Legal: Module 2

f. Legal concept : justice bar and bench duty right wrong remedy fact jurisdiction person offence bail damage compensation trial petition 1. Justice: Justice refers to the fair and impartial treatment of individuals in accordance with the law. It involves ensuring that everyone is treated equally and their rights are protected. 2. Bar and Bench: The terms "bar" and "bench" are used to refer to different groups within the legal system. The "bar" generally refers to lawyers and attorneys, while the "bench" refers to judges and magistrates who preside over cases. 3. Duty: Duty refers to a legal or moral obligation to fulfill certain responsibilities. For example, individuals have a duty to follow the law and respect the rights of others. 4. Right: Rights are legal protections and entitlements that individuals possess. They can include fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, or the right to privacy. 5. Wrong: Wrong refers to an action or behavior that is against the law or goes against moral principles. It can include things like committing a crime, violating someone's rights, or causing harm to others. 6. Remedy: A remedy is a solution or relief provided by the legal system to address a wrong or harm suffered by an individual. It can include things like monetary compensation, injunctions, or specific performance of a contract. 7. Fact: Facts are objective and verifiable pieces of information. In a legal context, facts are presented as evidence to support or refute a claim or allegation. 8. Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court or legal system to hear and decide a case. It determines which court has the power to adjudicate a particular matter based on factors such as geographic location or subject matter. 9. Person: In legal terms, a person can refer to both individuals and legal entities such as corporations or organizations. It recognizes that certain legal rights and obligations extend to both natural persons and artificial entities. 10. Offence: An offense, also known as a crime, is a violation of the law that is punishable by the legal system. It can range from minor offenses like traffic violations to serious crimes such as theft or murder. 11. Bail: Bail is a process by which a person accused of a crime is temporarily released from custody before their trial. It involves providing a financial guarantee or collateral to ensure the accused person's appearance in court. 12. Damage: Damage refers to harm or loss suffered by an individual as a result of someone else's actions or negligence. It can include physical injury, emotional distress, or financial loss. 13. Compensation: Compensation is a form of remedy that aims to provide financial or non-financial redress to a person who has suffered harm or loss. It seeks to restore the person to the position they would have been in if the harm had not occurred. 14. Trial: A trial is a formal legal proceeding where evidence is presented, witnesses are examined, and a judge or jury determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is a fundamental part of the judicial process. 15. Petition: A petition is a written request submitted to a court or government authority, seeking action or relief on a particular matter. It can be used to initiate legal proceedings or bring attention to an issue. CASE LAW Supreme court of India Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January ,1978 In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, which was heard by the Supreme Court of India on 25th January 1978, a woman named Maneka Gandhi had her passport taken away by the Indian government without being given a chance to defend herself. She believed that this action violated her right to personal freedom and her right to travel abroad, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court made an important decision in this case. They said that the right to personal freedom includes many other important rights that are necessary for a person's wellbeing and dignity. The court emphasized that any procedure or law that restricts a person's rights must be fair, just, and reasonable. They stated that the government must follow the principles of natural justice, which means giving people a fair opportunity to present their side of the story before taking away their rights. This case had a significant impact on the interpretation of Article 21 and expanded the understanding of personal freedom. It highlighted the importance of fair procedures and protecting individual rights. 2. Ratlam Muncipality vs Vardichand and Ors This case concerns the Ratlam municipality’s obligations to its people under Section 123 M. P. Municipalities Act of 1961. These obligations include the provision of sanitary facilities and the prevention of street contamination from a nearby alcohol plant. The residents of the Ratlam municipality, frustrated at the lack of sanitary facilities and the contamination in the streets, brought suit against the municipality under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code for public nuisance. The municipality argued that, 1) the residents chose to live where there are no facilities, and 2) the authorities lacked the funds necessary to construct what was required to comply. The Magistrate ordered the municipality to provide the proper facilities and construct drainpipes to abate the contamination. The order was appealed to the High Court, which affirmed the order below. The Supreme Court then considered whether a Court could affirmatively compel a statutory body to construct sanitary facilities and drainpipes at great cost. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, holding that the Magistrate had the power to compel a statutory body to comply with the order in the name of public duty. The Supreme Court also held that Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies and can be used to remove a public nuisance in a limited time period. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that a municipality cannot claim financial inability when it is responsible for preserving public health. The Supreme Court stated, “[a] responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies.” Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes: The municipality was ordered to take immediate action with regards to the contamination and pollution in the streets. It was also ordered to provide sanitary facilities and services for its residents within a six-month period. Significance of the Case: This decision rejected the city's defense that it lacked resources, noting that the relevant Indian law obligates the municipality to fulfill its public health duties. This case is also important for the Supreme Court’s view of court powers to compel the fulfilment of government duties. Where in the past the courts have been reactive to state harms committed, the Supreme Court in this case allowed an affirmative action against the municipality. 3. Trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak under section 124A and 153A of India Penal Code Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offense of "sedition." Sedition refers to actions or speech that are considered to be against the government or incite public disorder and rebellion. During the trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, he was accused of making speeches and writing articles that were critical of British colonial rule in India. The authorities believed that his words and actions were aimed at instigating people against the government and promoting unrest. The prosecution argued that Tilak's speeches and writings created a sense of disaffection and hostility towards the British government, which posed a threat to public order and stability. In the trial, the court examined the evidence and statements presented by both the prosecution and the defense. Tilak had the opportunity to present his side of the story and defend himself against the charges. Ultimately, the court found Tilak guilty of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment. However, it's important to note that Tilak's trial and subsequent imprisonment contributed to his popularity and further fueled the independence movement in India. 4. The Nanavati Trial The Nanavati trial took place in 1959 and involved Commander Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati, a naval officer in the Indian Navy, his wife Sylvia Nanavati, and Prem Ahuja, who was a close friend of the Nanavati family. Commander Nanavati was accused of murdering Prem Ahuja. The incident occurred when Nanavati discovered his wife's alleged extramarital affair with Ahuja. Nanavati confronted Ahuja and, in a fit of anger, shot him. The trial revolved around determining whether Nanavati's act was premeditated murder or committed in the heat of the moment due to grave provocation. The trial garnered immense public and media attention, becoming a symbol of the clash between traditional moral values and societal changes in post-independence India. It also highlighted the jury system in India, which was in use during that period. During the trial, Nanavati's defense lawyer argued that the murder was an act of temporary insanity provoked by his wife's infidelity. The jury, composed of 12 individuals, initially declared Nanavati not guilty, accepting the defense's argument of "grave and sudden provocation." However, the verdict created a public uproar, leading to discussions about the jury system's effectiveness and the need for judicial reforms. Eventually, the case was referred to the Bombay High Court, which overturned the jury's decision and ordered a retrial with a bench of judges. In the retrial, the court rejected the defense's argument of "grave and sudden provocation" and found Commander Nanavati guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Nanavati trial had a lasting impact on the Indian legal system. It led to the abolishment of the jury system in India, as the case highlighted certain shortcomings and public dissatisfaction with its functioning. 5 Trial of Derek Chauvin [ George Floyd Case] Derek Chauvin, a former police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was involved in an incident that led to the death of George Floyd, a Black man, on May 25, 2020. Chauvin was charged with several offenses, including second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The trial aimed to determine whether Chauvin's actions were responsible for George Floyd's death and whether he should be held accountable for his actions. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including videos of the incident captured by witnesses, expert testimonies, and medical reports. The prosecution argued that Chauvin's use of force, particularly kneeling on George Floyd's neck for an extended period, directly caused his death. The defense, on the other hand, presented their case, claiming that Chauvin's actions were justified and that George Floyd's death was the result of preexisting health conditions and drug use. The trial lasted for several weeks and received widespread media attention and public interest. Both sides presented their arguments and called witnesses to support their positions. The jury, consisting of 12 individuals, deliberated and ultimately reached a verdict. On April 20, 2021, the jury found Derek Chauvin guilty on all charges. He was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The verdict held him responsible for George Floyd's death and highlighted the significance of police accountability and the need for justice in cases involving law enforcement. The trial of Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case sparked discussions about systemic racism, police brutality, and the need for reforms in the criminal justice system.