The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur invites online applications for the post of Legal Researcher on contractual basis for deputing with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Chirania.
Name of the Post: Legal Researcher
No. of Post: 01 (One)
Eligibility
A candidate must be a fresh law graduate or Postgraduate in law from universities/colleges/ Institutions established by law in India.
A candidate must have a basic knowledge of computers.
Last Date To Apply
The last date to submit the online application is 17.12.2025
This Article is written by Aleena Rose Jose , Anna Biju and Lakshmi S Panicker, students of Government Law College, Ernakulam
UP gangster and notorious criminal boss, Vikas Dubey with over 60 criminal cases charged against him was shot dead in an ‘alleged’ encounter on 10th July, 2020, while ‘allegedly’ trying to escape from custody. He was being taken from Ujjain to Kanpur by UP Special Task Force (STF), and on the way the vehicle carrying him had an accident and was overturned. Dubey was shot multiple times on his chest and shoulder by the police when he ‘allegedly’ shot at them by snatching a gun from one of the police officers who was injured in the vehicle accident. Dubey was brought dead to the hospital while the officers who were shot had only grazed gunshot wounds.[1]
Dubey is reported to have shouted his name while being arrested, fearing being killed in a similar manner as his accomplices. He is the 6th person to be eliminated by the UP police following the killing of 8 policemen by Dubey and his associates at Bikru village, Kanpur. It also marks the 119th encounter killing initiated by the UP police since March 2017.[2]
Encounter killing is a widely used term to describe extra-judicial killings by the police and armed forces, supposedly in self-defense against ‘suspected’ gangsters and terrorists. A popular form of extra-judicial killing is “police encounters”. Such encounters are staggeringly fairly common in Indian states, especially UP, which ranks highest in the country in ‘fake encounter cases’. The statistics shows that this goes for most of the other states too.[3]
SOCIAL OUTLOOK
The increasing number of police encounters across the country in the recent years are beginning to raise questions as to the legality and moral and ethical aptness of such measures. Still, a majority section of the society still hails and upholds such repulsive police actions, irrespective of whether the encounters are real or staged; or whether the suspects and accused who are killed are actually guilty or innocent.
Vigilante justice in the movies is a concept largely accepted and celebrated by the audience. And police encounters are heartily welcomed by the public because it portrays the manifestation of the fantasies of justice that are cultivated and nurtured by the people over the years.
The reasons are various for this attitude of the society. Severe miscarriages of justice- alarmingly rising number of crimes, the inefficiency of the police in catching the culprits, pending trials, reduced conviction rates, inadequate punishment- have edged, manipulated and corrupted the public’s emotions towards appreciating such encounters. The way the people jubilantly celebrated and cheered for the police at the encounter site of the Hyderabad Gang Rape Case, 2019 that killed the 4 accused, and how women tied rakhis to the police personnel are clear reflections of this.
Major public approval and support often awards legitimacy to such police actions, which is also encouraged by the government as they strive to protect their image and to guard and defend themselves from being overturned. However the question to be addressed is whether these encounters are actually just. The question is whether true justice is ensured or is it for the sake of revenge or is it merely a cover-up. Reports that the Hyderabad encounter was a cover-up were stirred up after the publication of a report that stated that the Commissioner of Police who oversaw the case, V C Sajjanar, was the SP of Warangal in 2008, when the exact same situation happened- a sensational case of an acid attack on a woman that ultimately led to the killing of the accused by the police after being taken to the scene of the crime and somehow managing to get their hand on a gun.[4]
Whatever the truth, the encounter specialist was hailed as a vigilante of justice who avenged the horrendous death of the rape victim in ignorance of all the visible violations of the principles of natural justice that the encounter brought about. This brings to forefront the eye- opening statement made by the former CJI S A Bobde that ‘justice is never instant and that it loses its character when it becomes revenge’.[5]
Justice can never be spontaneous. Delays in judicial proceedings are always frustrating and disheartening. However, it is only through the methodical and stipulated process that justice can be ensured in its true and pure essence. It is to ensure that even though 1000 culprits escape the clutches of the law, not one innocent person should be wrongfully punished. The society’s contribution to the success of an investigation is surprisingly great. The public’s emotion can turn the direction of investigation into a positive or a negative outcome. The very purpose of investigation is to bring out the truth of the case before the court of the law. Then it becomes the duty of the court to judge the case and to give the verdict. In order to bring these principles into reality the society in its entirety need to change their outlook.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Encounter killings contradict the rule of law and such killings are totally against the constitutionality and legal framework of India. Shoot at sight approach of police towards the accused persons cannot be upheld in a country that is governed by the rule of law, even if the crime committed by the accused person is heinous. These killings violate the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed in Article 21. Under Article 21 every person including the criminals have the right to life and liberty and to live with dignity. No one can deprive a person from enjoying it except by procedures established by law. According to Article 14, equality before the law and equal protection of the law should be provided to every citizen, including the criminals who have committed heinous crimes. Thus, fair trial and investigation must be granted to every accused person. Article 22 of the Indian constitution provides that the accused person has the right to appoint an advocate of his choice and it is also a statutory right under section 303 of CPC. Even though no law in India directly authorizes the police officers to undertake instant justice as in the name of encounter killings, India faced a tremendous increase in the number of such killings.
