Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Composite Culture

COMPOSITE CULTURE

Clause (f) of article 51A requires us to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. It follows that we may not break each other's places of worship, set fire to religious texts, or beat up one another's priests or obstruct those who exercise their Fundamental Right under article 25 to profess, practice and propagate religion. Composite culture means culture drawn from many strands. Here again education in its broadest and best sense can provide the corrective to the aberrations that have occurred.

Education is not confined only to the time spent in schools and colleges. Education begins at birth in the subconscious and continues till death. Anyone who says that he has nothing more to learn is already brain-dead.

It follows that the influences that play on a child at home are of great importance. Parents should understand that education begins at home, the examples they set, the environment of enlightenment and tolerance that is necessary to produce good citizens cannot be sub-contracted to formal schooling important though this is. Schemes should, therefore, be framed that include parents in social activities that have as their objective the country's age-old traditions, its welcome to the persecuted of every faith, its virtues of tolerance of and respect for all religions and a certain pride in belonging to this land and in being considered as Indian. The highest office in our democracy is the office of citizen; this is not only a platitude, it must translate into reality.

The distinction is not illusory. This country has given far too much indulgence to an attitude of mind that acts on the question - what is there in it for me? Education and the process of inculcating unselfishness and a sense of obligation to one's fellowmen should inspire the question – where does my duty lie? The transformation has the potential to make our nation strong, invincible and able to command the respect of the world.

The Commission recommends that the first and foremost step required by the Union and State Governments is to sensitise the people and to create a general awareness of the provisions of fundamental duties amongst the citizens on the lines recommended by the Justice Verma Committee
right to freedom of religion and other freedoms must be jealously guarded and rights of minorities and fellow citizens respected;
reform of the whole process of education is an immediate but immense need, as is the need to free it from governmental or political control; it is only through education that will power to adhere to our Fundamental Duties as citizens can be inculcated; and
duty to vote at elections, actively participate in the democratic process of governance and to pay taxes should be included in article 51A. The Commission fully endorses the other recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee on operationalisation of Fundamental Duties of Citizens and strongly suggests their early implementation.
The Commission also recommends that the following should be incorporated as fundamental duties in article 51A of the Constitution -
.To fosters a spirit of family values and responsible parenthood in the matter of education, physical and moral well-being of children.
. Duty of industrial organizations to provide education to children of their employees.

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES

Fundamental Duties of citizens serve a useful purpose. In particular, no democratic polity can ever succeed where the citizens are not willing to be active participants in the process of governance by assuming responsibilities and discharging citizenship duties and coming forward to give their best to the country. Some of the fundamental duties enshrined in article 51A have been incorporated in separate laws.

For instance, the first duty includes respect for the National Flag and the National Anthem. Disrespect is punishable by law. To value and preserve the rich heritage of the mosaic that is India should help to weld our people into one nation but much more than article 51A will be needed to treat all human beings equally, to respect each religion and to confine it to the private sphere and not make it a bone of contention between different communities of this land. In sum, the Commission believes that article 51A has travelled a great distance since it was introduced in the Forty-second Amendment and further consideration should be given to ways and means to popularise the knowledge and content of the Fundamental Duties and effectuate them.

The most important task before us is to reconcile the claims of the individual citizen and those of the civic society. To achieve this, it is important to orient the individual citizen to be conscious of his social and citizenship responsibilities and so shape the society that we all become solicitous and considerate of the inalienable rights of our fellow citizens. Therefore, awareness of our citizenship duties is as important as awareness of our rights. Every right implies a corresponding duty but every duty does not imply a corresponding right. Man does not live for himself alone. He lives for the good of others as well as of himself.

It is this knowledge of what is right and wrong that makes a man responsible to himself and to the society and this knowledge is inculcated by imbibing and clearly understanding one's citizenship duties. The fundamental duties are the foundations of human dignity and national character. If every citizen performs his duties irrespective of considerations of caste, creed, colour and language, most of the malaise of the present day polity could be contained, if not eradicated, and the society as a whole uplifted. Rich or poor, in power or out of power, obedience to citizenship duty, at all costs and risks, is the essence of civilized life.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 a PIL by an NGO highlighted the deplorable condition of bonded laborers in a quarry in Haryana, not very far from the Supreme Court. A host of protective and welfare-oriented labor legislation, including the Bonded Labor (Abolition) Act and the Minimum Wages Act, were being observed in the breach. In giving extensive directions to the state government to enable it to discharge its constitutional obligation towards the bonded laborers, the court said: The right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses of Article 39 and Article 40 and 41 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials. Since the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39, Articles 41 and 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may not be possible to compel the State through the judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials which go to make up a life of human dignity, but where legislation is already enacted by the State providing these basic requirements to the workmen and thus investing their right to live with basic human dignity, with concrete reality and content, the State can certainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation, for inaction on the part of the State in securing implementation of such legislation would amount to denial of the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 20, more so in the context of Article 256 which provides that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State.

