Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Use Of Loudspeakers Not Essential Part Of Any Religion: Bombay HC

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sat, Jan 25, 25, 15:30, 2 Weeks ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 13280
Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police that using loudspeakers for prayers or for reciting religious discourses is not an essential part of any religion and therefore ordered the Mumbai Police to strictly implement the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000

In a very major development, we see that none other than the Bombay High Court which is one of the oldest and most prestigious High Court with maximum High Court Benches in India in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association vs Commissioner of Police in Criminal Writ Petition No. 4729 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:BHC-AS:3288-DB that was reserved on 07.05.2024 and then finally pronounced on 23.01.2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unambiguously that using loudspeakers for prayers or for reciting religious discourses is not an essential part of any religion and therefore ordered the Mumbai Police to strictly implement the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and ensure that no religious place creates noise pollution by using loudspeakers.

We must note that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ajay Gadkari and Hon’ble Mr Justice Shyam Chandak was unequivocal in holding that Mumbai being a ‘cosmopolitan’ city, people from different religions live here. The Bench was also unambiguous in holding that the Mumbai Police has powers to take strict action against such noise polluters and therefore, issued guidelines on how the police should go about, upon receiving a complaint pertaining to noise pollution due to some religious place.

On a personal note, I never feel disturbed by Azaan as I see it as an opportunity to refresh myself and in the morning take it as a wake up alarm clock to get up and start doing morning exercise. When I was doing my BSc IInd year in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh, the Mackronia locality where I was staying had a mosque very nearby and I always felt happy to hear it and never felt disturbed by it! But what Bombay High Court has ruled in this leading case has to be implemented as many people just can’t tolerate it unless it is explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice AS Gadkari for a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Shyam C Chandak and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for (i) appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 to register F.I.R. against the offenders for using loudspeakers in high volume without permission, violating the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 [for short, Noise Pollution Rules] and the provisions in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [for short, said Act] and the other relevant laws thereof; (ii) for directing the Respondent No.1 – Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to take appropriate action against the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for failure in discharging their official duty and defying and non implementing and/or non complying with the Orders dated 10th November 2012 and 16th August 2016 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 173 of 2010; and for other consequential reliefs.

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, Petitioners are the associations registered with the concerned Authorities having their object to do development work for the locality, with the aim to improve the general welfare and quality of life of the citizens, to help the residents in the locality in solving the problems and issues being faced by them. Petitioners are suffering from the noise pollution being created by the concerned violators by using loudspeakers in high volume without legal permission from the Authorities and also due to the casual approach and inaction on the part of the Police Department, ignoring the Rules and law of the land and in carrying out their duties. The Petitioners have therefore been constrained to institute present Petition for enforcing their fundamental and legal rights as the residents living in the area stated in the Petition since the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have failed to protect their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India to its citizens.

3.1) It is the case of the Petitioners that, the peace and tranquility in their locality are being constantly disturbed through the use of microphones and loudspeakers to recite ‘Azaan’ and other religious discourses by the offenders on a daily basis. That, there are many masjids and madrasas situated within the jurisdiction of Chunabhatti and Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) Police Stations. The said masjids have fixed with/placed loudspeakers, microphones and/or amplifiers and the sound created therefrom is unbearable as the decibel level of the said sound is not only excessive but beyond the permissible decibel limits under the law. That, the said loudspeakers are being used in the early morning hours i.e. as early as 5:00 a.m. as well as till the midnight and many a times even past midnight. The loudspeakers are being used five times a day for the purpose of Azaan (call for prayer regularly). That, use of loudspeakers in the early hours i.e. at about 5:00 a.m. in the morning are prohibited hours under the law and during the festival days, they are operated till 1:30 a.m., which is beyond permissible limit for its use, even if the permission is alleged to have been granted by the concerned Authorities.

3.2) That, there are many masjids in the locality of Nehru Nagar and Chunabhatti area. For example, the Petitioners have given names of three masjids in the Chunabhatti Police Station jurisdiction and six masjids in the Nehru Nagar Police Station jurisdiction, which according to them are causing considerable amount of noise pollution in the locality of Petitioners. That, the Bilali Masjid situated in Nehru Nagar, Kurla, area is surrounded by four hospitals and schools and all are situated within 100 meters of radius. That, as per the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, the said area is a silent zone and use of loudspeakers thereof is completely prohibited.

3.3) The Petitioners made several complaints to the Police Control Room on phone number 100, when they noticed the noise pollution from the said loudspeakers were unbearable and in excessive volume for long hours during the day and night time. However, the police attached to Chunabhatti and Nehru Nagar Police Station did not take necessary steps to prevent the said noise pollution for the reasons best known to them. That, many a times the complaints were given via Twitter (a social networking site that allows users to post, share, and reply to short messages) to Mumbai Police by tagging the highest Police Authorities. However, there is no response or any legal action taken by the Police Department in that behalf.

3.4) That, on 4th July 2020 written complaint signed by six citizens was given to the Senior Inspector of Respondent Nos.4 & 5, with a request to register F.I.R. against the offenders for committing the offence of noise pollution by violating Noise Pollution Rules and other laws. However, no action is taken thereof. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 i.e. the Police Authorities, refused to entertain their complaints on the ground that, the said noise pollution caused by the use of loudspeakers cannot be stopped, as the loudspeakers are fitted in a ‘masjid’ i.e. a religious place and therefore police cannot stop the noise pollution, as it is a sensitive matter related to religion and advised the Petitioners to withdraw the complaint by expressing their inability to stop noise pollution.

3.5) It is the case of the Petitioners that, refusal by Police Authorities to stop the noise pollution emitted from the loudspeakers fitted in the said religious places is contrary to the Rules framed under the Noise Pollution Act. That, use of loudspeakers without permission from the concerned Authority is illegal. It is contended that, the use of loudspeakers and amplifiers five times daily for 365 days without permission from the concerned Authorities against all necessary and relevant Rules is illegal and objectionable.

3.6) That, the complaint of the Petitioners dated 30th September 2020 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nehru Nagar Division, with a request to take action against the violators for creating noise pollution by using loudspeakers without permission in high volume is not properly addressed. The information obtained from the public information officer of Nehru Nagar Division of Mumbai Police under the Right to Information Act, 2005, reveals that, no permission was granted to any of the masjids to use loudspeakers in the jurisdiction of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 Police Stations. The Petitioners also addressed a written complaint dated 17th December 2020 to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein, however it was of no avail.

3.7) That, due to the use of loudspeakers/amplifiers in high volume and the failure of police machinery to take necessary action against the offenders by registering necessary cases against them, many citizens in the Nehru Nagar area have fallen ill. The Police Officers attached to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 Police Stations gave illusive answers and failed to act upon the complaints of the Petitioners and others. That, the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are Police Authorities and are bound to take cognizance of the complaints of citizens. The non action by the Respondents itself speaks the poor state of affairs of law enforcement agency and therefore the Petitioners are constrained to file present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 16 that:
Perusal of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 indicates that, there is no provision for lodgment of First Information Report and it is the reason Section 19 prescribes that, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the Authorities mentioned therein. Section 15 of the Act provides for penalty or contravention of provisions of the said Act, Rules, Orders and directions issued under the said Act.

As a corollary, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that:
In view thereof, though the Petitioners have prayed for a direction for lodgment of a crime, in the absence of any provision specifying the same under the said Act and/or Rules, we are unable to accede to the request of the Petitioners. However, taking into consideration the vital issue involved in the present case, i.e. noise pollution caused on account of use of microphones and loudspeakers to recite ‘Azaan’ or other religious discourses in daily basis in the vicinity of the Petitioners and not following the directions issued by this Court in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra), we have entertained this Petition.

Quite forthrightly, the Division Bench mandates in para 18 propounding that, Mumbai is a cosmopolitan City, obviously there are persons of different religions in every part of the city. The very fact that the Petitioners have filed the Petition to direct the State authorities to implement the Orders of the Apex Court as well as several Orders of this Court would evince that, there has been a deliberate violation of the Orders. Noise is a major health hazard on various aspects. No one can claim that his rights are affected in any manner if he is denied a permission to use loudspeaker. It is in public interest that such permissions should not be granted. By denying such permissions, rights under Article 19 or 25 of the Constitution of India are not at all infringed. Use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of any religion.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 20 that:
It may be noted here that, to his Affidavit dated 8th November 2023, the Respondent No.2 has annexed two reports dated 4th January 2023 (page 106) and 2nd November 2023 (page 104). The said two reports are pertaining to Kabrastan Masjid situated within the jurisdiction of Chunabhatti Police Station and Sunni Raza Masjid situated within the jurisdiction of Nehru Nagar Police Station. As per the said two reports, the said masjids were emitting noise level upto 98.7 decibels and 79.4 decibels respectively. The said reports are submitted by the Police Officers attached to the concerned Police Stations. It is thus apparent that, there is substance in the allegations of the Petitioners and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the grievance of the Petitioners that, the loudspeakers/public address systems put up by the said mosques are creating noise pollution. As noted earlier, the law relating to noise pollution and the steps to be adopted by the law enforcing agencies is well elucidated by this Court in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra).

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench mandates in para 21 expounding that, According to us, it is the bounden duty of the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 that, they must and should enforce the law by adopting all the necessary measures, as may be prescribed by the provisions of law. In a democratic State, there cannot be a situation that, a person/group of persons/association of persons would say that, it will not follow or adhere to the law of the land and the law enforcers would be meek or silent spectators to it.

Needless to say, the Division Bench reiterates in para 22 holding that:
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) In India (supra) that, undisputedly no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice-amplifiers or beating of drums. That, in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during day-time or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench notes in para 23 that, As per the schedule appended to the Noise Pollution Rules, the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise i.e. the decibel limit in Residential Area during ‘day-time’ must be at the most 55 decibels and during ‘night-time’ must be 45 decibels. According to us, this limit of 55 or 45 decibels is a cumulative limit of all the loudspeakers/voice amplifiers/public address systems or other sound emitting gadgets. Thus, in the vicinity of the Petitioners if one or more number of religious places are using loudspeakers or public address systems, it is not the individual ambient air quality limit of 55 decibels or 45 decibels, but it is in all the cumulative sound level of all the loudspeakers/voice amplifiers/public address system or other sound emitting gadgets, which are in use at one point of time. The law does not permit that, every individual loudspeaker will emit 55 or 45 decibels of noise aggregating to more than what is prescribed under the said Rules. That would amount to frustrating the intention of Legislature.

Do further note, the Division Bench notes in para 24 that:
As held in the case of Mahesh Vijay Bedekar (supra) in addition to the Police sending the complaint(s) to the Respondent No.7 for lodging it before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the Police are bound to take action under Section 38 read with 136 of the Maharashtra Police Act on every default or breach committed by the user of loudspeakers/voice amplifiers/public address system or other sound emitting gadgets, if it is notice either by them or brought to their notice by any citizen that, the Noise Pollution Rules are being violated.

While citing the relevant provisions of law, the Bench observes in para 25 that, The Police under the Mumbai Police Act are having powers under Sections 38, 70, 136 & 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act and it is necessary for the Respondents-Police Authorities to use it for proper implementation of the Environment (Protection) Act and the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000.

25.1) In our view under Section 136 of the Mumbai Police Act, an imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- a day or Rs.18,25,000/- for 365 days and payment thereof may perhaps not be a deterrent for those blatantly violating the said laws of the land. The violators do it as a matter of right and the complainants, often individuals are hapless and helpless victims of these obnoxious use of loudspeakers and/or amplifiers.

25.2) We take a judicial note of the fact that, generally people/citizens do not complain about the things until it becomes intolerable and a nuisance. We are of the view that, without requiring identification of the complainant, the Police Authorities must act on such complaints, more so to avoid such complainants being targets or ill will and developing hatred.

Resultantly, the Division Bench then directs in para 26 stating that:
We therefore direct the State to consider to direct all the concerned to have inbuilt mechanism to control decibel level in their loudspeakers/ voice amplifiers/public address system or other sound emitting gadgets used by any religious place/structure/institution, irrespective of religion. The State may also seriously consider to issue directions for calibration and/or auto-fixation of decibel limit of loudspeakers/voice amplifiers/public address system or other sound emitting gadgets used by any or all the religions in their respective places of prayers or worship.

26.1) The Respondent No.1 also to direct all the concerned Police Officers to use the decibel level measuring mobile application for checking the decibel levels. These applications are easily available on internet and would assist in monitoring the noise levels. Thus, loudspeakers and amplifiers or other equipment or gazettes which produce offending noise, one detected as violating the law or in defiance of the directions issued by the concerned Police Authorities can seize the said equipment/s under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Police are bound to implement Sections 38, 70, 136 and 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act, as may be required in view of the fact situation of each case.

Quite significantly, the Division Bench directs in para 27 stipulating that:
In the case, the Petitioner lodges a complaint with the local Police Station, it will be the duty of the concerned Police Station to consider the said complaint as per the provisions of law under the Maharashtra Police Act and the Environment (Protection) Act and to forward the said complaint to the Respondent No.7. The Police may also withdraw permissions granted to the said trusts/institutions for use of loudspeakers, if repeated violation of the provisions of said Noise Pollution Rules are brought to their notice.

Notably, the Division Bench then notes in para 28 that:
The Petitioners or such complainants of the noise pollution in the Petitioners area are entitled to file a representation with the Respondent No.2, Dy. Commissioner of Police, who will consider the representation of such concerned person and pass appropriate Orders/directions in accordance with law after notice to all concerned parties against whom allegations for making noise pollution are made.

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 29 that:
The Respondent No.1 – The Commissioner of Police to give directions to all his subordinates and may caution the concerned persons violating the law in the following manner:

 

  1. Once a citizen of any locality raises a complaint with the Police against any religious structure or otherwise causing noise pollution, the Police will, without seeking/verifying identification of the person complaining thereof, and if it has received identification, shall not disclose the identity of the complainant to the offender and shall adopt the following steps:
    1. At the first instance, caution the alleged offender.
    2. On a subsequent occasion, complaint/s received against the same offender, the Police shall impose a fine under Section 136 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on the concerned religious structure and may recover it from its Trustees and/or Manager, warning the Trustees and Manager/s with further stricter action in case of receipt of complaints in future.
    3. If any further complaint/s are received pertaining to the same religious structure on the next occasion, the Police shall adopt steps as contemplated under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Police Act to seize the loudspeakers and/or amplifiers from the concerned religious structure and thereafter may proceed to cancel the licence issued in favour of the concerned structure permitting the use of loudspeakers and/or amplifiers.
  2. As noted above, the Police are bound to take action under Sections 38, 70, 136, and 149 of the Maharashtra Police Act against the violator/s of the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, and in addition thereof, to also file complaint/s under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act against the Trustees or Manager/s responsible for administering or running the concerned religious place and all those persons responsible for operating the loudspeakers/amplifiers.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top