Karan Trivedi Assignment-1.pdf
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Karan Trivedi Assignment-1.pdf as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,646
- Pages: 6
MGT533 Legal Aspects of Business
ASSIGNMENT 1 Part A: Analysis of Justice in Writing Part B: Analysis of case of Public Interest Litigation Date: 11th March,2019
Submitted By: Karan Trivedi Roll No: AU1814018(MBA-1) Assignment-1 Submitted To: Prof. Nimit Thaker
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 1
Part A 1) What fundamental rights are enshrined through the case ? The fundamental rights that were enshrined through the case were 1. Right to equality (Article 14-18) Article 14-18 suggests that everyone should have equal right to live with equal opportunities. It also suggests that all people should be treated in the same manner; no one should be given special treatment. This article ensures that everyone is equally protected by the laws of the country irrespective to their caste, religion, culture or position. This right can be enshrined in the case when Raju was given equal opportunities during investigation as well as during court hearings to put forward his arguments and explanation. Also, the court ordered Legal Aid Cell to nominate a lawyer for Raju as a means to provide equal protection of law and justify the rights available to him in his defense. Article 15 talked about discrimination based on caste, religion etc. This was enshrined when Police assumed Raju of being a pick pocketer during interrogation. 2. Right to freedom (Article 19-22) The freedom to speech and expression has been prominently influenced in this case which has been included in article 19. Article 19 states that the citizens of India have right to practice any occupation/profession while settling in any part of the country. Article 20 & 21 gives protection of life and personal liberty. Article 22 is concerned about arrest and detention safety. The right of freedom of speech and expression can be enshrined when Raju was interrogated by police. The same when he was interrogated during the hearing. 3. Right to constitutional remedies(Article 32-35) This right talks about enforcement of fundamental rights. This right was enshrined throughout the case during Raju’s arrest, interrogation, ill-treatment in prison, Raju’s presentation in court.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 2
2) Is there a violation of any fundamental rights ? Yes, this case shows violation of 2 fundamental rights. This can be observed by various actions described in the case:Violation of Right to Equality (Article 15):- The Article 15 specifies the Prohibition of discrimination on basis of caste, creed, religion, race, gender or places of birth. In the case, when police arrested Raju, since he belonged from Uttar Pradesh, he was threatened and discriminated based on his place of birth and even put the same argument as theory in court that majority of pick pocketers in Delhi were the Dalit from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, residing in Delhi. So, based on this theory they also concluded that Raju was also a pick-pocketer. Violation of Right to Freedom:- Raju was made to gone through verbal abuse, threats of harassment and heavy imprisonment during interrogation in custody. Also, he was provided with lack of basic facility of hygiene, sanitation in jail, so it was violating the fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 and also protection against arrest and detention under article 22. Raju was also not able to get the bail as he was not able to produce surety on his part. This was also violation of Right to freedom under Article 21 of right of life and liberty.
3) Can a Writ petition help in the given case ? If yes, what type of writ is proposed ?
Yes, Writ can be filed in the given case. Writ means a form of written command in the name of legal authority to act. Habeas Corpus: In this a legal order that states that a person in prison must appear before and be judged by a court of law. The person is forced by the law to stay in prison. Since, Raju had been arrested without any specific proof of him being stole the wallet or being a pick-pocketer, filing this writ petition could have helped him to get out of the jail as no valid proof had been submitted in his name and he had all the rights to get out of the jail under this petition. Also, he was denied the bail but due to lack of nominated surety. The guideline for bail did not specify the process for bail for the person lacking surety. The writ can be filed for getting justice against harm caused due to the gap in legal guideline.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 3
Part-B The Case on Right to Education:Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v Delhi Administration 1) What was the cause of action and why did applicant use PIL as a remedy ?
Lack of adequate sanitation and infrastructure facilities in schools has long been identified as a significant barrier to the right to education in India. The lack of water and restroom facilities may be a common reason for low enrollment rates and drop outs, especially for girls. The Article 21A of the Indian Constitution states that, “The State shall offer free and compulsory education to all youngsters of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner because the State could, by law, determine“. During 2004, almost 800,000 schools were affected by the improper infrastructure facilities complained of, at both primary and secondary level. The NGO 'Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation' (ECPF) to bring the issue at hand at the attention of the courts filed a Public interest Litigation (PIL) in 2004 against the government. In its petition, the ECPF alleged that the right to education was not being implemented and that poor facilities were restricting children’s access to education.
2) What injury was caused to the general public interest and how did the PIL help protect the same?
The Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation’ (ECPF) filed a PIL in 2004 against the government. Even after litigating for 8 years to ensure the government must provide basic infrastructure facilities in government-run schools, based on survey conducted by Right-to Education Forum, a civil society group of around 10,000 non-government organisations, it was found that previous judgements of the court had not been complied with. Also, based on researches carried out, it indicated that wherever toilet facilities were not provided in schools, parents do not send their children (particularly girls) to schools. It clearly violates the right to free and compulsory education of children guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution which was enacted back in 2009. The RTE Act stated that it was duty of the relevant state or local authorities to ensure the availability of ‘neighbourhood’ schools and to provide infrastructure, including school buildings and learning equipment. The court passed out a series of interim orders issued from April 2011 to October 2012, the Court ordered all States and UTs to ensure that toilet facilities are available in all schools. Where permanent toilet facilities were not possible, the Court stated that States and UTs should at least provide temporary facilities until permanent toilets could be constructed. An order to file affidavits showing statistics of toilets and sanitation facilities in the territory was passed on the
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 4
states and union territories in which States like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Rajasthan did not comply with the Court’s order. The court’s most recent judgment, in October 2012, came after a private petition was filed by the Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation. The court recalled that in its April 2012 judgment it had upheld the Right to Education Act and ordered full implementation of the provisions enacted by Parliament to make the right to education meaningful for children. The court said that lack of toilets and drinking water “clearly violate the right to free and compulsory education of children”. The court stated that children need to “study in a clean and healthy environment” and said its ruling applied to state and privately-run schools. State governments therefore must provide “toilet facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities, sufficient classrooms, appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff etc” if not already provided, within six months, by April 2013. It is worth noting that instead of passing another order for implementing its earlier directions, the court this time passed a judgment so that it could initiate contempt action against a noncomplying state. This judgment demonstrates that the right to education is significant. It can be impacted not only by a failure to provide education, but also by the failure to provide adequate facilities in the learning environment.
3) In what manner does the PIL affect the business operations or strategies of an organization or sector or industry?
The PIL in this case made the court to pass out necessary guidelines that made the central and state government authorities to bring changes in their working environment. They are as follows:a) The court ordered the state government, central government and qualifies authorities functioning under the RTE act to present clear guidelines for its full implementation within 6 months from the date when judgement was announced. b) The court demanded all the state governments to set up State Advisory Council within 3 months from the date of judgement. c) The central government was asked to frame rules, by exercising its powers under section 38 of the RTE act for its proper and smooth implementation. d) The state and UT’s were also guided to provide sanitation and toilet facilities and to be made available to the children to schools.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 5
References:• • •
•
Case Examples. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pilsni.org/case-examples Right to Education Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.right-to-education.org/ Drishti. (2015, November 13). Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitutionof-india-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty/ Writ of Habeas Corpus. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminalprocedure/writ-of-habeas-corpus.html
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 6
ASSIGNMENT 1 Part A: Analysis of Justice in Writing Part B: Analysis of case of Public Interest Litigation Date: 11th March,2019
Submitted By: Karan Trivedi Roll No: AU1814018(MBA-1) Assignment-1 Submitted To: Prof. Nimit Thaker
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 1
Part A 1) What fundamental rights are enshrined through the case ? The fundamental rights that were enshrined through the case were 1. Right to equality (Article 14-18) Article 14-18 suggests that everyone should have equal right to live with equal opportunities. It also suggests that all people should be treated in the same manner; no one should be given special treatment. This article ensures that everyone is equally protected by the laws of the country irrespective to their caste, religion, culture or position. This right can be enshrined in the case when Raju was given equal opportunities during investigation as well as during court hearings to put forward his arguments and explanation. Also, the court ordered Legal Aid Cell to nominate a lawyer for Raju as a means to provide equal protection of law and justify the rights available to him in his defense. Article 15 talked about discrimination based on caste, religion etc. This was enshrined when Police assumed Raju of being a pick pocketer during interrogation. 2. Right to freedom (Article 19-22) The freedom to speech and expression has been prominently influenced in this case which has been included in article 19. Article 19 states that the citizens of India have right to practice any occupation/profession while settling in any part of the country. Article 20 & 21 gives protection of life and personal liberty. Article 22 is concerned about arrest and detention safety. The right of freedom of speech and expression can be enshrined when Raju was interrogated by police. The same when he was interrogated during the hearing. 3. Right to constitutional remedies(Article 32-35) This right talks about enforcement of fundamental rights. This right was enshrined throughout the case during Raju’s arrest, interrogation, ill-treatment in prison, Raju’s presentation in court.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 2
2) Is there a violation of any fundamental rights ? Yes, this case shows violation of 2 fundamental rights. This can be observed by various actions described in the case:Violation of Right to Equality (Article 15):- The Article 15 specifies the Prohibition of discrimination on basis of caste, creed, religion, race, gender or places of birth. In the case, when police arrested Raju, since he belonged from Uttar Pradesh, he was threatened and discriminated based on his place of birth and even put the same argument as theory in court that majority of pick pocketers in Delhi were the Dalit from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, residing in Delhi. So, based on this theory they also concluded that Raju was also a pick-pocketer. Violation of Right to Freedom:- Raju was made to gone through verbal abuse, threats of harassment and heavy imprisonment during interrogation in custody. Also, he was provided with lack of basic facility of hygiene, sanitation in jail, so it was violating the fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 and also protection against arrest and detention under article 22. Raju was also not able to get the bail as he was not able to produce surety on his part. This was also violation of Right to freedom under Article 21 of right of life and liberty.