Some enabling provisions protect the police officers even if they have been involved in encounter killing. Such provisions act as a shield of protection for these officers. Section 96 of the IPC gives the right to use force for self-defense and to protect one’s body or others from the criminals whose actions created a reasonable apprehension of fear of death or grievous hurt. This right is available to all the common citizens including police officers. Section 46 of the IPC allows the police officers to use force which may result in the killing of the accused person at the time of the arrest. This right is available only if the offence committed by the accused is punishable with a death sentence or life imprisonment. Exception 3 of section 300 of the IPC states that the culpable homicide is not murder if the offender being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the power given to him by low and causes death by doing an act which he in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
In most cases, the encounter killings are a set-up created by the police officers, with the consent or prior knowledge of higher officials. It won’t be as a result of self-defense or retaliation but just a fake attempt to kill the allegedly accused person so that they can close the case easily and the burden of investigation can be brought down.
Encounter killings also violates the basic natural justice principles of presumption of innocence and ‘audi alteram partem’. These are globally accepted rights and are upheld in many international conventions. Article 11 of the UDHR states that “everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense”.
Supreme Court has always re-probated encounter killings and claimed that no officials have the right to kill the criminals irrespective of the gravity of crimes they have committed. In 2011, during the trial of a case, the Supreme Court held that if the encounters were proved to be fake, then the officials involved in such encounters would be punished with a death sentence. Supreme Court also upheld that these killings must be considered rarest of rare cases because these are nothing but cold-blooded murders.[6] In PUCL v. State of Maharashtra[7], Supreme Court held that the encounter killings committed by the police officers contravene the rule of law and are against criminal justice. To preserve the faith of the common public in the police force, the court issued 16 guidelines that are to be followed during the investigation of such encounter killings. These guidelines ensure that justice is served to all.
Along with Supreme Court, NHRC has also laid down many guidelines to make sure that persons guilty of such crimes are punished. Magisterial inquiry must be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police action, preferably within three months, taking disciplinary action and prompt prosecution against the officers found guilty in the investigation and denial of promotion and instant gallery rewards on concerned officers soon after the occurrence are some among them.
CONCLUSION
Eventhough we have the above mentioned provisions in our criminal justice system and appropriate guidelines formulated by the concerned authorities, the number of encounter killings in India is dreadful. According to an RTI inquiry the NHRC has registered a total of 1782 fake encounter cases between the years 2000 and 2017. The state of UP accounts for a lion share of 45.55% of the total cases registered.[8] The government should be the protector of the life and property of people and the politicians should refrain from praising encounter killings and rewarding the police officers who initiate it.
The present scenario of encounter killings is disgraceful to a democratic country like India. The main reason behind such killings is the delay in justice delivery. Even the public rejoice in encounter killings can be attributed to this delay. Therefore, speed trial courts must be constituted to contain this issue. Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and NHRC should be strictly enforced and punishment for the officers involved in such crimes be ensured. There are no shortcuts to prevent the increasing number of crimes in our society. It can be reduced only through education, providing awareness and strict enforcement of laws. But instead, most of us encourages police officers to use their weapons to kill the criminals so that we will be safe, but that approach will only make the situation worse.
This Article is written by Raashi Suredia and Nupur Misra, students of Army Law College, Pune
INTRODUCTION
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) alludes to a set of practices and techniques aimed at resolving civil disputes outside traditional legal and administrative forums. It normally covers mediation, arbitration, and a variety of “hybrid” processes by which a third party facilitates the resolution of legal disputes without formal adjudication. These substitutes to adjudication are advocated on a variety of rationale. Potential perks include the reduction of the transaction costs of dispute resolution and the proceedings are quicker as compared to ordinary proceedings; the creation of resolutions that are better suited to the parties’ underlying interests and requisites; and improved ex-post compliance with the terms and conditions of the resolution.
ADR has gained ubiquitous acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years and is also being espoused as the means to help settle disputes alongside the court system itself. There are various widely used methods of ADR such as Arbitration, Mediation Negotiation and Conciliation. However, in the present state of affairs where the spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) has put everything on hold, it is important to talk about its effect on ADR.
The coronavirus global health crisis is significantly impacting communities worldwide. It has caused unparalleled disruptions and has damaged the world’s economy and business relationships. Great numbers of commercial disputes are coming into view as parties are finding it difficult to execute their contractual obligations. There is a likelihood that the crisis will result in a surge of litigation and will as a result defer the resolution of pending court cases. It is the unprecedented delays that should direct the parties towards alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) or Virtual ADR has come into play owing to this crisis.
Virtual ADR allows the cases to be resolved in a hassle-free manner and this system there is no need for the parties to travel. Parties to the dispute can communicate with each other through video conferencing which makes it possible for them to hear and see each other. In the case of mediation, the mediator can separate the parties and engage in a mutually agreeable settlement. Greater utilisation of ADR will result in nippy resolution of cases and will also be time and money-saving.
