Home Speak to a lawyer Meet a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Careers Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
It\'s ME
Blog
  • By: admin
  • Date: 18 Jul 2019
  • Others
  • Comments:
  • Views:80
  • Likes:

History of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s arrest

- Kulbhushan Jhadav is a retired Indian Navy Officer who was arrested by military forces in Pakistan on 3rd March 2016.

- India was informed of this only after 22 days of the arrest.

- Pakistan claims that Jadhav was arrested at the Pak-Afghan border in Balochistan for illegally entering into Pakistan. 

- India refuted Pakistan’s claim stating that Jadhav was abducted by Pakistan forces from Iran.


Pakistan’s course of action

- Jadhav’s case was conducted by a military court in Pakistan. The court awarded a Death Sentence in April 2017.

- India pushed for consular access several times after the sentence was passed, but he was denied access all the times on the grounds of   espionage and spying

- Consular Access can be defined as the right of the foreign nationals that are arrested or detained should be given notice without delay of their   right to have their embassy or consulate notified of     that arrest. In layman’s language, it is the ability of the citizens of a country to have   communication with the diplomats and officers of their country while held in a foreign location.

- Consular access would have hampered the death sentencing of Jadhav after a secret trial conducted by Pakistan.


ICJ’s intervention

- India approached the International Court of Justice in May 2017 after repeatedly being denied consular access.

- India accused Pakistan of violation of the Vienna Convention for denying consular access.

- India also argues that the process of the case was also questionable since it was handled by the military court. On the basis that the Judges of   this court are not required to possess any law degrees. 

- Pakistan refuted the argument by India that the Pakistan military courts do not have/require a legal understanding.

- Pakistan contested that Jadhav was an Indian spy sent to Balochistan to destabilise the country and therefore was not entitled to consular access.

- Pakistan was directed to take no actions against Jadhav until the final hearing of the case.


ICJ’s Verdict 

- The ICJ bench comprising of 16 members passed the verdict on 17th July 2019, nearly two years after the case was first submitted. 

- Only one Judge had a dissenting voice, and it belonged to the former Chief Justice of Pakistan - Tassaduq Hussain Jillani.

- The court clarified that Pakistan failed to inform Jadhav of his rights, and failed to inform India about the arrest his without any delay.

- It was held that Pakistan had violated the Vienna Convention and consular access should be granted.

- By staying the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Pakistan is directed to review his death sentence.

Read More

India Vs Pakistan: Kulbhushan Jadhav’s Case

By: admin Others 18 Jul 2019

History of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s arrest

- Kulbhushan Jhadav is a retired Indian Navy Officer who was arrested by military forces in Pakistan on 3rd March 2016.

- India was informed of this only after 22 days of the arrest.

- Pakistan claims that Jadhav was arrested at the Pak-Afghan border in Balochistan for illegally entering into Pakistan. 

- India refuted Pakistan’s claim stating that Jadhav was abducted by Pakistan forces from Iran.


Pakistan’s course of action

- Jadhav’s case was conducted by a military court in Pakistan. The court awarded a Death Sentence in April 2017.

- India pushed for consular access several times after the sentence was passed, but he was denied access all the times on the grounds of   espionage and spying

- Consular Access can be defined as the right of the foreign nationals that are arrested or detained should be given notice without delay of their   right to have their embassy or consulate notified of     that arrest. In layman’s language, it is the ability of the citizens of a country to have   communication with the diplomats and officers of their country while held in a foreign location.

- Consular access would have hampered the death sentencing of Jadhav after a secret trial conducted by Pakistan.


ICJ’s intervention

- India approached the International Court of Justice in May 2017 after repeatedly being denied consular access.

- India accused Pakistan of violation of the Vienna Convention for denying consular access.

- India also argues that the process of the case was also questionable since it was handled by the military court. On the basis that the Judges of   this court are not required to possess any law degrees. 

- Pakistan refuted the argument by India that the Pakistan military courts do not have/require a legal understanding.

- Pakistan contested that Jadhav was an Indian spy sent to Balochistan to destabilise the country and therefore was not entitled to consular access.

- Pakistan was directed to take no actions against Jadhav until the final hearing of the case.


ICJ’s Verdict 

- The ICJ bench comprising of 16 members passed the verdict on 17th July 2019, nearly two years after the case was first submitted. 

- Only one Judge had a dissenting voice, and it belonged to the former Chief Justice of Pakistan - Tassaduq Hussain Jillani.

