Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the National Online Quiz Competition
Team Attorneylex is organising its 9th Online National Quiz Competition on Constitutional Law scheduled to be held on 19th June 2021.
Eligibility
Team Attorneylex looks forward to participation from law aspirants, students pursuing 5-year law and 3-years law, and LLM courses. Professionals from the legal fraternity are also invited to participate in the Quiz.
Important Dates & Timing
Last date for registration: 18th June 2021, 11:59 PM
Competition Date: 19th June 2021, 06:00 PM
Declaration of Results: 24th June, 2021
Venue – Online (Google forms)
Details
The quiz competition is not a team-based competition, and thus, each student shall participate individually.
The Quiz will consist of Indian Polity & Constitutional Law questions, including significant/landmark judgments.
It will consist of 30 MCQs.
The total time limit for the Quiz is 20 minutes.
Every question carries one mark, and there will be no negative marking.
Registration Process:
Registration Fees: Rs. 50/-( Early bird offer Rs. 40/-, till 10 June)
Payments details
Paytm/ G-pay/Phonepe- 9616696008 (Gaurav yadav)
Bhim UPI- 9616696008@upi
Bank details-
Name- Gaurav Yadav
Bank – Punjab National Bank
Account Number- 03842193000248
IFSC Code- PUNB0018300
Registration Link
Interested candidates can fill the registration form – Click here
The registered candidates should join our WhatsApp group for updates.
The Quiz results will be declared on the social media platforms and the Website of the Team Attorneylex. Follow us on Instagram @teamattorneylex.
In the case of a tie, Time will be considered (Person who submits early will be given preference).
Team Attorneylex will not be responsible for any technical error, any connectivity/device failure during the Quiz.
The results declared would be final and the authority vests with Team Attorneylex to change or modify the same.
Perks
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Trophy+ Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 500/- + Trophy + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
2nd Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 250/- + Trophy + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate to all the participants + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal.
Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the Competition
Team Attorneylex is organising its 8th National Article writing competition for all those who want to show their research and writing skills and are not able to find the perfect stage; here, we are giving them a chance to show their talent.
TOPIC: Any Contemporary Legal Issue.
Eligibility
Open for all.
Any enrolled student of school/ university/ college, graduate/postgraduates, academicians, advocates, and anyone who can express through the words.
The subject of the email should be “Submission: Article Writing Competition.”
Write-up must be original and unpublished.
Submissions with plagiarised content and copyright issues will be rejected outrightly.
The decision of the judges shall be final and binding.
Font Size -12
Font Style – Times New Roman
Citation – 20th Bluebook
The submission shall also be accompanied by another Word document consisting of a Cover Letter mentioning the Name of the Author/s; Name of the Institution/College/University; Designation; Year of Study (if applicable); Email ID.
Registration Fees
Single Author – 100/-( Early bird offer Rs.80, till 28th May)
Two Authors – 150/- ( Early bird offer Rs.130, till 28th May )
Three Authors- 200/-( Early bird offer Rs.180, till 28th May)
Important Dates
Last date of payment and registration: June 12, 2021
Last date of submission: 11:59 PM, June 13, 2021
Declaration of Results: June 20, 2021
Prizes
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 3000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
2nd Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 5 Performers: Free blog publication at Jus Corpus. (Jus Corpus Law Journal is a HeinOnline and J-Gate Indexed Law Journal, so the blogs will get the maximum reach)
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate will be provided to all the participants.
Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the Competition:
The objective of this competition is to promote the importance of the latest landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India. This competition will enable the participants to know that how these latest judgments have changed the overall course of justice. The Supreme Court landmark judgments provided as the theme of the Competition would not only enrich the academic experience but also provide knowledge about the practical aspect of the professional legal world. This Case Comment Writing Competition seeks to promote original thoughts, and analysis amongst students, researchers, academicians and legal practitioners.
Eligibility Criteria:
Open to All.
All undergraduate and postgraduate students, teachers, research scholars from a recognized school, college or university are eligible to participate in this competition.
List of Cases for Case Comment Writing ( Choose any one)
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of Indian [Death Penalty and Mercy Petition 2014]
Abhilasha v. Parkash [2020 SCC OnLine SC 736] (maintenance under Section 125 CrPC)
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [2020 3 SCC 637] (Kashmir Lockdown)
State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu [Cauvery Dispute]
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [ WP (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016]- [Sec. 377 Verdict]
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subash Chandra Agarwal [CJI Office comes under RTI Act 2020]
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors [Gender Equality in Armed Forces 2020]
Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [Judicial Services 2020]
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 808] ( Shaheen Bagh Protests)
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 5 SCC 1] ( Protection under Anticipatory Bail )
Dr. Shah Faesal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 4 SCC 1] ( Article 370 )
Pandurang Ganpati v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd [2020 SCC OnLine SC 431] (SARFAESI Act )
Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors. [Verdict on Live-streaming Apex Court Proceeding]
Justice K S Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Validity of Aadhaar Judgment passed on 26th September 2018)
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) 373 of 2006] – (Women entry on Sabarimala Temple)
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1
Independent Though v. Union of India and Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 800
Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 821
Submission Guidelines:
The case comment should preferably include the following elements: Synopsis, background, facts of the case, issues, contentions, findings, reasoning, disposition, critical analysis, conclusion.
The submission must be original.
Submission must be in English Language only.
It should be submitted in Word/ Docs document format only.
Word Limit: 1000-2000 words excluding citations.
Plagiarism limit: 25%.
Co-authorship is not permitted.
Formatting Details:
Font: Times New Roman
Title: Font Size – 14, Bold, Underlined, Capital
Headings: Font Size – 14, Bold, Capital
Content: Font Size – 12
Alignment: Justified
Line Spacing: 1.5
All submissions shall be made to submission@teamattorneylex.in with a subject – “Submission: National Case Comment Writing Competition”.
Note: The submission shall also be accompanied by another Word document consisting of a Cover Letter mentioning the Name of the Author/s; Name of the Institution/College/University; Designation; Year of Study (if applicable); Email ID.
Marks Shall be allotted based on:
Understanding of the Facts of the Case (Topic chosen)
Interpretation
Analysis and Conclusion
Presentation and Creativity
Compliance & Strict Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines
Important Dates and Timing:
Last Date of Registration: 05 June 2021
Last Date of Submission: 07 June 2021, 11:59
Declaration of Results: 13 June 2021
Prizes:
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
2nd Runner Up: Cash prize Rs. 500/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate will be provided to all the participants.
This article is written by Uddeshya Yadav, a student at Lovely Professional University, Punjab
INTRODUCTION
The rule regarding the transfer of immovable property in favour of the person is defined under The Transfer of Property Act under Section 13. However it basically an exception, as under Section 5 of The Transfer of Property Act defines the term transfer of property which basically means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more than one living persons; and “to transfer property” is to perform such act. As from the definition, we can clearly understand that the property should be transfer from one living person to another living person the person should be alive he should be not the dead person and the transferor, which mean that the person who makes the transfer of property can be human or juristic. The will or the court order cannot be included under this as the person who has made the transfer is not the living person he is dead now as the will is the legal declaration of the testator for carrying his property after his death. Property can be transferred by more than one living person and it can also be acquired by more than one living person. It is simple to understand it means that the transferor can be more than one and the same as in the case of transferee they can also be more than one. In general, the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not facilitate the transfer of property directly to an unborn child.
The term unborn child means A person who does not have any current existence but has a specific reference to one and who may be born in the future is considered to be an unborn child or person. Even though a child in a mother’s womb is simply not a person in existence, but has been treated as a person under both Hindu Law and English Law.
It should also be remembered that the word ‘unborn’ not only applies to those who may have been conceived but not yet born, who is a child in the womb but also encompasses those that are not yet conceived. Whether or not they will be born is a possibility, but a transfer of property is admissible for their benefit.
TRANSFER TO UNBORN PERSON
The property cannot be directly transferred to the unborn person as earlier stated. An unborn person as mentioned under this act means a person who is not in existence in the mother womb. A qualified transferee is a child in the womb of a mother or a child en ventre sa mere. The property which the transferor want to transfer can be transferred to the child in the womb. But if the transferor wants to transfer the property to the person who is not even in the mother womb then the property cannot be transferred because the person is unborn. The transferee should also be in existence at the date of transfer as the transfer of property take place between two living person. Legally speaking every transfer of property involves the transfer of interests. When a property is transferred the transferor divests himself of that interest and vest it immediately in the transferee. So, if a property is transferred directly to a person who is not in existence the interest so transferred shall be divested or be away from the transferor but it would have to remain in abeyance and wait for the transferee to come into existence, in whom it could vest. Such a situation would be against the very concept of interest.
TRANSFER FOR BENEFIT OF UNBORN PERSON
Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act simply describes that the property can be transferred for the benefit of the unborn person two conditions are necessary to be fulfilled-
Prior life interest must be created in favour of a person in existence at the date of transfer., and
Absolute interest should be transferred in the favour of the unborn person.
PRIOR LIFE INTEREST
Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 specifies that if on the date of the transfer, an interest therein is created for the benefit of an unborn person, a prior interest shall be created for the same transfer and the interest generated for the benefit of such person shall not take effect unless it extends to the whole of the remaining interest of the person transferring the property in the property to be transferred. Therefore, in order to transfer property on the date of the transfer for the benefit of an unborn child, it is imperative that the property must first be transferred on the date of the transfer by the trusts process in favour of any person living other than the inborn person. It can be said that in any living person the immovable property must vest between the date of the transfer and the coming into being of the unborn child because the property cannot be transferred directly in favour of an unborn person. In other words, it can be assumed that a prior interest must precede the interest of the unborn individual in all situations.
ABSOLUTE INTEREST
The second important condition is Absolute Interest and the unborn child should only be given absolute right and not limited or life interest. Transfer of property for the life of an unborn person is void and cannot take effect. Section 13 enacts that interest given to the unborn person must be the whole of the remaining interest of the transferor in the property. When a property is transferred in favour of an unborn, the transferor first gives a life interest to an existing person. After transferring this, he retains with him the remaining interest of the property. This remaining interest with the transferor must be given to the unborn so that after the termination of prior life interest, the unborn get the whole. i.e. absolute interest in the property.
In other words, the whole of remaining interest is the entire interest of the transferor less prior life interest carved out of the ownership. The transfer in the favour of the unborn and the prior life interest must exhaust the whole interest of the transferor in the property which is transferred by him. If there is any other limitation that derogates or cuts short the completeness of the grant in favour of the unborn, the transfer is void. Thus, life interest or other limited interest cannot be given to the unborn.
Illustrations:
A transfers his properties to X for life who is unmarried and then to the eldest child of X absolutely. The transfer in favour of the eldest child of X is valid.
A transfers his properties to X for his life and thereafter to U. B for life X is a living person at the date of the transfer. U.B is not in existence at the date of transfer. Here the transfer of life interest in favour of X is valid. But, transfer of life interest in favour of U.B is void because although the transfer in favour of U.B is preceded by a life interest to X but U.B himself has not been given an absolute interest. The result is therefore that X shall hold the property during his life but after his death, it shall not pass on the U.B but shall revert to A or if A is dead by that time to legal heirs.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSFER FOR BENEFIT OF UNBORN PERSON
Transfer in favour of unborn person has the following legal consequences:
Only life interest shall be granted to the intermediary person residing at the transfer date. During his lifetime on behalf of the unborn, he has to protect the property like a trustee. If this living person has an absolute interest, he may be entitled to have it disposed of by someone. If he maintains it, the property shall go to his lawful heir after his death, and not to the unborn for whose ultimate benefit the disposition has been made.
The unborn must come into existence before the death of the person holding property for life. If the unborn comes into existence say, after one month after the death of the last living person (i.e. after the termination of the preceding interest), the property is to revert to the transferor or his heirs. This is obvious because, after the termination of the life interest, it cannot remain in abeyance and cannot wait even for a moment for the next person to come into existence.
In the case of Sridhar v. N.Revanna the donor transferred property by way of a gift in favour of his grandson. The property thereafter was to be vested in the male children of the grandson. The court held that the gift deed could be said to have created life interest in favour of his unborn sons. The condition in the gift deed restraining alienation was void. Alienation of the property by the donee after the birth of his sons was improper. These sons were allowed to recover the sale consideration received by their father from the purchaser.