It must be stated that despite it being the need of the hour, there are certain challenges in this process. It is no secret that lawyers have always been averse to technology. Yet, in times like these, learning and adopting technology is essential for survival. Arduous and continuous training will be required for the lawyers to get through the offline to online transition. It is a tough row to hoe to provide internet connectivity to Indian Courts since most of them have poor network connectivity. Adequate security standards will have to be put into place so that the critical data that is stored is not hacked or tampered with in any way.
Like any new initiative, virtual ADR will have its share of complications and glitches. However, it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. ADR is no longer an alternate mode of resolving disputes. Rather, it is the ideal forum for the speedy, cost-effective resolution of disputes. The current pandemic has reformed the way we think about our lives and daily interactions. However, in unprecedented situations like these, it is much more important to come together and fight, to come out stronger and significantly more evolved.
The emphasis of this article is on mediation and arbitration. The first half of the article covers essential background for understanding ADR by focusing mainly on arbitration and mediation. The other half covers the use of AI in ADR during the pandemic.
ARBITRATION
Arbitration in India is an age-old conception, originating in ancient India. It is still prevalent today in villages where the seniors of the village or community sit and resolve disputes between villagers and/ or the community. Therefore, it cannot be said that Arbitration as a concept or ADR is a foreign ingress on the Indian legal system. Arbitration is a part of ADR along with other ADR processes like Conciliation and Mediation. Arbitration in India is administered by the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as applicable in India today was created on the lines of the Model Law of the UNCITAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law). The popularity of cherry-picking arbitration over mediation and/ or conciliation has created the term Arbitration Dispute Resolution.
Over time processes, procedures and powers concerning Arbitration and the right of parties to the same were incorporated in The Civil Procedure Code, Indian Contract Act, Specific Relief Act and by further incorporation of Indian Arbitration Act 1899, subsequently rescinded by the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 and then finally by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which came into effect from 25th January 1996. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, seeks to consolidate and amend the laws about arbitration as were in force pre 25 January 1996 and seeks to fortify the domestic and international commercial arbitration which includes enforcement of the foreign arbitration awards on the lines of Model Law on International and Commercial Arbitration adopted by UN Commission on International Trade Law, 1985.
MEDIATION
Mediation is a form of ADR, a way of resolving disputes between two or more parties. A third party, the mediator assists the parties to negotiate their settlement (facilitative mediation). In a few cases, mediators may express a view on what might be a fair or reasonable settlement, generally where all the parties agree that the mediator may do so (evaluative mediation). Mediation has a structure, timetable and dynamics which the “ordinary” negotiation has a paucity. The process is private and confidential. The presence of a mediator is the key distinctive feature of the process. There may be no compulsion to go to mediation, but in some cases, any settlement agreement signed by the parties to a dispute will be binding on them. Mediators use numerous methods to open, or mend, dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement (with concrete effects) on the disputed matter. Much depends on the mediator’s skills and qualifications. The mediator must be wholly unbiased. Disputants may use mediation in a multiplicity of disputes, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family matters.
USE OF AI IN ADR
With the COVID-19 pandemic hitting the world, the mode of all sorts of transactions has shifted to online methods. The technological resources which were earlier being underutilised are now being used at their optimum best and new advancements are also happening within very short periods to meet the new requirements of people. When the entire economy shifted to online mode and the definition of ‘normal’ changed, the legal world had to adapt to the dynamic scenario as well and accept the ‘new normal’. Cases were put on hold for the pandemic to die down, however, that was not and still is not the case. The legal processes which are tedious in a country like India, where trials take years to be completed, the pandemic, provided an opportunity to the Indian legal system to develop itself and adapt to the change to provide speedy trials. Administration of justice and access to justice is the basic essential as well as an important public service provided to every citizen which cannot be ‘quarantined’ due to the lockdowns put in place for safety. Therefore, the Indian judiciary adapted to the ‘work from home’ approach quite quickly. The Supreme Court issued guidelines for the conduct of virtual hearings, which guidelines directed all High Courts to take necessary steps to implement virtual hearings through video conferencing both for themselves and for the subordinate courts within their jurisdiction. The presence of Artificial Intelligence is however not new to the Indian judiciary and has been in use for a good amount of time. Alternative Dispute Resolution has also incorporated the element of Artificial Intelligence in the pandemic very smoothly and adopted the word Online Dispute Resolution, combining Alternative Dispute Resolution and AI technology used. The pandemic made online dispute resolution gain attraction due to social distancing norms and remote work policies. Online dispute resolution permits resolution by way of mechanisms on the internet and coded algorithms. The COVID-19 pandemic and the AI-enabled virtual communication between parties that are geographically apart, thereby continuing the legal formalities and not putting any hindrance to the ADR methods. The demand for the prediction of trial outcomes through data analytics is as it is high and the AI technology has been able to predict outcomes with appreciable accuracy. Algorithms are used to find the area of settlement between both parties, thereby reducing the need for human contact, which was the main aim of implementing multiple lockdowns in the first place and increasing the speed of dispute resolution. The whole aim of ADR is to not take the case to the court which not only saves the time of the judiciary and the parties involved but also protects the relationship between the parties. The usage of algorithms and since they are prompt, allows the parties to save time by settling matters out of the court directly. These AI-based settlements are also more consistent and uniform across similar cases, simply because they have been formed after time and continued testing which has been done time and again.
Platforms like Manupatra and Lexis Nexis have been formed after taking into consideration the amount of time that is taken up while researching for case laws, these platforms have been designed in such a way so that they can give the user the required data without going through multiple cases or searches, this proves how well such coded platforms work in benefit of legal professionals. An AI can systematize data according to the user needs and provide that as and when required which in turn would lessen the burden on an individual. The use of AI would also reduce the documentation workload, by quickly assessing and selecting the material document, or for making summaries for documents. As human beings, we all have our biases, opinions and prejudices, but when it comes to AI technology, it is not affected by these mundane weaknesses, it would give answers only after following the rational and logical approach, therefore, eliminating the scope of human emotions interfering the case.
CONCLUSION
The primary aim of arbitration is to get a neutral third party to resolve disputes equally without unnecessary costs or delays. The core aim of the Arbitration process is to save time and costs. AI will be complementary to the process of arbitration, as it is developed independently with its thinking and reasoning power and it is prompt and quick to solve queries, both aims of arbitration will be achieved. India is still a developing country and even though we are exploring new horizons in the field of computer technology time and again, development not only includes new advancements, it also requires optimum utilization of pre-existing resources to ensure sustainability, which is exactly what will happen when AI technology is incorporated into the ADR wholly and completely, reduction in individual workload, development of nation and sustainability of the world at large.
ENDNOTES:
Nilava Bandyopadhyay, India: Future of Litigation and ADR in India – Post COVID-19, MONDAQ (Mar 27, 2021), https://www.mondaq.com.
Masood Ahmed, Alternative Dispute Resolution during the Covid-19 Crisis and Beyond, TAYLOR AND FRANCIS ONLINE (Feb 25, 2021), https://www.tandfonline.
For more Articles, Case Summary, Internship / Job Opportunities etc.; Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group to get notified immediately. Also check us out on Instagram and Twitter
CUSB was established under the Central Universities Act, 2009, with the motto, ‘Collective Reasoning’. The University has been conducting its academic and other activities in its campus which extends over 300 acres at Panchanpur (near Gaya town). The School of Law and Governance is a pioneer in grooming modern day legal professionals with a multidisciplinary edge by providing specialization in Corporate Law, Criminal Law, Labour Law, Constitutional Law, Taxation Law, International Trade & Investment, Banking, Finance & Insurance, IPR, Environment Law and Medical & Forensic Law.
ABOUT LEGAL AID CLINIC
The Legal Aid Clinic of any law school is one of the most important student bodies with an attitude to impart the students an ecstatic experience by providing them with practical experience that goes hand in hand with the academics. The Legal Aid Clinic at Central University of South Bihar under the astute guidance of Faculty Coordinator Dr. Deo Narayan Singh, Assistant Professor, SLG, CUSB is in its 9th year of continuous functioning since its inception. The Legal Aid Clinic has organized prison visits and conducted various social awareness programs in schools and villages. National Conferences & Quiz competitions have also been organized to raise awareness about the importance of legal services among the budding lawyers.
ABOUT THE EVENT
The Legal Aid Clinic, School of Law and Governance, Central University of South Bihar in collaboration with Bihar Legal Network is delighted to officially invite you all to Online National Conference on 26th-27th August, 2021 on the theme of:
“Women and Access to Justice through Legal Aid“
Time and Date:
Day 1 – From 11:00 to 03:00 PM, 26th August 2021 Day 2 – From 11:00 to 02:05 PM, 27th August 2021
The conference is being organized on the auspicious occasion of Women’s Equality Day with the aim of discussing and deliberating over various interdisciplinary areas and core issues pertaining to the theme. The conference will showcase various aspects of a women’s life with a special emphasis on access to justice and the role of legal aid in achieving the same. The event is set to invite some of the renowned legal luminaries, social and human rights activists who will be educating the students about the status of Indian women and will discuss the effectiveness of the justice delivery system. The conference aims to make the younger generation aware about the hardships faced by the women and how they can play an important role in changing the same to make a better world for all of us.
While issuing the order, the court criticised the Army for not permitting women to take part in the NDA exam.
The present public interest petition raises the issue of violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India by denying the opportunity to eligible and willing female candidates to join the National Defence Academy.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday passed an interim order to allow women to take the admission exam to National Defence Academy (NDA), even as the Centre said women cannot claim violation of any fundamental right for being denied entry as the male cadets trained there do not have any automatic advantage in future career advancement prospects over the women whose only route to enter the Army is by recruitment through short service commission.
The result would be subject to final adjudication of the petitions. A division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by Kush Kalra seeking permission for women candidates to appear for the NDA exam.
While issuing the order, the court criticised the Army for not permitting women to take part in the NDA exam. When the Army’s counsel submitted that it is a policy decision, the top court said that the said policy decision was based on “gender discrimination”.
The present public interest petition raises the issue of violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India by denying the opportunity to eligible and willing female candidates to join the National Defence Academy and afford them a chance to enrol, train and develop themselves in the National Defence Academy into future leaders of the Indian Armed Forces.
For more Legal Updates; Join Team Attorneylex’s WhatsApp group to get notified immediately. Also check us out on Instagram and Twitter
“People are confident that they will get relief and justice from the judiciary. They know that when things go wrong, the judiciary will stand by them. The Indian Supreme Court is the guardian of the largest democracy,” Chief Justice of India N V Ramana said.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana on Saturday asserted that the Supreme Court would stand by the people to protect their civil liberties, while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cautioned that any semblance of majoritarian tendencies or clampdown on civil or religious freedoms would upset a sacred promise made to the ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional Republic.
The judge observed that the “danger to our freedoms may not only originate from those who are tasked to govern but also originate in the intolerance of persons in society as well”.
The CJI said the people of India knew that “when things go wrong”, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of the largest democracy, “will stand by them”.
The Chief Justice said the Constitution, together with the immense faith of the people in the judicial system, brought to life the Supreme Court’s motto Yato Dharma Sthato Jaya. “That is, where there is dharma, there is victory,” he explained, in his keynote address to a global audience at the Indo-Singapore Mediation Summit of 2021 organised by Singapore International Mediation Centre, CAMP Arbitration and Mediation Practice and Mediation Mantras.
Chief Justice of Singapore Sundaresh Menon congratulated Chief Justice Ramana on his recent appointment as top judge.
Chief Justice Ramana said conflicts were unavoidable in any society for a variety of reasons, including political, economic, social, cultural and religious.
But with conflicts, there was also the need to develop mechanisms for conflict resolution, the CJI stressed.
“India, and numerous Asian countries, have a long and rich tradition of collaborative and amicable settlement of disputes,” the Chief Justice stressed.
The CJI took a leaf from the Mahabharata to put his point across that peace through amicability was better than violence.
“Mahabharata, actually provides an example of an early attempt at mediation as a conflict resolution tool. Lord Krishna attempted to mediate the dispute between the Pandavas and Kauravas. It may be worthwhile to recall that the failure of mediation led to disastrous consequences,” Chief Justice Ramana said.
The Chief Justice said it was both “uncharitable” and an “overstatement” to blame pendency on judicial delay. Even a case filed 24 hours ago was added to the oft-quoted pendency statistic of 45 million cases.
“The term ‘pendency’ is used to refer to all cases which have not yet been disposed of, without any reference to how long the case has spent in the judicial system… This is, therefore, not a useful indicator of how well, or poorly, a system is doing,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.
The CJI said one of the chief reasons for delay was “luxurious litigation”.
“It is a specific type of litigation wherein parties with resources attempt to frustrate the judicial process and delay it by filing numerous proceedings across the judicial system… Undeniably, the prevailing pandemic has also contributed to our woes,” Chief Justice Ramana explained.
Another reason may be the sheer number of cases.
“This may have to be viewed in the context that India is the largest democratic republic in the world. The people believe in the constitutional project, of which the judiciary is an integral part. Judges in India, particularly in the constitutional courts, often burn the midnight oil to meet their judicial and administrative case load,” Chief Justice Ramana said.
The Chief Justice hailed the legal aid programme in the country as a “remarkable achievement,” which had ensured easier access to justice to nearly 70% of the population, particularly the poor, women, children, minorities, senior citizens and the differently abled.
The CJI referred to the impact of grassroots alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like Lok Adalats organised by legal services authorities.
“Over 7.84 million cases were settled by the Lok Adalats in 2019 and 2020. Nearly 3.94 million cases were settled at the pre-litigation stage. This is despite the pandemic and was possible by building an efficient online dispute resolution system in India,” the CJI said.
He said ADR mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation were participatory.
“ADR mechanisms enable parties to become insiders to a process that traditionally treated them as outsiders… I have personally seen disputes that have subsisted for decades get resolved through the process of mediation, within a short time,” Chief Justice Ramana underscored.
The CJI highlighted the “moral dilemma” of mediators functioning in the economically and socially diverse context of India.
Earlier, they were expected to be only “passive guides” in the mediation process. But with more and more complex commercial problems coming for mediation, they were expected to provide active assistance, the CJI noted.
He posed questions at mediators functioning in the economically and socially diverse community context.
“What happens when one party is better situated – economically, socially and politically – than the other? What is the duty of a mediator if the settlement reached is patently unjust to the weaker party? Should the mediator be a silent spectator during such negotiations? These are just some of the questions which one must consider, particularly in a country like India with our diverse social fabric. The requirements of substantive equality are a bedrock of every Constitutional democracy, and these ideals must be reflected even during the dispute resolution process,” Chief Justice Ramana reminded.