- The court clarified that Pakistan failed to inform Jadhav of his rights, and failed to inform India about the arrest his without any delay.

- It was held that Pakistan had violated the Vienna Convention and consular access should be granted.

- By staying the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Pakistan is directed to review his death sentence.

Read More
Comments:
Views: 80
Likes:

Introduction To, The Transgender Persons (Protection Of Rights) Bill, 2016

By: admin Others 16 Apr 2019

The Transgender Persons Bill,2016, defines transgenders and prohibit discrimination against them, this bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha a couple of years ago and after a lot of discussions and deliberations, the Bill was passed with 27 amendments.

The Transgender Persons Bill was an outcome of the NALSA Vs India judgment by Supreme Court in the year 2014, which ruled that transgender people should be legally recognized according to their gender identity, enjoy all fundamental rights, and receive special benefits in education and employment.

The objective of the bill is to protect interests of the transgenders and defining the term ‘transgender’, to give them recognition and also setting up of a national transgender council. 

The amendments passed includes a change in the previous definition of transgender persons as “neither wholly female or wholly male”, to the new definition - “the person whose gender does not match the gender assigned to that person naturally at birth and includes trans-men or trans-women, persons with intersex variations, gender -queers, and persons having socio-cultural identities such as kinnar, hijras, aravani and jogta.

Highlights

It defines a transgender person as someone who is persons with intersex variations,  trans-men or trans-women, gender-queers, and persons having socio-cultural identities such as kinnar, hijras, aravani and jogta. 

A district screening committee will determine if a person is a transgender and issues a certificate. 

If the person undergoes sex change surgery, the doctor will issue the certificate. 

They can't be discriminated in education, employment, and housing. 

• The right against discrimination at work, the right to not be extended from property.

• Setting up of Vocational Training Institutes and providing relevant medical facilities.

While it is a positive sign that the government is taking some interest in the rights of transgender persons but this Bill has been criticised on various aspects by experts and the transgender community itself as it lacks details and seems to be passed hurriedly without taking the actual demands of the transgender community. 

Drawbacks

 Bill negates sself-identificationas prescribed by the SC in NALSA judgment as the bill provides for sex identification by District Magistrate issuing certificates after screening.

 Definition of transgender includes intersex persons, it is not the case that all intersex persons are trangenders.

 It criminalises begging, their main occupation as they are left with no option as being discriminated of education, job and healthy wellbeing.

• Bill proposes national transgender commission but nothing about its composition, structure, grievance redressal.

 Supreme Court in NALSA judgment directed to provide for reservation, bill totally ignores the part of the reservation.

Punishment of imprisonment for a period of six months to two years for sex crimes against transgender people which is much lighter punishment as compared to similar crimes against women.

This bill is a welcome step for rights of transgenders but several amendments are needed in order to do justice with transgenders, empower them as they have been deprived, and denied access to the economic, social, and cultural opportunities that are necessary for leading a dignified life in society.



Note: To learn more about the laws and procedures, you can contact us at Legato app where we help you in connecting with experienced lawyers who can assist you with the documentation and procedural aspects.

Read More
Comments:
Views: 30
Likes:

Rafale Deal And All About The Controversy

By: admin Others 16 Apr 2019

What is Rafale?
Dassault Aviation built a series of a twin-engine fighter jet by name Rafale. They are one of the best combat jets. 

Controversy, How It started?

UPA Deal: India under the UPA government began the process to buy a fleet of 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) in 2007 under the then Defence Minister, A.K. Antony.

Lockheed Martin's F-16s, Boeing's F/A-18s, Eurofighter Typhoon, Russia's MiG-35, Sweden's Gripen, and Dassault Aviation's Rafale were the contenders for the deal.
After a long process, Dassault Aviation emerged as the lowest bidder in December 2012, the original proposal was manufacturing 18 planes in France and other 108 in collaboration with the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. at India. Lengthy negotiations took place between the then UPA government and Dassault on prices and transfer of technology. The negotiations continued till 2014 but the deal could not go through.

NDA Deal: Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to France, announced India will purchase 36 Rafale jets in a government-to-government agreement. On April 10, 2015, a joint statement was issued after talks between Modi and the then French President Franois Hollande, which said they agreed to conclude an Inter-Governmental Agreement for the supply of 36 Rafale.