PRE-REQUISITE FOR A VALID TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO AN UNBORN PERSON
The procedure for the same as follows:
1. Any person who intends or wishes to transfer the property for the benefit of an unborn person should first make a life estate in favour of a living person and after this, an absolute estate in favour of the unborn person.
2. Till the time, in whose favour the life estate created is alive, would hold the possession of the property, and enjoyment of the property.
3. If the person who was unborn during the time of the creation of life estate, is born, the title of the property gets immediately transferred to the person born but he’ll get the possession only on the death of the life estate holder.
WHEN A UNBORN PERSON ACQUIRES VESTED INTEREST
The provisions of section 20 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 mention the concept that in what circumstances unborn person acquires a vested interest. An unborn person may not be able to enjoy possession of the property as soon as he is born but he may, however, acquire a vested interest in the property since his birth. Where on a transfer of immovable property interest is created for the benefit of an unborn person, he acquires upon his birth, a vested interest, although he may not be entitled to the enjoyment thereof immediately on his birth. The mentioned provision however may be waived off if the terms of the agreement mention a contrary clause.
The section lays down that an interest created for the benefit of an unborn person vest in that unborn person as soon as he is born. Such interest remains vested interest even though he may not be entitled to the enjoyment thereof immediately on his birth.
For example, if “A” transfers an estate to trustees for the benefit of A’s unborn son with a direction to accumulate the income of such estate for a period of ten years from the date of the birth of A’s son and then to hand over the funds to him. A’s unborn son acquires a vested interest upon his birth, although he is not entitled to take and enjoy the income of the property for a period of ten years.
CASE LAWS
In Girish Dutt V Data Din, A made a gift of her property to B for her life and then to her sons absolute. B had no child on the date of execution of the gift. The deed further provided that in case B had only daughters, then the property would go to such daughters but only for their life. In case B had no child than after the death of B, the property was to go absolutely to X.
The deed on the paper provided a life estate in favour of B’s unborn daughters: which is contrary to the rule of Sec.13. However, B died without any child, and X claimed the property under the gift deed. The court held that where a transfer in favour of a person or his benefit is void under Sec.13, any transfer contained in the same deed and intended to take effect or upon failure of such prior transfer is also void. In determining whether the transfer is in violation of Sec.13, regard has to be made with respect to the contents of the deed and not what happened actually. Here as the transfer stipulated in the void contract, the transfer in favour of X also became void. Hence, X’s claim was defeated.
Another case related to this concept is Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurdin Bhakhtrey Kuer. In the instant case the Apex Court had observed that no interest can be created in favour of an unborn person but when the gift is made to a class or series of persons, some of whom are in existence and some are nonexistent, it does not fail completely, it is valid with respect to the persons who exist at the time of testator’s death and is invalid with respect to the rest.
In the case of Sopher v Administrator General of Bengal, a testator directed that his property was to be divided after the death of his wife into as many parts as there shall be children of his, living at his death or who shall have pre-deceased leaving issue living at his death. The income of each share was to be paid to each child for life and thereafter to the grandchildren until they attained the age of 18 when alone the grandchildren were to be absolutely entitled to the property. The bequest to the grandchildren was held to be void by Privy Council as it was hit by Sec.113 of the Indian Succession Act which corresponds to Sec.13 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that: ” If under a bequest in the circumstances mentioned in Sec.113, there was a possibility of the interest given to the beneficiary being defeated either by a contingency or by a clause of defeasance, the beneficiary under the later bequest did not receive the interest bequeathed in the same unfettered form as that in which the testator held it and that the bequest to him did not, therefore, comprise the whole of the remaining interest of testator in the thing bequeathed.
Ardeshir’s Case
In Ardeshir V Dada Bhoy’s case, D was a settler who made a settlement. According to the terms of the settlement, D was to get during life, one-third each was to go to his sons A and R. After D’s death, the trust property was to be divided into two equal parts. The net income of each property was to be given to A and R for life and after their death to the sons of each absolutely. If A and R were each to pre-deceased D without male issue, the trust was to determine and the trust property was to the settler absolutely. The settler then took power to revoke or vary the settlement in whole or in part for his own benefit. It was held that R’s son who was not born either at the date of settlement or his death did not take any vested interest and the gift to him was invalid. A’s son who was alive at these dates did not also take a vested interest.
Applicability of Sopher and Ardeshir rulings in India
The decision in Sopher’s case and Ardeshir’s case were applied by Bombay High Court in Framroz Dadabhoy v Tahmina, in this case, bai Tahmina settled a certain sum upon trust in favour of herself for life and after her death and subject to the power of appointment by codicil or Will among her issues born during her lifetime in trust for all her children who being sons shall attain the age of 18 or being daughters shall attain that age or marry under that age being daughter’s, in equal sums. It was held by their Lordships that the decision in the Sopher’s case could not be applied to the trusts of a settlement which were transfer inter-vivos. It was held that the words ‘extend to the whole of remaining interest of the transferor in the property’ in Sec.13 of the Transfer of Property Act were directed to the extent of the subject matter and to the absolute nature of the estate conferred and not to the certainty of vesting.
HINDU LAW AND MUSLIM LAW
Under pure Hindu law, a gift or bequest in favour of the unborn was void. But now the Transfer of Property Act applies to the Hindus, so the transfer of properties in favour of an unborn person is valid if it fulfils the conditions provided in Section 13.
In Muslim law a gift in favour of a person not in existence is void, and Section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that nothing shall be deemed to affect any rule of Mohammedan Law. So, Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable to transfers made by Muslims.
ENGLISH LAW
The English law relating to transfer in favour of unborn persons is now governed by the rule against perpetuities as laid down in section 163 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Before this Act, the property could be transferred in favour of the unborn subject to rule against double possibilities. Under this rule, the property could be transferred for life in favour of the first unborn person but to next unborn absolutely. If life estates were granted to two successive unborn person the transfer in favour of only the second unborn was void because it violated the rule against double possibilities. Thus under this rule, A could transfer properties to U.B 1 for life and then to U.B 2 absolutely. Now the transfers in favours of U.B 1 and U.B 2 are valid only if there is no violation of the rule against perpetuity as laid down in section 163 of the Act of 1925.
CONCLUSION
The transfer in the case of an unborn child cannot be carried out directly but can be carried out indirectly by the trusts’ machinery. In other words, the interest of the unborn person in possession of that particular immovable property shall constitute the entire interest. The legitimacy of a transfer for an unborn individual, it is significant that the entire of rest of the interest of the individual moving the property ought to be passed on to the unborn person. Besides, when the transfer of property comes into activity, the vested interest is likewise moved to the unborn person. The transfer to the unborn can be done only in the manner as is mentioned in the section.
Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the Competition:
The objective of this competition is to promote the importance of the latest landmark judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India. This competition will enable the participants to know that how these latest judgments have changed the overall course of justice. The Supreme Court landmark judgments provided as the theme of the Competition would not only enrich the academic experience but also provide knowledge about the practical aspect of the professional legal world. This Case Comment Writing Competition seeks to promote original thoughts, and analysis amongst students, researchers, academicians and legal practitioners.
Eligibility Criteria:
Open to All.
All undergraduate and postgraduate students, teachers, research scholars from a recognized school, college or university are eligible to participate in this competition.
List of Cases for Case Comment Writing ( Choose one)
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 808] ( Shaheen Bagh Protests)
Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi [2020 5 SCC 1] ( Protection under Anticipatory Bail )
Dr. Shah Faesal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2020 4 SCC 1] ( Article 370 )
Pandurang Ganpati v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd [2020 SCC OnLine SC 431] (SARFAESI Act )
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of Indian [Death Penalty and Mercy Petition 2014]
Abhilasha v. Parkash [2020 SCC OnLine SC 736] (maintenance under Section 125 CrPC)
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India [2020 3 SCC 637] (Kashmir Lockdown)
State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu [Cauvery Dispute]
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [ WP (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016]- [Sec. 377 Verdict]
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subash Chandra Agarwal [CJI Office comes under RTI Act 2020]
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors [Gender Equality in Armed Forces 2020]
Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi [Judicial Services 2020]
Swapnil Tripathi & Ors. v. Supreme Court of India & Ors. [Verdict on Live-streaming Apex Court Proceeding]
Justice K S Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Validity of Aadhaar Judgment passed on 26th September 2018)
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) 373 of 2006] – (Women entry on Sabarimala Temple)
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1
Independent Though v. Union of India and Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 800
Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 821
Submission Guidelines:
The case comment should preferably include the following elements: Synopsis, background, facts of the case, issues, contentions, findings, reasoning, disposition, critical analysis, conclusion.
The submission must be original.
Submission must be in English Language only.
It should be submitted in Word/ Docs document format only.
Word Limit: 800-2000 words excluding citations.
Plagiarism limit: 25%.
Co-authorship is not permitted.
Formatting Details:
Font: Times New Roman
Title: Font Size – 14, Bold, Underlined, Capital
Headings: Font Size – 14, Bold, Capital
Content: Font Size – 12
Alignment: Justified
Line Spacing: 1.5
All submissions shall be made to submission@teamattorneylex.in with a subject – “Submission: National Case Comment Writing Competition”.
Note: The submission shall also be accompanied by another Word document consisting of a Cover Letter mentioning the Name of the Author/s; Name of the Institution/College/University; Designation; Year of Study (if applicable); Email ID.
Marks Shall be allotted based on:
Understanding of the Facts of the Case (Topic chosen)
Interpretation
Analysis and Conclusion
Presentation and Creativity
Compliance & Strict Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines
Important Dates and Timing:
Last Date of Registration: 20th April 2021
Last Date of Submission: 21st, April 2021
Declaration of Results: 26th April 2021
Prizes:
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
2nd Runner Up: Cash prize Rs. 500/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article/ Case Summary publication on the website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate will be provided to all the participants.
Team Attorneylex is a Student-run organisation, it is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
In this epoch of information explosion, it has become really difficult to rely on the content available online because of various reasons sometimes it is the authenticity of the content itself, the language of content, wrong citations etc. But we are here to ensure quality content for you, written by experienced writers, checked by professionals. This is a website with a mission to provide legal reporting more accurate, transparent and accessible to everyone.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society that are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the National Online Quiz Competition
Team Attorneylex is organising its 7th Online National Quiz Competition on Criminal Law scheduled to be held on 7th April 2021.
Eligibility
Team Attorneylex looks forward to participation from law aspirants, students pursuing 5-year law and 3-years law, and LLM courses. Professionals from the legal fraternity are also invited to participate in the Quiz.
Important Dates & Timing
Last date for registration: 5th April 2021, 11:59 PM
Competition Date: 7th April 2021, 06:00 PM
Declaration of Results: 10th April, 2021
Venue – Online (Google forms)
Details
The quiz competition is not a team-based competition, and thus, each student shall participate individually.
The Quiz will consist of IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018,The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, questions, including significant/landmark judgments.
It will consist of 50 MCQs.
The total time limit for the Quiz is 30 minutes.
Every question carries one mark, and there will be no negative marking.
Registration Fees: Rs. 50/-( Early bird offer Rs. 40/-, till 20th March)
Payments details
Paytm/ G-pay/Phonepe- 9616696008 (Gaurav yadav)
Bhim UPI- 9616696008@upi
Bank details-
Name- Gaurav Yadav
Bank – Punjab National Bank
Account Number- 03842193000248
IFSC Code- PUNB0018300
Registration Link
Interested candidates can fill the registration form – Click here
The registered candidates should join our WhatsApp group for updates.
The Quiz results will be declared on the social media platforms and the Website of the Team Attorneylex.
In the case of a tie, Time will be considered (Person who submits early will be given preference).
Team Attorneylex will not be responsible for any technical error, any connectivity/device failure during the Quiz.
The results declared would be final and the authority vests with Team Attorneylex to change or modify the same.
Perks
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 500/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
2nd Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 250/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate to all the participants + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal.
Team Attorneylex is an online platform for law students where they can contribute their legal knowledge and get recognized for their contribution. We aim to guide the law students in their legal research, content writing, case analysis, read or understand the judgments passed by the courts, etc. because we believe that these things are an essential part of the legal profession.
Along with the other activities the endeavour is to deliver legal help to the sectors of society which are unable to access existing legal services due to illiteracy and poor economic conditions.
About the National Online Quiz Competition
Team Attorneylex is organising its 6th Online National Quiz Competition on Indian Constitution scheduled to be held on 7th March 2021.
Eligibility
Team Attorneylex looks forward to participation from school students, law aspirants, students pursuing 5-year law and 3-years law, and LLM courses. Professionals from the legal fraternity are also invited to participate in the Quiz.
Important Dates & Timing
Last date for registration: 5th March 2021, 11:59 PM
Competition Date: 7th March 2021, 06:00 PM
Declaration of Results: 10th March, 2021
Venue – Online (Google forms)
Details
The quiz competition is not a team-based competition, and thus, each student shall participate individually.
The Quiz will consist of Indian Constitution questions, including significant/landmark judgments.
It will consist of 50 MCQs.
The total time limit for the Quiz is 25 minutes.
Every question carries one mark, and there will be no negative marking.
Registration Fees: Rs. 50/-( Early bird offer Rs. 35/-, till 19th Feb.)
Payments details
Paytm/ G-pay/Phonepe- 9616696008 (Gaurav yadav)
Bhim UPI- 9616696008@upi
Bank details-
Name- Gaurav Yadav
Bank – Punjab National Bank
Account Number- 03842193000248
IFSC Code- PUNB0018300
Registration Link
Interested candidates can fill the registration form – Click here
The registered candidates should join our WhatsApp group for updates.
The Quiz results will be declared on the social media platforms and the Website of the Team Attorneylex.
In the case of a tie, Time will be considered (Person who submits early will be given preference).
Team Attorneylex will not be responsible for any technical error, any connectivity/device failure during the Quiz.
The results declared would be final and the authority vests with Team Attorneylex to change or modify the same.
Perks
Winner: Cash prize Rs. 2000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship opportunity with the Team Attorneylex.
Runner up: Cash prize Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
Top 10 Performers: Certificate of Merit + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal + Online Internship Opportunity with Team Attorneylex.
E – participation Certificate to all the participants + Free Article publication on the Team Attorneylex website/Journal.
ABOUT NEETI SHASTRA:- Neeti Shastra (http://www.nscorpus.com) is a one-stop platform for the legal fraternity with the most unique services. Founded with the goal to assist law students gain practical exposure during their law school, Neeti Shastra’s continued efforts towards this cause has led to the formation of Networking Groups comprising over 1000 law students from around the country engaging in fruitful discussions and deliberate exchange of legal knowledge. Apart from this, our dedication also extends to assisting recruiters in the field of law in finding suitable interns and jobs for their organizations via Associations with us. We operate with the aim of easing the internship and job process for both students and recruiters.
ABOUT THE ORGANISATION: Sir is handling and representing his clients in subjects concerning Commercial Litigation before the National Company Law Tribunal and various High Courts along with matters of Civil Law, Real Estate Law, Consumer Protection Law and White-Collar Criminal law; and actively providing Legal Tech based online content for his web portal.
ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY: Sir is looking to hire a Junior Associate for his private counsel practise. Salary will be Rs. 10-15k per month (depending on the commercial litigation experience) and the Associate will get to use Sir’s office space and learn to develop his own clientele. Also, the Associate can retain 100% earnings from personal clients. (Unless Sir is personally involved in the matter) The location is Parel, Mumbai.
HOW TO APPLY: Apply through the link below: Fill the details in the link given below. Make sure you read the questions and guidelines carefully and then submit your answers. http://www.nscorpus.com/our-associations/
Deadline: 2 PM, 13th December, 2020.
NOTE: Applications for job are only accepted through this link. Applications through any other source will be straightaway rejected.
The News Broadcasting Standards Authority has directed electronic news channels, Aaj Tak, Zee News, News 24 and India TV to air an apology for insensitive reporting and sensationalizing the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
The self-governing authority has censured Aaj Tak, Zee News and News 24 channels for running insensitive Tag Lines that had the effect of violating the privacy and affecting the dignity of the deceased.
Whereas, India TV along with Aaj Tak has been found guilty of showing images of Rajput’s corpse.
The news channel must report news, which may be in the public interest and the persons being reported upon may get justice from such media reports, it is equally important to present the news in a manner which does not violate the privacy of the dead nor sensationalise a tragic incident. It is important that the dead must not be subjected to unnecessary media glare.