Majoritarian tendencies
At a separate event to commemorate the 101st birth anniversary of his father and longest-serving CJI Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who is line to be the CJI, stated: “Majoritarian tendencies, whenever and however they arise, must be questioned against the background of our constitutive promise. Any semblance of authoritarianism, clampdown on civil liberties, sexism, casteism, otherisation on account of religion or region is upsetting a sacred promise that was made to our ancestors who accepted India as their Constitutional Republic.”
“Our nation was forged and united, with a promise of certain commitments and entitlements to each and every citizen. A promise of religious freedom, a promise of equality between persons, irrespective of sex, caste or religion, a promise of fundamental freedoms of speech and movement without undue State interference and an enduring right to life and personal liberty,” he stressed.
About the Research Assistantship with Supreme Court Committee
The opportunity of Research Assistantship with the Supreme Court Committee on Prison Reforms is a research-based position formed by justice Madan Lokur and headed by Justice Amitava Roy.
The TOR is quite extensive. Primarily the Committee is looking into reforms in the area of women prisoners and their children, problems of overcrowding in prisons, rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, issues of staff and the juvenile justice system.
Vacancy
2
Eligibility
Law students and legal professionals are eligible for this research assistantship position.
Application Procedure
Interested Candidates are requested to mail their CVs to avnibahri@gmail.com
This article is written by Divya Singh Yadav, Sneha Asthana & Vivek Yadav
On 14th June 2020, the 34-year-old actor, Sushant Singh Rajput was discovered dead at his Bandra house within the urban concentrate on the day, which was claimed to be an instance of suicide by the native police. Mumbai police appeared to have closed the case at by showing people it was a suicide. However, as time passed by and Sushant’s father started acting upon the case, various links were made with Sushant’s death and his manager, Disha Salian’s, who died on June 9th, 2020, by accidentally falling off from the 14th floor from her fiancés’ residence in Malad. The short gap of just five days between both their deaths stirred up several rumours and conspiracies which instigated the Mumbai Police to investigate the case further. Several opinions arose on social media platforms and by Television media.
Heaps of political motives are being imputed within the case right from the word go. From the alleged involvement of high-profile politicians and screenland biggies in Mumbai to the approaching state elections, all types of conspiracy theories are floating around. Nausea has defendant the BJP of attempting to destabilise its government in a geographic area. A radical probe can prove whether or not these theories have any substance or are mere conjectures?
Some individuals, deliberately or accidentally, are attempting to form a divide between the states. Rhea is being branded as a Bengali lady who experienced necromancy to own complete management over a Bihari boy’s life, whereas Sushant’s family has been stereotypic, like several different Bihari family, as being ‘toxic’, that couldn’t settle for a giant town lady as his girlfriend. The probe can place finish to such ‘toxicity’ being peddled within the property right.
The probe will bring out the reality of whether or not the alleged suicide or murder of Sushant’s former manager Disha Salian is connected into Sushant’s death. Sushant was found dead solely six days once Disha’s end. It’ll additionally unravel the reality regarding the alleged involvement of influential individuals during this case.
It’ll additionally finish to the endless rounds of mudslinging between the police and therefore the politicians of 2 states. Shivsena’s leader has alleged that Sushant was displeased together with his father owing to his second wedding. In contrast, a state BJP leader has concerned a narco check of the Shiv Sena leaders for his or her involvement within the case.
It’ll additionally settle a big jurisdiction question of whether or not state police were well among its statutory rights to lodge FIR within the case and advocate the CBI probe once their geographic area counterparts had not lodged an FIR in the 1st place over the actor’s “unnatural death”.
It’ll additionally place screenland below scanner and answer the question if the alleged favouritism within the industry had something to try to with Sushant’s death under alleged depression?
It’ll additionally build it clear whether or not geographic area police were doing the investigation in right earnest or were attempting to scuttle the case struggling since the day, as alleged by Sushant’s family?
Finally, honest probe ought to guarantee justice to Sushant, his family, and his admirers if there was immorality so behind his death? And it’ll additionally offer justice to Rhea Chakraborty if she had no role to play some within the unfortunate incident.
The Mumbai police began to put in all efforts to find out the truth only after an FIR was filed by Sushant Singh Rajput’s father K.K Singh in Bihar. The Mumbai police then put their nose to the grindstone to find out all angles of the reason for Sushant’s death.
Role of Mumbai Police: Mumbai police, in this case, had the power to act under section 174 of CRPC. The police also said that all the instances and the pieces of evidence clearly stated that his death was suicide, and also there was no accused person, and hence there was no need for an FIR.
They started an investigation after his death and concluded that Sushant’s death was a suicide. The police state that the postmortem report was submitted at the Bandra police station. The deputy commissioner of Mumbai, on 22nd June 2020, said that the cause of his death was asphyxia due to hanging. The final post mortem was submitted on 25th June, which confirmed that Sushant’s death was due to hanging. And on 3rd August, police commissioner of Mumbai; Param Bir Singh said that the investigations of the death of Sushant and his ex-manager Disha Salian were not connected to each other.
Mumbai police also claimed that Sushant initially tried to hang himself with the help of a belt, but when that did not work out, he used a green kurta. They also said that due to the discrepancy of Sushant’s height and the distance between him and the fan, Sushant hanged himself in an inclined position.
On 3rd August, the police commissioner of Mumbai stated that there was no direct transfer of money from Sushant’s bank account to Rhea and there was no misappropriation of his funds. The police had investigated 56 people until 4th August.
Initially, the Mumbai police said the CCTV of Sushant’s home was not working on that day but on 3rd August; they stated that they had access to his CCTV footage and according to the recording there was no party at his house a day before his death.
Soon after the Mumbai police began investigating, there was news regarding K.K Singh, Sushant Singh Rajput’s father had filed an FIR against Rhea Chakraborty in Bihar.
On July 25th, Sushant Singh Rajput’s 74 years old father, Krishna Kishore Singh, lodged an FIR in Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna, against Rhea Chakraborty, Rhea’s mother, Sandhya Chakraborty, father, Indrajit Chakraborty, brother Showik, house manager Samuel Miranda and business manager Shruthi Modi on the grounds of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code – abetment of suicide. The charges mentioned in the FIR also include:
Section 306 – abetment of suicide
Section 341 – punishment for wrongful restraint
Section 342 – punishment for wrongful confinement
Section 380 – theft in a dwelling house
Section 406 – punishment for criminal breach of trust
Section 420 – cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Mr KK Singh has also invoked provisions of the Mental Health Care Act alleging that the ‘machinations’ used by Rhea and her family led to Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide.
Mr Singh had also claimed that Rhea Chakraborty was handling Sushant’s bank accounts and when the balances were dropping low, she had left with cash, jewellery, laptop, credit card, its PIN and password and essential documents and doctors’ receipts. The FIR also claimed that Rs 15 Crores were siphoned off from Sushant’s account into accounts of unknown persons.
He claimed that Sushant was also threatened by Rhea to show doctor’s receipts to the media to prove him mad, as a result of which he would not get any further work.
Mr KK Singh has alleged that Rhea Chakraborty had only befriended Sushant to further her own career using his contacts and that her parents helped her “purloin the assets of my son worth crores of rupees and started interfering in all aspects of his life.”
He also alleged in the FIR that Rhea convinced Sushant to leave is own residence claiming that his house was haunted.
Mr Singh goes on to allege that Rhea blackmailed Sushant and threatened to make his medical record public due to which Sushant almost gave up his cinema career to settle down in Coorg.
Following the FIR, a team of 4 from the Bihar police reached Mumbai for starting an investigation of the case on the same day and on 31st July, the Enforcement Directorate filed an Enforcement Case Information Report against Rhea Chakraborty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
When the Bihar Police team landed in Mumbai, Patna Central Superintendent of Police, Mr Vinay Tiwari was sent to quarantine till the 15th of August in compliance with the State Guidelines of quarantining all domestic flyers. The Bihar police team had, however, collected statements of Sushant’s ex-girlfriend, Ankita Lokhande, his sister, his cook and his friends and colleagues. The team also applied to the Crime Branch to seek assistance from the Mumbai police in collecting information regarding Sushant’s financial accounts. The investigation from both the states together led to a tussle, thereby resulting in controversies regarding elections political moves.
However, on 29th July, Rhea Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the FIR from Bihar to Mumbai because no action of the case had arisen in Bihar; therefore Bihar does not hold jurisdiction to probe the matter. Instead, the Mumbai police should be investigating. Until the plea was decided, Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar, on public pressure, recommended CBI investigation into the matter. On August 19th, the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict and transferred the case to the CBI and validated the FIR that was filed in Bihar.
CBI had taken over the probe on 7th August after the centre had issued a notice after the Bihar government’s recommendation. Then CBI had re-registered the case against Sushant’s girlfriend Rhea, her mother, father, brother, Sushant’s ex-manager and his flat-mate and others based on the complaint made by Sushant’s father earlier with Bihar police on 25th July.
On 19th August, the supreme court of India allowed CBI to probe into Sushant Singh Rajput’s death.
The CBI investigation was allowed by the SC due to the following reasons:
Mumbai police had not investigated the case in a bonafide manner
The court had observed that the police was investigating the case under section 174 of CRPC, which has a limited scope, and hence no proper investigation could be done.
Patna police had the jurisdiction to investigate the case
The FIR lodged by Bihar police was valid and was considered to be crucial for the case it was considered necessary to look into the matter. Sushant’s father had filed a complaint based on criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money, and therefore, the incident’s consequences would arise in Patna too.
An independent organisation’s investigation necessary to avoid conflict between the two states
The court had observed that there were conflicts between the governments of both the states, and a lot of allegations were made that the Mumbai police did not do an excellent job in investigating the case.
The judgment said that both the states were making allegations that there was political interference into the matter, and the validity of the investigation was in question.
Justice for Rhea and Sushant’s family
The court also was in the opinion that the actor had died long before the world could realise his full potential. And the court added that Rhea herself wanted CBI investigation.
To avoid uncertainty due to multiple investigations
The court said that one organisation should be in charge of investigating to avoid confusion about the case.