Thus the court converted what seemed a non-justifiably issue into a justifiable one by invoking the wide sweep of the enforceable article 21. More recently, the court performed a similar exercise when, in the context of articles 21 and 42, it evolved legally binding guidelines to deal with the problems of sexual harassment of women at the work place \.The right of workmen to be heard at the stage of winding up of a company was a contentious issue. In a bench of five judges that heard the case the judges that constituted the majority that upheld the right were three. The justification for the right was traced to the newly inserted article 43-A, which asked the state to take suitable steps to secure participation of workers in management. The court observed: It is therefore idle to contend 32 years after coming into force of the Constitution and particularly after the introduction of article 43-A in the Constitution that the workers should have no voice in the determination of the question whether the enterprises should continue to run or be shut down under an order of the court.

RIGHT TO WORK

Article 41of the Constitution provides that "the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want."( article 6 of the ICESCR) Article 38 states that the state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people and article 43 states it shall endeavor to secure a living wage and a decent standard of life to all workers. One of the contexts in which the problem of enforceability of such a right was posed before the Supreme Court was of large-scale abolition of posts of village officers in the State of Tamil Nadu in India. In negating the contention that such an abolition of posts would fall foul of the DPSP, the court said:

It is no doubt true that Article 38 and Article 43 of the Constitution insist that the State should endeavour to find sufficient work for the people so that they may put their capacity to work into economic use and earn a fairly good living. But these articles do not mean that everybody should be provided with a job in the civil service of the State and if a person is provided with one he should not be asked to leave it even for a just cause. If it were not so, there would be justification for a small percentage of the population being in Government service and in receipt of regular income and a large majority of them remaining outside with no guaranteed means of living. It would certainly be an ideal state of affairs if work could be found for all the able-bodied men and women and everybody is guaranteed the right to participate in the production of national wealth and to enjoy the fruits thereof. But we are today far away from that goal.

The question whether a person who ceases to be a government servant according to law should be rehabilitated by being given an alternative employment is, as the law stands today, a matter of policy on which the court has no voice.( K.Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1982) 2 SCC 273, para. 34, p. 294.). But the court has since then felt freer to interfere even in areas which would have been considered to be in the domain of the policy of the executive. Where the issue was of regularizing the services of a large number of casual (nonpermanent) workers in the posts and telegraphs department of the government, the court has not hesitated to invoke the DPSP to direct such regularization. The explanation was:

Even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The Government should be a model employer. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable . . . It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY IN INDIA

An important feature of the constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although the Directive Principles are asserted to be "fundamental in the governance of the country," they are not legally enforceable. Instead, they are guidelines for creating a social order characterized by social, economic, and political justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as enunciated in the constitution's preamble.

The Forty-second Amendment, which came into force in January 1977, attempted to raise the status of the Directive Principles by stating that no law implementing any of the Directive Principles could be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated any of the Fundamental Rights. The amendment simultaneously stated that laws prohibiting "antinational activities" or the formation of "antinational associations" could not be invalidated because they infringed on any of the Fundamental Rights. It added a new section to the constitution on "Fundamental Duties" that enjoined citizens "to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities." However, the amendment reflected a new emphasis in governing circles on order and discipline to counteract what some leaders had come to perceive as the excessively freewheeling style of Indian democracy. After the March 1977 general election ended the control of the Congress (Congress (R) from 1969) over the executive and legislature for the first time since independence in 1947, the new Janata-dominated Parliament passed the Forty-third Amendment (1977) and Forty-fourth Amendment (1978). These amendments revoked the Forty-second Amendment's provision that Directive Principles take precedence over Fundamental Rights and also curbed Parliament's power to legislate against "antinational activities."

The Directive Principles of State DPSP are Policy (contained in part IV, articles 36 to 50,) of the Indian Constitution. Many of the provisions correspond to the provisions of the ICESCR. For instance, article 43 provides that the state shall endeavor to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities, and in particular the state shall endeavor to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas. This corresponds more or less to articles 11 and 15 of the ICESCR. However, some of the ICESCR rights, for instance, the right to health (art. 12), have been interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court to form part of the right to life under article 21 of the Constitution, thus making it directly enforceable and justiciable. As a party to the ICESCR, the Indian legislature has enacted laws giving effect to some of its treaty obligations and these laws are in turn enforceable in and by the courts.

Article 37 of the Constitution declares that the DPSP "shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws." It is not a mere coincidence that the apparent distinction that is drawn by scholars between the ICCPR rights and ESC rights holds good for the distinction that is drawn in the Indian context between fundamental rights and DPSP. Thus the bar to justiciability of the DPSP is spelled out in some sense in the Constitution itself.