The statement said the Inter-Governmental Agreement for  supply of the aircraft in terms of agreement and  the delivery would be in such time-frame that it would be compatible with the operational terms of IAF; and that the aircraft and  related systems and weapons would be delivered as the same configuration which was tested and approved by Indian Air Force, and longer maintenance responsibility by France.

Chronological order of whole Rafale deal:

- 30th December 2002: Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP) adopted to streamline procurement procedures.

- 28th August 2007: Ministry of Defence issues Request for Proposal for procurement of 126 MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) fighters.

- 4th September 2008: Reliance Aerospace Technologies Ltd (RATL) incorporated by Reliance group.

- May 2011: Rafale and Eurofighter jets shortlisted by Air Force.

- 30th January 2012: Dassault Aviation’s Rafale aircraft comes up with the lowest bid.

- 13th March 2014: HAL and Dassault Aviation signed a Work Share agreement which made them accountable for the 70 per cent and 30 per cent of the work, respectively, for 108 aircraft.

- 8th August 2014: Arun Jaitley, the then defence minister tells Parliament that 18 direct ‘fly-away’ aircraft expected to be delivered in 3-4 years and remaining 108 aircraft to be delivered in the next seven years from signing of the contract.

- 8th April 2015: The then foreign secretary says detailed discussions underway between Dassault, MoD and HAL.

- 10th April 2015: New deal for the acquisition of 36 direct ‘fly-away’ aircraft from France announced 2016.

- 26th January 2015: India and France sign MoU for 36 Rafale aircraft.

- 23rd September 2015: Inter-governmental agreement signed.

- 18th November 2015: Government states in Parliament that all aircraft will be delivered by April 2022 and the cost of each aircraft to be approximately Rs 670 crore.

- 31st December 2015: Dassault Aviation’s Annual Report shows the actual price paid for the 36 aircraft at about Rs 60,000 crore, more than double the government’s stated price in Parliament.

- 13th March 2018: PIL in SC seeks independent inquiry into Centre’s decision to procure 36 Rafale fighter jets from France and revealing of the cost involved in the deal before Parliament.

- 5th September 2018: SC agrees to hear PIL seeking a stay on Rafale fighter jet deal.

- 18th September 2018: SC adjourns hearing on PIL seeking a stay on Rafale fighter jet deal to October 10.

- 8th October 2018: SC agrees to hear on October 10 fresh PIL seeking direction to Centre to file in “sealed cover” the details of the agreement for buying 36 Rafale fighter Jets.

- 10th October 2018: SC asks Centre to provide details of the decision-making process in the Rafale fighter jet deal in a sealed cover.

- 24th October 2018: Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan moves SC and seeks for filing of FIR into Rafale fighter jet deal.

- 31st October 2018: SC asks Centre to give pricing details of 36 Rafale fighter jets within 10 days in a sealed cover.

- 12th November 2018: Centre provides the price details of 36 Rafale fighter jets in a sealed cover to SC. Along with details of steps that led to finalisation of the Rafale deal.

- 14th November 2018: SC reserves order on pleas seeking court-monitored probe in Rafale deal.

- 14th December 2018: SC says there is no occasion to doubt the decision-making process of the Modi government and dismisses all the petitions seeking direction to the CBI to register an FIR for alleged irregularities in the jet deal.

- 15th December 2018: Government moves SC and seeks correction in para which makes reference to CAG report and PAC.

- 2nd January 2019: Former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie and activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan moves SC and seeks for review of Rafale verdict.

- 14th January 2019: Sanjay Singh, AAP MP, moves SC seeking review of Rafale verdict.

- 21st February 2019: Activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan seeks to hear on a plea seeking perjury prosecution of some officials for misleading court.

- 26th February 2019: SC decides to hear pleas seeking review of Rafale verdict in open court.

- 6th March 2019: Documents related to Rafale deal stolen from Defence Ministry, Centre tells SC, threatens The Hindu newspaper for publishing articles against them.

-8th March 2019: K.K. Venugopal, Attorney General explains that Rafale documents not stolen, petitioners used photocopies.

- 13th March 2019: Centre tells SC, review plea based on leaked secret documents endangers national security.

- 14th March 2019: SC says, Will first decide preliminary objection raised by Centre and reserves verdict.

- 10th April 2019: SC dismisses Centre’s objections claiming privilege and allows use of leaked documents.

Read More
Comments:
Views: 30
Likes: