulation of Rs 2000 notes was a policy decision made by the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) based on various factors, including the currency requirements of the
economy, the lifespan of the notes, and the availability of other denominations. While political
motivations can be speculated upon, it is important to note that the RBI operates independently and
makes decisions regarding currency management and circulation based on economic and monetary
considerations rather than direct political influence. Therefore, in my opinion, it was not a political
move by the government.

When the Rs 2000 notes were introduced in 2016, their purpose was to swiftly replenish the
currency in circulation within the Indian economy following the demonetization event. Nonetheless,
the central bank has consistently expressed its intention to decrease the presence of high-value
notes in circulation and has halted the printing of Rs 2000 notes during the last four years.

"In transactions, this denomination is not frequently utilized," explained the Reserve Bank of India in
its communication, clarifying the rationale behind the decision to withdraw these notes.

However, it is important to note that decisions regarding the circulation and withdrawal of currency
notes fall under the purview of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), an independent central bank. While
the discontinuation of Rs. 2000 notes may have political implications, it is ultimately a policy decision
made by the RBI based on various factors such as currency requirements, security features, and
overall monetary management. Any perception of a political motive behind the ban would be a
matter of interpretation and speculation, as the official rationale typically focuses on economic
considerations rather than direct political influence.

FIGURE 1.1
CONCLUSION:
The conclusion on whether the ban on Rs. 2000 notes was a political move by the government is
subjective and open to interpretation. While there may be differing opinions and speculations
on the matter, it is essential to consider the official stance that decisions regarding currency
circulation and management are primarily made by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) based on
economic considerations. The RBI operates independently and aims to ensure the smooth
functioning of the monetary system and meet the currency requirements of the economy. While
political motivations can be speculated upon, it is challenging to definitively determine the true
intent behind such decisions.

REFERENCES:

1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]