Bar council 3 year experience for judges

As per the recommendation of Shetty Commission and approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of “All India Judges’ Association and others V/s. Union of India and others” reported in
(2002) 4 SCC Page No.247, the Gujarat State Judicial Academy conducts the Foundation/Induction
Training Programme for newly recruited Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates First Class for one
year, to groom them and to make them familiar with Judicial Administration and Management,
therefore, the role of the Academy has assumed importance. Syllabus for 1 year at academy is
wholesome which incude lectures methodology, curricular and extra curricular activities such as
visiting jails, hospitals forensic science laboratories.

Parole
Parole is the release of a prisoner, either temporarily for a special purpose or completely before the expiry of a
sentence, on the promise of good behaviour. Parole is the pre-mature conditional temporary release of a prisoner
on the terms of abiding by the conditions along with the observance of certain restrictions to avail the privilege
of returning back to the society and socialize with family and friends keeping in mind correctional theory and
preparing to return back to his social life. It is mere suspension of the sentence for time-being keeping the
quantum of sentence intact.

Section 432 of Cr.P.C deals with Power to Suspend or Remit Sentences. However, Supreme Court, in Sunil
Fulchand Shah v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1023, has categorically observed that "parole does
not amount to suspension of sentence''. From this it becomes clear that parole cannot be covered by Section
432 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(a) Regular Parole – deliver of child by wife, illness of father

(b) b) Emergency Parole or Custody parole – death of father etc

The grant of parole is governed by rules made under Prison Act, 1894 and Prison Act, 1900. 

Furlough is for breaking the monotony of imprisonment and is granted as a good conduct remission. Furlough is
a brief release from the prison, it is conditional and is given in case of a long-term imprisonment.

Prisoners convicted of multiple murders or under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
(UAPA) are not eligible for parole.

Granted by superintendent of a jail up to a period of seven days in emergencies. Parole is granted by

the state executive. If a plea for parole is rejected, the convict can move the High Court challenging
the order of the competent authority.

Different between Furlough and parole:

 Furlough is given in cases of long-term imprisonment. The period of furlough granted

to a prisoner is treated as remission of his sentence.
 Furlough is seen as a matter of right for a prisoner, to be granted periodically
irrespective of any reason. Parole, by contrast, is not seen as a matter of right, and is
given to a prisoner for a specific reason, such as a death in the family or a wedding of
a blood relative.
 Furlough is granted in long term imprisonment while prole is for short term also.
 No reasons are required for furlough as it is granted with an idea that convict shall
retain his social ties while specific reasons are required for parole
  No limitation on no. of times convict claim parole but limited no for furlough.
 In furlough days of leave are included in term of sentence while in parole days of
absence is reduced from term of sentence.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

Permissible for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, as well as other laws. The most recent executions in India took place in
March 2020 of nirbhaya gang rape convict.
IPC sections 109 abetment of capital offence, 120B conspiracy to capital offence, 121 waging
war, 132 abetment of mutiny actually committed, 194 Giving or fabricating false evidence
with intent to procure a conviction of a capital offence and person resultantly executed, 195A
- Threatening or inducing any person to false evidence resulting in the conviction and death
of an innocent person, 302, 305 abetting suicide of child, 307(2) attempted murder by life
convict, 364A kidnappind ransom,
376A rape and injury which cause death of leave women in persistent vegetative state
376AB rape on woman under twelve years of age
376DB gang rape on woman under twelve years of age
376E repeat offender
396 dacoity with murder

Other acts which prescribe death penalty – army act, ndps act , bsf act, explosive substance
act, ndps act for Repeated commission of offences involving commercial quantity  section 31A
S 235(2) crpc – hearing on sentence

354(2) - court must record "Special reasons" justifying the sentence and state as to why an alternative sentence would
not meet the ends of justice

principle ‘Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception

The dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not
considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the
case

Constitutionality of the death penalty:

abolition of the death sentence in India was examined by the 35th Law Commission
which stressed on the reasoning that the conditions in India demands the contrary position to
the proposition of ‘abolition of death penalty’ and concluded the death penalty should be
retained. It said that the variety of upbringing, the diversity of the population, the disparity in
the levels of education and morality and the paramount need for maintaining law and order
were fundamental factors and issues that impede India from taking a favourable position to
abolish the capital punishment.
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1979 - special reasons’ required to impose the capital punishment must
not relate to the crime, but focus must be on the criminal. comprehensively discussed the meaning of ‘special reasons’
for inflicting death sentence on exceptional grounds
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 – why this case –
re-enactment of CrPC 1973 had made the death penalty as an exception with regards to the rule of imposing life
imprisonment for offences consist of choice between life imprisonment and death sentence
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
reviewed the death sentence in the light of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, since every punitive action must satisfy
the test of reasonableness after satisfying the golden triangle test of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution

crusaders against death penalty - The primary challenges to the death penalty , was that
the death punishment is unnecessary, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and the
punishment of death sentence does not serve the purpose of deterrence. 2. Furthermore,
the constitutional validity of Section 302 of IPC and  Section 366(2) of CrPC was challenged
in this case on the ground that the imposition of death penalty is arbitrary and whimsical.
[
3. capital sentencing system, which required ‘special reasons’ without any guidance on its
meaning, essentially left decision-making to the subjective assessment of individual judges,
making it arbitrary. 4. public opinion and collective conscience have played a major role in
imposition of the death penalty in several cases in India 5. It is impossible to view crime as
something that only “inherently bad” people do and the view that the task of criminal law is
to take away “inherently bad” people. (Socialisation as a factor).

Crusaders of death penalty- death penalty is guided by deterrent theory, retributive theory
and preventive theory. In india we follow deterrent theory.

Supreme court in this case propounded the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ as that the death sentence can only imposed
‘in  the  rarest  of  rare  cases  when  the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
“special reasons” in the context of inflicting death sentence must pay due regard to both the crime and criminal and
the relative weight has to be given both aggravating and mitigating circumstance

Machhi Singh v state of Punjab:

 Explored and approved the doctrine of rarest of rare
 The court reinstated and reemphasized the principles of sentencing policy propounded in the Bachan Singh
case.
 Court listed the two question that needs to be answered prior to the imposition of death sentence on
individual cases. Firstly, is the offence committed so exceptional that there is no scope for awarding any
other sentence? Secondly, even when weightage is accorded to the mitigating circumstances does the
circumstances still warrants death penalty?
 judges must prepare a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstance of the crime and criminal
 But Supreme Court held that the death penalty may imposed on the ground where the collective conscience
of the society is shocked that expect the judicial authorities impose the death sentence.

Santhosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra 2009-

 The Bariyar judgment again reemphasized that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the
sentencing discretion must not only be limited to crime alone, but both the factor crime and criminal should
be taken into account. 
 rejected the strict channeling of discretion or classification of particular types of offences deserves death
sentence.
 relevance and desirability of ‘public opinion’, is no more important in the jurisprudence and adjudication of
death sentences.
Channulal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh 2018
Duty of courts to be constitutionally correct, even if its views are counter-majoritarian. Public opinion is generally
formed by emotionally charged narratives which need not necessarily be legally correct, properly informed. public
opinion is neither an objective circumstance relating to crime nor to the criminal.

Role of public opinion-

 Machhi singh v state of Punjab – death penalty in case of anti-social or socially
abhorrent nature of the crime.
 Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal - punishment must befit the crime so
that courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It held that courts must consider not
only the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim and society at large
while considering the question of appropriate sentence.
 Channulal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh2018
 MA Antony v. State of Kerala 2018 - reference to public opinion and what is
perceived by the judges to be the collective conscience of the society must be avoided
while sentencing a convict guilty of a brutal crime.
GENDER NEUTRAL LAWS
Section 354 , 354 ABCD, 376 ...... The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,2013
The centuries old mindset perceives men to be aggressors and the same are reflected in laws,
against sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is also defined in the case of Vishakha and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
ors
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act,2013
The Supreme Court in 2018, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking gender neutrality
in crimes such as rape, sexual harassment, outraging modesty, stalking, and voyeurism with
following observations:

"Legislations come as a response to social and collective cry. These sections are victim-
oriented and Parliament has acknowledged a woman as the victim. We cannot ask
Parliament to legislate."

Gender-neutral sexual harassment laws are the need of the hour and should be promulgated
by the government to eliminate any inadvertent discrimination on the ground of gender and
must extend equal protection to all the sexes. However, the delay in promulgation of the
same may be attributed to the lack of effective "Social and collective cry" as observed by
the Supreme Court

Feminism: Belief in and desire for equality between the sexes. 

Patriarchy: A hierarchical-structured society in which men hold more power.

