Recently, I came across a Tweet that unsettled me. I live in a country where child marriage had been the norm for centuries. Even after its abolishment, the practice is still carried out in in a lot of cities. Hence, the enforcement of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, came as quite a welcome relief. However, its effect has been significantly curtailed by a major legislative blunder that could very easily have been foreseen. This is what that tweet had pointed out. This is what I am going to be addressing today. Why? Because can anyway actually even begin to question why children need to be protected from any harm at all costs? I will try to explain the situation in the simplest possible terms, however, being a lawyer I might get slightly technical at places. Please bear with me, I assure you it will all make sense if you continue reading. I actually implore you to read because the importance of this topic of discussion cannot possibly be overstated. So, here it goes -
Keeping in sync with the new direction of this blog as explained earlier today, I have created a new site for all things related to law. It’s called Law and Little Things. It’s objective is to demystify complex legal advancements for the layman. After all, law shouldn’t have to be Latin and Greek considering how much it governs our life, right?
Please go and follow the site if it piques your interest. I’m sharing the latest offering from there hereinbelow.
On 15th June, 2017, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) found Hyundai Motors Industries Limited (India) (“HMIL”) to be guilty of indulging in Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) having an appreciable adverse effect on market competition. The Final Order passed under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Act”) is of significance by virtue of being the first order passed in the wake of the recent decision of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in which CCI’s penalizing power was considerably curtailed. The SC’s judgment in the case of Excel Corp. Care vs. The Competition Commission of India, by relying on the principles of equity and proportionality and on foreign competition jurisprudence vis-a-vis affected commerce, validated the concept of “relevant turnover” as introduced by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (“COMPAT”).
Section 27(b) of the Act authorizes the CCI to impose penalty…
View original post 1,026 more words
Last year in October, Reliance Industries Limited owned "Jio Infocomm" took the Indian Telecommunications market by storm. In an era where call rates were peaking and mobile data burned big, round holes in your pocket, Jio launched itself with a uniquely crafted welcome offer and most Indians jumped ship without a second thought. Much to the chagrin of the existing mobile and wireless telecommunications service providers, Jio decided to offer its data, voice, video services and full bouquet of applications and content absolutely free from October till the end of the year.
On 28 April, 2017, the Supreme Court of India dropped the mic, in a stellar performance, on all debates pertaining to the friendzone, road-side romeos and eve-teasing. Guys, you can curl up in a corner and cry all you want over unrequited love, but the Big Bad Boss of Courts, deeply pained by the plight…