The court had denied Rhea’s request to transfer the investigation to Mumbai police stating that the provision 406 of CRPC does not grant the power to the supreme court to transfer investigation from one state to another when the matter is only at the investigation stage.
CBI had divided its team into three parts to investigate the matter. The main interrogation and investigation of the accused and other people involved in the matter will be done by the team led by Nupur Prasad (superintendent of police). The deputy Inspector general (DIG) Suvej Haq will be in charge of coordinating with Mumbai police in collecting all the documents regarding the case.
Since the CBI probe has begun, various pieces of evidence have appeared in the open convincing people of murder. The case has highlighted call records, text messages, drug traces, political links, Bollywood Mafia and several other matters. If the world ever knows the truth behind the case, then it could be very detrimental for some of the most influential people of the country. Terror links have also been traced, and the entire film industry has been put under the spotlight through the entire investigation. Remarks about Rhea’s character, her family and her career have also been made by the media channels to create bias.
However, the legal justice system does not depend on such remarks and works on a proof. Several questions need to be answered.
Why was no action taken once Rajput’s family had alerted in Feb. that his life might be in danger?
What came of the probe in Rajput’s former manager, Disha Salian’s, case who died six days before Sushant underneath mysterious circumstances?
Why is not anyone talking and concerning the missing CCTV footage, the duplicate keys, and therefore the fifty SIM cards?
Are Rajput’s friend Siddharth Pithani‘s statements inconsistent with the menage staff’s?
How did Rhea manage to rent the foremost costly professional person to assist her case?
Did Rhea resist Bihar Police’s involvement, and was geographical region government against the CBI probe?
Why is that the IPS officer sent from Bihar unbroken in quarantine?
Is there political involvement within the case on the far side mere suspicion?
Why was it declared an ‘open and shut’ suicide case inside minutes of Sushant Singh Rajput’s body was found?
Why are details of Sushant Singh Rajput’s medical and treatment reports accessible within the public domains?
Did Sushant Singh Rajput have mental health issues?
Was there a party the night before Sushant took his life?
Was Aditya Thackeray ever at the alleged party?
Did Salman Khan scold Sushant for ‘misbehaving’ with Sooraj at a party?
What happened to all the ‘nepotism’ and ‘Bollywood mafia’ debates?
Why were big Bollywood names dragged into the investigation in the first place?
Did Rhea Chakraborty take Rs 15 crore of Sushant Singh Rajput’s money?
Did Sushant’s relationship with his family turn sour over the years?
Did Steve Huff speak to Sushant Singh Rajput’s spirit, or was it a sham?
A stricter probe and continuous questioning are what is required. India has seen sudden deaths of actors like Jiya Khan and Sridevi as well. They remained mysteries for the nation too. Commenting on Sushant’s death, Jiya Khan’s mother has tweeted in support for the CBI probe claiming that she is absolutely sure that politics and the Bollywood mafia are involved in the death of Sushant as they were in the death of her innocent daughter. She believes there are people so influential in the industry that cannot tolerate such competition and threaten innocent people to give in to the apparent filthy politics. Unlike Jiya and Sridevi’s case, the country today, especially with the help of the media, strives to find the truth behind Sushant’s death.
The certainty of an answer in the coming times is mild, but there is hope to find out if what actress Kangana claims to be the game of the Bollywood Mafia is in fact true. The social media attention on the case has definitely led our forces to fight this one out and bring justice to who deserves it.
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dropped charges under National Security Act against Dr Kafeel Khan, the pediatrician directing his immediate release. Dr Kafeel Khan has been incarcerated in Mathura jail for the last six months.
The HC bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Marhur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh cancelled his detention in a habeaus corpus petition filed by a Kafeel’s mother. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier extended his detention by three months till November 13.
In its last hearing, the HC bench adjourned the matter as parties prayed to file additional documents and the court wanted to pursue original records of the proceedings under the NSA, resulting in the detention of Khan and further extension of the same.
According to the plea, Khan was earlier granted bail by a court and he was supposed to be released. However, the NSA was imposed against him. Hence, his detention was illegal, the plea said.
Under the NSA, people can be detained without a charge for up to 12 months if authorities are satisfied that they are a threat to the national security or law and order. Khan is currently lodged in a Mathura jail.
The Gorakhpur doctor was arrested on January 29 by Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) for an alleged provocative speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Aligarh Muslim University in December 2019.
After finding Advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of Court for his tweets on the Judiciary, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari finally sentenced him on August 31st, 2020 to a token fine of Rs. 1. The Bench also stated that if Advocate Prashant Bhushan defaults on this payment then he may be sent to prison for three months and may be debarred from practicing for three years.
The Court had given several opportunities to the Advocate to express his regret and apologise. However, Bhushan had issued a supplementary statement standing by his tweets and refusing to apologise. The Court also pointed out that Bhushan had given publicity to the events of his case by involving the press in it. That being said, the Court added that its decisions are not to be influenced by publication of opinions in the press.
![Legal Researcher at The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur [Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Chirania]: Apply by Dec 17](https://i0.wp.com/teamattorneylex.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/OIP-1.jpeg?resize=220%2C220&ssl=1)