Sexism: The idea that women are inferior to men.
Misogyny: Hatred of women.
Misandry: Hatred of men.
Mansplain: When a man explains something to a woman in a condescending
way

Manterrupting: When a man interrupts a woman, especially

Budget:
this year's budget proposals rest on six pillars — health and well-
being, physical and financial capital and infrastructure, inclusive
development for aspirational India, reinvigorating human capital,
innovation and R&D, and 'Minimum Government, Maximum
Governance'. 
Tax rates, both corporate and individual, remain unchanged.
However, there is a relief to Senior Citizens aged 75 year and above,
who will not be required to file income tax returns in case of income
only from pension or interest.
Re-opening of assessment in case of non-serious tax evasion has been
reduced to 3 years from 6 years. However, in case of serious tax fraud
assessment may be reopened in 10 years
A Dispute Resolution Committee will be constituted for resolution of
disputes of asseessees with a taxable income up to ₹ 50 lakh and
disputed income up to ₹ 10 lakh.
A National Faceless Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Centre will be
established. All communication between the Tribunal and the
appellant shall be electronic.
An agriculture Infrastructure and Development of ₹ 2.5 per litre has
been imposed on petrol and ₹ 4 per litre on diesel.
The outlay for health infrastructure has been increased
Nutrition Programme & POSHAN Abhiyaan
Urban Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 will be launched
Propose to consolidate SEBI Act 1992, Depositories Act, 1996,
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and Government
Securities Act, 2006 to introduce a single and rationalized Securities
Markets Code;
Aadhaar-based verification for GST compliance to be introduced.
Bank deposit insurance cover had been increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹5
lakh per depositor.
Government plans to amend the Companies Act to decriminalise civil
offences.
Government to sell part of its stake in LIC via public offering. 49% to
74 % fdi in insurance
A national police university and a national forensic science university
is proposed to be setup.
National Logistics Policy to be released soon.
100% electrification of trains by 2023
Aatmanirbhar Swastha Bharat,
Functioning of Tribunals will be further rationalized for speedier
delivery of justice;
1,000 more mandis to be integrated with National Agriculture Market
(eNAM);
Allocation for Rural Infrastructure Development Fund to be enhanced
Scheme of Mega Investment Textile Parks to be launched,
The Malimath Committee’s recommendations on reforms in the
criminal justice system 2003
 borrow features from the inquisitorial system (characterized by the
judge performing an examining role.) of investigation, where a judicial
magistrate supervises the investigation. 
 courts be bestowed with powers to summon any person — whether or
not listed as a witness — for examination, if it felt necessary.
 the court be given freedom to question the accused to elicit
information and draw an adverse inference against the accused in
case the latter refuses to answer. 
 Schedule to the Code be brought out in all regional languages so that
the accused knows his/her rights
 Instead of beyond reasonable doubts proof in criminal jurisprudence
which put burden on he prosecution use preponderance of probability
 Victim compensation fund
 suggested hiving off the investigation wing from Law and Order.
 Police custody for 30 days and additional 90 days for filing chargsheet
 Increase judge population ratio
 Witness protection
 Offences are currently classified as cognisable and non-cognisable.
Instead, the Committee recommended classifying offences as social
welfare code, correctional code, criminal code, and economic and
other offences code.
 The Committee favoured making Section 498A as a bailable and
compoundable offence. This Section is largely used in case of dowry
harassment.
 The fine amount may be increased by fifty times. In cases where the
convict is unable to pay fine or has defaulted, community service may
be prescribed.
 Pregnant women and women with child below seven years can be kept
under house arrest instead of being lodged in prison, keeping in mind
the future life of the child
  Arrears Eradication Scheme’ to tackle cases that are pending for more
than two years. Under the scheme, such cases will be settled through
Lok Adalats on a priority basis. 

Recommendation to govt on code:

1. People friendly code
2. Incorporated all new offences leaving no need for ancillary acts.
3. Incorporate recommendation of malimath committee such as suing
preponderance of probability test etc
4. Make sexual offences gender neutral
5. Fix time for trial which shall be made compulsory
6. Rights of the accused shall be mentioned in all the language so that
people understands.
7. Set and define the minimum threshold of sensitiveness in the offences
where emotions are involved such as the offence of hurting religious
sentiments.
8. One more punishment of community service be incorporated.

Why low conviction rate :