Referring to Aaj Tak’s infamous “Hit-Wicket” tagline, the authority said,
“It appears that the questions are being addressed to Sushant Singh Rajput, who is no more, therefore the Taglines are offensive, violate privacy and affect the dignity of the deceased.”
Referring to a tagline run by Zee News, ‘Patna ka Sushant, Mumbai me fail kyu?’ the authority said,
“the Tagline…tends to give the impression that committing suicide is a failure and therefore the Tagline violates the privacy and dignity of the deceased. There may be various reasons for suicide but the impression created was that a small-town boy committed suicide in a metro city which was his “failure”.”
Similarly, it has concluded that the Taglines run by News 24 were “offensive and affect the dignity of the deceased” by indicating that Sushant had forgotten the anti-suicide message given by him in his movie Chhichhore.
The authority has observed,
“Undoubtedly, the media has the right to freedom of speech and expression. It also cannot be doubted that when a well known public personality like Sushant Singh Rajput commits suicide, not only it becomes big news, but also a matter of discussion which can revolve around various complaints and hypothesis. Therefore, telecast of such programmes, per se, can neither be discouraged nor criticized. The freedom of speech and expression comprises not only the right to express, publish and propagate information through circulation but also to receive information. By disseminating information, media is facilitating the citizenry to avail this right.”
It added,
“if the programme carried by Aaj Tak, Zee News and News 24 were without such Taglines, it may not have violated the guidelines relating to privacy, sensationalisation and dignity of the dead. However, since the programmes carried the aforementioned Taglines, NBSA is of the view that the said broadcasters have violated the Specific Guideline Covering Reportage.”
Inter alia, the authority has directed Aaj Tak and India TV to apologise for publicizing images of Rajput’s corpse.
Allegedly, Aaj Tak broadcasted photographs of late Mr Rajput’s corpse from his bedroom and it explicitly described the method used along with the colour of the cloth used for strangulation. India TV is also alleged to have repeatedly described in detail the colour of the lips of the body and the marks on Rajput’s neck. It also allegedly showed the body covered in a cloth being carried out of the apartment, repeatedly.
The authority said that this an “egregious violation” of the NBSA Guidelines viz.:
Fundamental Standards-Clause B which states that “Reporting should not sensationalise or create panic, distress or undue fear among viewers.”
Law & Order, Crime & Violence –
Clause 3.6, which states that “the dead must be treated with respect. Close-ups of dead or mutilated bodies should not be shown.”
Guidelines relating to Impartiality, Objectivity and Fairness
Broadcasters should exercise discretion and sensitivity when reporting on distressing situations, on grief and bereavement.
Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines for the telecast of news affecting Public Order which states that “Content should not glamorize or sensationalize crime or condone criminal actions, including suicide.”
Significantly, the authority has let off News Nation for showing Rajput’s corpse in their telecast, in view of their remorse and assurance that the same shall not be repeated. ABP Majha has also been let off with a warning as the authority noted that it did not telecast close-up images of the body.
Aaj Tak has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for its failure to conduct due diligence before telecasting some tweets and attributing them to the actor.
Allegedly, Aaj Tak falsely reported on the fake tweets stating that Rajput posted three tweets which he later deleted on June 14, 2020, hours before his death, however, the channel later deleted the tweets and took down the article.
Taking serious of the same, the authority said,
“the broadcaster should have conducted its due diligence and verification prior to telecasting/uploading the tweets and not subsequently, which due diligence is a basic tenet and requirement of journalistic ethics and telecasting the tweets without verification had the tendency of spreading misinformation amongst the public. NBSA found that the broadcaster had violated the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage relating to Accuracy which states that:
(i) Information should be gathered first-hand from more than one source, if possible.
(ii) Reports received from news-agencies should be attributed and where possible be verified.
(iii) Allegations should be reported accurately as made.
(iv) Errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest, giving sufficient prominence to the broadcast of the correct version of fact(s).”
Lastly, the authority has found that Aaj Tak violated its Guidelines on Privacy since its reporters barged into Rajput’s parents’ house and questioned his various family members, who were shocked and in a grieving state.
Significantly, reporters from ABP News channel also rushed to interview the Rajput’s cousin sister. However, the authority has let off the channel with a warning as it noted that the cousin had “voluntarily” given an interview.
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.