3) Can a Writ petition help in the given case ? If yes, what type of writ is proposed ?
Yes, Writ can be filed in the given case. Writ means a form of written command in the name of legal authority to act. Habeas Corpus: In this a legal order that states that a person in prison must appear before and be judged by a court of law. The person is forced by the law to stay in prison. Since, Raju had been arrested without any specific proof of him being stole the wallet or being a pick-pocketer, filing this writ petition could have helped him to get out of the jail as no valid proof had been submitted in his name and he had all the rights to get out of the jail under this petition. Also, he was denied the bail but due to lack of nominated surety. The guideline for bail did not specify the process for bail for the person lacking surety. The writ can be filed for getting justice against harm caused due to the gap in legal guideline.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 3
Part-B The Case on Right to Education:Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v Delhi Administration 1) What was the cause of action and why did applicant use PIL as a remedy ?
Lack of adequate sanitation and infrastructure facilities in schools has long been identified as a significant barrier to the right to education in India. The lack of water and restroom facilities may be a common reason for low enrollment rates and drop outs, especially for girls. The Article 21A of the Indian Constitution states that, “The State shall offer free and compulsory education to all youngsters of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner because the State could, by law, determine“. During 2004, almost 800,000 schools were affected by the improper infrastructure facilities complained of, at both primary and secondary level. The NGO 'Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation' (ECPF) to bring the issue at hand at the attention of the courts filed a Public interest Litigation (PIL) in 2004 against the government. In its petition, the ECPF alleged that the right to education was not being implemented and that poor facilities were restricting children’s access to education.
2) What injury was caused to the general public interest and how did the PIL help protect the same?
The Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation’ (ECPF) filed a PIL in 2004 against the government. Even after litigating for 8 years to ensure the government must provide basic infrastructure facilities in government-run schools, based on survey conducted by Right-to Education Forum, a civil society group of around 10,000 non-government organisations, it was found that previous judgements of the court had not been complied with. Also, based on researches carried out, it indicated that wherever toilet facilities were not provided in schools, parents do not send their children (particularly girls) to schools. It clearly violates the right to free and compulsory education of children guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution which was enacted back in 2009. The RTE Act stated that it was duty of the relevant state or local authorities to ensure the availability of ‘neighbourhood’ schools and to provide infrastructure, including school buildings and learning equipment. The court passed out a series of interim orders issued from April 2011 to October 2012, the Court ordered all States and UTs to ensure that toilet facilities are available in all schools. Where permanent toilet facilities were not possible, the Court stated that States and UTs should at least provide temporary facilities until permanent toilets could be constructed. An order to file affidavits showing statistics of toilets and sanitation facilities in the territory was passed on the
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 4
states and union territories in which States like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Rajasthan did not comply with the Court’s order. The court’s most recent judgment, in October 2012, came after a private petition was filed by the Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation. The court recalled that in its April 2012 judgment it had upheld the Right to Education Act and ordered full implementation of the provisions enacted by Parliament to make the right to education meaningful for children. The court said that lack of toilets and drinking water “clearly violate the right to free and compulsory education of children”. The court stated that children need to “study in a clean and healthy environment” and said its ruling applied to state and privately-run schools. State governments therefore must provide “toilet facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities, sufficient classrooms, appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff etc” if not already provided, within six months, by April 2013. It is worth noting that instead of passing another order for implementing its earlier directions, the court this time passed a judgment so that it could initiate contempt action against a noncomplying state. This judgment demonstrates that the right to education is significant. It can be impacted not only by a failure to provide education, but also by the failure to provide adequate facilities in the learning environment.
3) In what manner does the PIL affect the business operations or strategies of an organization or sector or industry?
The PIL in this case made the court to pass out necessary guidelines that made the central and state government authorities to bring changes in their working environment. They are as follows:a) The court ordered the state government, central government and qualifies authorities functioning under the RTE act to present clear guidelines for its full implementation within 6 months from the date when judgement was announced. b) The court demanded all the state governments to set up State Advisory Council within 3 months from the date of judgement. c) The central government was asked to frame rules, by exercising its powers under section 38 of the RTE act for its proper and smooth implementation. d) The state and UT’s were also guided to provide sanitation and toilet facilities and to be made available to the children to schools.
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 5
References:• • •
•
Case Examples. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pilsni.org/case-examples Right to Education Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.right-to-education.org/ Drishti. (2015, November 13). Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitutionof-india-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty/ Writ of Habeas Corpus. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminalprocedure/writ-of-habeas-corpus.html
AU/AMSOM/MGT-533 LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS/ASSIGNMENT-1/2018-2020
Page 6
Related Documents
Karan Trivedi Assignment-1.pdf
October 2019 2
Karan Jain
November 2019 17
Sanjib Karan
November 2019 17
Karan Viva.docx
October 2019 8
Karan Kapur
November 2019 22
Store Wise Karan
May 2020 0More Documents from ""
Karan Trivedi Assignment-1.pdf
October 2019 2
Mc0053010.pdf
November 2019 32
Uday-sarvodaya_march_2019_web (1).pdf
June 2020 11
