The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently recommended various law colleges across the country to have a dress code suitable to the profession for all the students.
This came after a controversy hit the NLSIU Bangalore college this month, when a professor was witnessed castigating a student on account of her wearing shorts to the lecture. This also spurred a protest from a group of students in the college. They turned up in shorts the very next day to protest for their right to personal expression and against the moral police.
This story was covered staunchly by the media and finally the issue was resolved mutually between the students and the college. Having said this, on April7, 2016 BCI sent a notice to all colleges acting upon its concern regarding the downgrading dressing standards in Law Colleges.
It hence urged the college management to impose suitable dress code in their colleges, suggesting that the dress code could be a white shirt teamed either with black, white or grey trousers preferably.
Best Law College in Bangalore ,see the ranking list of law colleges in India .
source by: http://www.legallyindia.com/law-schools/with-trouser-preferably-dictates-bci-in-6-month-late-last-word-1-day-after-nls-shortsgate
In the light of a case wherein a woman by name KR Chitra was denied the right of information on the colleges and universities inspected by every member of the BCI with the date of inspection, the central commission proved that law is equal for all. Precisely, this lady wanted the complete list with the aforesaid details but was not provided with the same by BCI. The reply received from the BCI in the regard said that there were thousands of colleges under the list and hence it would be impossible to furnish the information required. Only specific information about a college or institution if requested could be furnished.
The Central commission therefore warned the Bar Council of India for not abiding to the mandatory proactive disclosure clause of RTI act. It mentioned that it was a breach of the RTI rules, that too by a reputed organization like BCI. It further added that Central Commission was apparently surprised by the act, wherein even though the information was available in the database, it was not shared by the BCI. The commission also mentioned that the allotted time of 10 years for fulfilling the obligation was already over.
The Commission also ordered the BCI to provide the 4(1)(b) compliant annual report as needed under section 19(8)(a)(vi). The section 4(1)(b) states that every public authority has to maintain it’s updated information in 17 specified categories and it needs to be posted on their relevant web page besides sharing it on the public domain as well.
The commission added, asking an explanation on the same that why they shouldn’t impose a heavy penalty for such a breach. Thus it is very clear that the law remains the same for one and all, be it the common man or biggie when its about Right to information.
K.L.E. Society’s Law College in Bengaluru has been awarded with 6th Rank in the ranking of ‘Top Law schools in India’ and 3rd rank (Southern Region) in the Ranking of Top Law schools by region. GHRDC Hotel Management Institutes & Law School Survey Results 2016
source : http://deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/170416/bar-council-of-india-pulled-up-for-not-following-mandatory-rti-clause.html
India is a democratic country and it sure does include hateful expressions as per the article 19 of Indian law with certain terms and conditions or say restrictions. Under it comes Sedition. Having said that many a times the concept itself is misunderstood, thus creating and image that sedition means political dissent. It is all underlined in the section 124 A wherein, whenever there is an act representing non affection towards the government in Power, it is considered as sedition.
There have been quite a number of notable cases since the amendment of the act, starting from long back in 1892, there after in 1950 and recently in 2014. While in the first case that was registered between a man called Jogendra Bose & Queen Empress, the word ‘sedition’ was conveniently removed in order to interpret against Bose as ‘in the state security interest’ as per article 19(2). Though after India’s independence the picture changed and when a case came up between Romesh Tapar & Madras Government in regard to imposing a ban on the magazine circulation that could potentially create law and order issues within the public, the results showed changes. Announced in favor of Romesh Thapar, the judge stated that law cannot be used to ban ones freedom to speak unless it has a tendency to create any disorder or violence in the society.
There are a few changes that were made by the court of law in India in order to emphasize the fact that law is a servant to humankind and not an obstruction, and therefore has to be used in the interest of the public. This was when a case was registered under 124 (A) Bihar v/s Arnesh Kumar wherein the Supreme court created and issued certain guidelines that needed to be followed before making any kind of arrest. It stated that an arrest could not be made merely on the basis on a complaint under 124A.
Thus, in a nutshell whenever the section 124 (A) act of the Indian judicial law, subject to article 19(2) applies, one can be prosecuted only if it stirs people towards violence against the existing government in order to overthrow it or affects the security of the state in anyway. Any other speech otherwise, cannot be banned.
in Banglaore, India. KLE Law College is best law college. Check here TOP RANKED LAW COLLEGE – GHRDC LAW SCHOOL SURVEY 2016
Source : http://www.legalindia.com/understanding-law-sedition/