" The directive principles are like instruments of instructions which were issued to the Governor in General and Governors of colonies and to those of India by the British Government under the 1935 Act under the Draft Constitution. It is proposed to issue such instructions to the president and governors. The text of these instruments of the instructions shall be found in scheduled IV to the Constitution of India. What are called directive principles is that they are instructions to the Legislature and the Executive. Such a thing is, to my mind, to be welcomed. Wherever there is grant or power in general terms for peace, order and good government that it is necessary that it should be accompanied by the instructions regulating its exercise." It was never intended by Dr. Ambedkar that the Directive Principles had no legal force but had moral effect while educating members of the Government and the legislature, nor can it be said that the answer referred to necessarily implied with the Directive Principles had no legal force.

KESAVANANDA BHARATI VS. STATE OF KERALA

As to what are these basic features, the debate still continues. The Supreme Court has also held that the scope of certain fundamental rights could be adjudged by reading into them or reading them not only in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy but also international covenants or conventions which were in harmony with the Fundamental Rights.

The Fundamental Rights — guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and right to constitutional remedies. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law.. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of untouchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfreeze labor. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation". High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports. Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too. For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on State action and actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest.

In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended. However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history.

In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation. According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures. The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The President can, by order, suspend the right to constitutional remedies as well.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. By the year 1949, when the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter, it had before it the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1966 (ICCPR) broadly referred to the inherent right to life and liberty and the right against arbitrary deprivation of those rights and its various aspects (Articles 6 to 14); privacy, family, etc. (Article 17); freedom of conscience and religion (Article 18); freedom of expression and information (Article 19); Right of peaceful assembly (Article 21); freedom of association (Article 22); rights of minorities (Article 27); etc. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR) broadly referred to the "right to work" and its various aspects (Articles 6 and 7); right to form trade unions for promotion of economic or social interests and the right to strike (Article 8); right to social security and social insurance (Article 9); family, marriage, children and mothers' rights (Article 10); adequate standard of living, right to food, clothing and housing, freedom from hunger (Article 11); physical and mental health (Article 12); education (Article 13); compulsory primary education (Article 14) and culture (Article 15).

Preamble

During the national struggle our leaders indicated that in the constitutional set up in free India people would be granted certain rights. In fact, in the various schemes relating to future constitutional set up, there were references of particular rights that the people of India should be granted. The Commonwealth of India Bill (1925), the Nehru Committee Report (1928), the memorandum of the National Trade Union Federation submitted to the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms (1932- 33), the Memorandum submitted by M. Venkatarangaiah to the Sapru Committee and the Sapru Committee Proposals provided for various Fundamental Rights that the people of free India should get. The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.

Dr. Ambedkar said:

"it was, indeed, a way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life and which cannot be divorced from each other: Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things."

Why Study Law

The academic study of law will give you an insight in to the legal systems on which much of our day-to-day life is based. You will gain a broad and thorough understanding of the subject.
You will practise, practise and practise some more the skills of thinking, analysis, written and verbal presentation of ideas of arguments. The skills are necessary to practice Law but make great transferable skills for many other career paths, such as teaching, the civil service, and the voluntary sector.

Misconceptions about Law

An A Level in Law is not required, although students will need to meet specific academic requirements (check with the university for any specific qualifications required for courses you are interested in).
Key factors used to assess their application will include how students portray their academic interest in the subject, their personal interests and extra-curricular activities within their personal statement on the application form.
Generally, admissions tutors look for strong all-round individuals who are curious about the world around them and determined and diligent.
A degree in Law not only leads to a career as a barrister or solicitor – it prepares a graduate for a wide range of careers.

Assessments and Exams

Assessment is by examinations and coursework. Exams at UEA and other Law Schools include seen, pre-release and open book exams.

What Degree Can I Get?

LLB Law.
BA/BSc Law.
Joint degrees, including Business and Law, Criminology and Law. Some universities offer sandwich courses with industrial placement.
As well as LLB Law, UEA offers LLB Law with American Law, and LLB Law with European Legal Systems.

What is Law?

Search for law degrees and you'll find LLB (Bachelor of Laws), BA, and BSc Law first-degree courses. The difference between the LLB, and BA and BSc is that generally LLB students spend their entire course studying the law, while students on a BA or BSc programme may spend as much as one-third of their time studying modules outside of Law.
A proportion of Law students may not want to become lawyers, but are fascinated with the process of law. Conversely, many would-be lawyers take their degree in another subject and then take a law conversion course, the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL).

University of East Anglia

Studying Law will give you good

communication and negotiation skills

Specific or general skills developed

A Law degree will provide you with the skills required to practice in law, for example through mooting (a mock legal hearing where students argue points of law), and pro bono work. Depending on the course, you may study law in relation to specific areas, such as the family, commerce, or finance.
General skills include the research, interpretation and explanation of complex subjects, analytical thinking and practical problem solving, good oral communication, negotiation, teamwork, attention to detail, and the ability to draft formal documents.

Examples of area of study

Core subjects

Legal Method, Skills and Reasoning
Law in Practice
Constitutional and Administrative Law
English Legal Process
Principles of Criminal Law
Contract Law

Optional modules might include:

Law and Medicine
Media Law
Internet Law
Public International Law
Child Law
Intellectual Property Law