 Poor investigation by police they should collect more forensic
evidences
 Police not well equipped
 Lack of Forensic laboratories
 hostility of witnesses and complainants. There are legal provisions to
prosecute such people for perjury but these are rarely used and are
difficult to prove.
A criminal case is not just a dispute between two private parties.
The outcome of a criminal case impacts the entire society. When an
accused goes scot free, it shakes the faith of people in the entire
system.
 And sluggish court system is another problem. Cases drag in courts
for years together. The perpetrators of the crime get enough time to
win victims over by hook or crook.
  Protection of witnesses can also help in increasing the conviction
rate. We often hear that witnesses in important cases are
threatened.
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt. (the stand is now being changed by
the govt as we see the epidemic amendment act 2020 in which BOP
is on the accuse to proof that he didnot commit any crime.
How to solve this problem
If witnesses do not cooperate with the law due to greed or any other
reasons, the state has to find ways to overcome this problem. For example,
a professional and scientific probe can ensure that even when witnesses
turn hostile, cases are taken to their logical conclusion. Once a rape is
proved by medical, chemical and DNA examinations, and through other
physical and digital evidence, even the victim cannot save the accused.
Effect of this – jubilation of people on police encounters
Recent Judgments:
1. Sushila Aggarwal And Others V/S State (Nct Of Delhi) And Another
2020 AIR(SC) 831.  It is held that order of granting pre arrest bail
under 138 crpc cannot be for limited period.  However court granting
such relief has discretion to impose condition including a limited
duration of protection.  The duration of anticipatory bail normally
would not come to end normally or when the accused is summoned by
the Court but the court has discretion to impose additional restriction
in given peculiar circumstances warranting the same.
2. Prithvi Raj Chauhan v UOI – Sc ST atrocities amendment act is
constitutional.
3. Hitesh Verma v state of uttrakhand – insulting SCST person is not an
offence unless insult is based on the caste.
4. Mukesh kumar v state of uttrakhand – no inherent fundamental right
of individual to claim reservation in promotion but it depend on state.
5. Anuradha Bhasin v uoi – indefinite internet suspension is not
permissible.
Freedon of speech and expression through medium of internet is
fundamental right
Freedom of trade and commerce through the medium of internet is
fundamental right
6. Rambabu singh thakur v sunil arora – to end criminilisation of politics
– SC gave 6 direction by using its power under article 129 and 142.
7. Paramvir singh v daljit singh – install cctv camera in each and every
station
8. Tofan singh v state of tamil nadu – officer authorised to investigate
NDPS cases are police officer.
9. Vinita Sharma v rakesh Sharma – daughters become equal coparcenor
at birth even if they are born before 2005.
10. State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh - The Supreme Court will re-
examine the correctness of its 2005 decision of EV Chinnaiah v. State
of AP [(2005) 1 SCC 394] which had held that the Scheduled Castes
 form a homogenous class and there cannot be any sub-division. It
observed that if sub-classification is denied, it would defeat right to
equality by treating unequal as equal.
11. Governor can direct floor test even when legislature is in session. – mp
assembly
12. Hira Singh & anr v UOI – NDPS- quantity o fneutral substance must
be taken into account with actual drug weight to determine small or
commercial quantity.
13. Christian medical college vellore assn v UOI – article 30 doesnt
prevent state from imposing reasonable restriction in administration
of minority edu institution.
14. Re: vijay kurle case: citizens can criticise the judgments but no one has the right to attribute motives
or question the bona fide of judges. In view of the scurrilous and scandalous allegations
levelled against the judges of this court and no remorse being shown by any of
the contemnors we are of the considered view that they cannot be let off
leniently.
any citizen can comment or criticise the judgment of this Court. However, that citizen
must have some standing or knowledge before challenging the ability, capability,
knowledge, honesty, integrity, and impartiality of a Judge of the highest court of the
land.
15. Kantararu Raajevaru v Indian young lawyers association:
16. Arnub goswami v uoi
17. Suo moto extension of limitation of limitation or lockdown will not affect the right of
accuse to default bail.
In epidemic disease act 1897 only 4 sections and penalty was prescribed
under s 188 of ipc for contravention to any direction
In 2020 amendment – expended the scope, included act of violence
definition, definition of healthcare service personal, under S 3 violence on
healthcare personal is made punishable offence, cognizable and non
bailable,

One year LLM

Central Vista Project
The Central Vista is a grand redevelopment project for building what will be the power corridor of India,
having a new Parliament building, a common central secretariat and revamped three-km-long Rajpath,
from the Rashtrapati Bhavan to the India Gate.
Condition for section 65B Evidence act:
o the computer that produced it must have been used regularly at the
time of production of such electronic documents;
o the kind of information contained in the computer must be such that
it is regularly and normally supplied to the electronic device;
o the computer should be in proper condition and must work properly
at time of creation of electronic record;
o and, the duplicate copy must be a reproduction of the original
electronic record.
o must be accompanied with a certificate from a person who produced
the copy certifying that the same fulfills the above-said four
conditions.( Arjun Pandit Rao v. Kailash Kushanrao)

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance,

2020 
 Already a law in many states incuding Gujarat by the name of Gujarat
freedom to religion act 2003 for prohibition of conversion from one
religion to another by the use of force or allurement or by fraudulent
means. Imprisonment of 3 years.
 Ordinance made punishable conversion by misrepresentation , undue
influence, coercion, allurement, , fraudulent means , or by marriage
for minimum 1 year and upto 5 years. Definition of allurement is very
broad which include
 Reconversion is not offence.
 Marriage done for the sole purpose of conversion and vice versa ,
family court shall declare such marriage void.
 Declaration shall be given to DM before conversion who shall conduct
an inquiry. Without declaration conversion is void and illegal.
 Declaration shall also be given post conversion also.
Criticism:
 It is a direct assault on Article 21 of the Constitution which
guarantees personal liberty and the right to life."
  But the fact remains that there are enough laws on the statute book
that are adequate to convict those accused of the crime or tackle
coercive conversions. Ipc 342, 506, 359-369 ipc, 352, 508.
 Section 3 of the impugned ordinance inasmuch as it lays down that
"reconversion" to a person's previous religion is not illegal, even if it is
vitiated by fraud, force, allurement, misrepresentation and so on.
"Through this peculiar provision, the law seems to contradict its own
vicious theories of forceful conversions and breach of public order,"
 If a person exercises the freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution
to marry somebody of his or her choice, and in that process, one
partner chooses to change their religion immediately prior to
marriage, that should not be the matter of concern for the State of any
Social Watchdogs.
 Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning 'inter-racial'
marriage by a unanimous 9-0 decision, as being violative of personal
autonomy and the Equal Protection Clause.

State response:
 conversion is not out of choice but due to intervention of personal law.
Such conversion is done out of compulsion as personal law treats
such inter-religious marriage as invalid,
 'community interest is on a much higher pedestal than agreement of
two individuals who enter into wedlock'.
 relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors, AIR 1977 SC 908, where it upheld the
constitutional valid
 laws were meant to avoid disturbances to public order by prohibiting
conversion from one religion to another 'in a manner reprehensible to
the conscience of the community' and that 'forcible conversion could
create public disorder'.

Notes.
Secularism added by 42CA.
However, in a landmark judgement S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India,
the Supreme Court of India ruled that India was already a secular state ever
since the origin of the constitution. 
Ministry of Law and Justice advised against the move stating that it is
“purely a state subject’ which falls under Entry 1 i.e. Public Order of State
List in 7th Schedule
Allahabad High Court’s recent judgment in the case of Sufiya Sultana V.
State of U.P. 14.12.2020 which done away requirement of mandatory
publication of notice and inviting objection under section 5, 6 and 7 of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 by declaring those provisions as declaratory and
not mandatory being in violation of right to privacy of citizens. The
ordinance now come in violation to this judgment.
Lily Thomas V. Union of India 2000 (6) SCC 224 and Sarla Mudgal V.
Union of India 1995 (3) SCC 635 has confirmed that religious conversions
carried out without a bona fide belief and for the sole purpose of deriving
some legal benefit are illegal and do not hold water. These cases concerned
religious conversions by Hindu men to Islam in order to conclude bigamous
marriages.

My opinion:

The issues relating to religious freedom acquire a certain degree of

sensitivity which a state has to respect but state also has the duty to
preserve peace in the society and thus it becomes imperative for the
state to regulate certain activities of the individuals. we find that the right to
change religion is inherent in the right to freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article
25 of Indian Constitution as well as Article 18 of UDHR and ICCPR.. Restrictions can
still be put regulating such right of conversion as per the freedom of religion enshrined
under Article 25(1). The Freedom of Religion is quintessential for the complete
development of human intellect and personality,but this cannot be the sole criterion for
striking down the Acts as unconstitutional.

Other issues involved in the case:

1. maintainability of the petition: that in public interest litigation, High
Courts cannot test the vires of a legislation.
plenary powers of the High Courts under Article 226 are much wider
and expansive than the powers under Article 32, to adjudicate upon
the constitutionality of any legislation in a PIL.
Further When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any
constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the
disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government,
from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition."
2. Petitioner does not have a locus standi to maintain the instant
petition. a practising advocate is best suited to raise such issues of
Constitutional importance before the Courts, as they are in a position
to feel aggrieved and understand the gravity of the situation caused by
a legislation which is not founded on principles enshrined under the
Constitution. Moreover, it is a legal duty of an advocate to ensure that
principles and values laid down by the Constitution should be
protected and preserved at all costs. This was done in case of
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, where a PIL was filed by an
advocate on the basis of the news item, highlighting the plight of
undertrial prisoner which led to the release of more than 40,000
undertrial prisoners and Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic
fundamental right.