MLE Unit 1 Notes
MLE Unit 1 Notes
MLE Unit 1 Notes
Bill vs Act
The main difference between a bill and an act is that initially, for a bill is written down
stating all the changes or details about a new law or an existing one later on if only
approved by the parliament, that particular bill becomes an act. Changing an act is
comparatively more time-consuming as it is already approved. For example, like all
adults were babies once, similarly, all acts were bills once. Acts are passed and applied to
the whole country and have to follow them, but this is not the same with the bills. Both of
them are also related in some terms.
ORDINANCE
Ordinances are laws that are promulgated by the President of India on the
recommendation of the Union Cabinet, which will have the same effect as an Act of
Parliament. They can only be issued when Parliament is not in session. They enable the
Indian government to take immediate legislative action.
REGULATIONS
STATUTE
Statutes are laws made by Parliament or the Legislature and are also known as Acts. They
may create a new law or modify an existing one. Regulations are the rules that address
the details and practical applications of the law. The authority to make regulations related
to an Act is assigned within that Act.
CODE
A code is a set of rules about how people should behave or about how something
must be done.
NORMS
CONVENTIONS :
Conventions are rules of the constitution which are not enforced by the law courts.
Because they are not enforced by the law courts they are best regarded as non-legal
rules, but because they do in fact regulate the working of the constitution they are an
important concern of the constitutional lawyer.
AFFIDAVIT :
ACCUSED :
ACQUITTAL :
The definition of acquittal is the legal act of dismissing charges brought against
someone. An example of acquittal is when charges against a person are dropped
because there is not enough evidence to convict him.
BAIL :
Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an
appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal
authority.
CONVICTION : the act of proving that a person is guilty of a crime in a court of law.
DEFENDANT :
A defendant is a person who has been accused of breaking the law and is being tried in
court.
EVIDENCE
any of the material items or assertions of fact that may be submitted to a competent
tribunal as a means of ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact under
investigation before it.
PLAINTIFF
A plaintiff is a person who brings a legal case against someone in a court of law.
PROSECUTION
Prosecution is the action of charging someone with a crime and putting them on trial.
PRIMA FACIE
Prima facie is used to describe something which appears to be true when you first
consider it.
SUB - JUDICE
When something is sub judice, it is the subject of a trial in a court of law. In Britain, this
means that people are not allowed to discuss it in the media
PRESS LAWS BEFORE AND AFTER INDEPENDENCE :
BEFORE INDEPENDENCE :
● It was enacted by Lord Wellesley to prevent the French from spreading rumors
which could harm the British.
● According to this, every newspaper should contain the names of the printer,
editor and proprietor.
● Before printing anything, it should be submitted to the secretary of
Censorship.
● The vernacular press (local language press) used to criticize British rule.
Therefore they came down heavily to curb vernacular press in 1878.
● It was nicknamed ‘Gagging Act’.
● Lord Lytton was responsible for this act.
● According to this, Magistrates were authorized to ask any publisher of a
newspaper to give assurance of not publishing anything threatening
peace and security in the country.
● Magistrate decision was final in any dispute.
● This law was not applicable to the English press.
● This Act empowered the government to issue search warrants, and
enter newspaper premises even without court orders.
More stringent laws were enacted when the freedom movement gained
momentum. Every reporting was closely monitored and comments against the
government were not tolerated.
This Act revived the worst features of the VPA—local government was
empowered to demand a security at registration from the printer/publisher
and forfeit/deregister if it was an offending newspaper, and the printer of a
newspaper was required to submit two copies of each issue to local
government free of charge.
AFTER INDEPENDENCE :
The Act was passed along with amendment to Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution. The Act empowered the government to demand and forfeit
security for publication of “objectionable matter”. Aggrieved owners and
printers were given the right to demand trial by jury. It remained in force
till 1956.
The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by
prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent
body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and
envisages trial in the case getting over in the next one year.
Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and former Lokayukta of
Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (RTI activist),
the draft Bill envisages a system where a corrupt person found guilty would go to jail within
two years of the complaint being made and his ill-gotten wealth being confiscated. It also
seeks power to the Jan Lokpal to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats without government
permission.
Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and other known people like Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi
Shankar, Anna Hazare and Mallika Sarabhai are also part of the movement, called India
Against Corruption. Its website describes the movement as "an expression of collective
anger of people of India against corruption. We have all come together to
force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel
that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption."
The government has introduced its version in Parliament in this session. Team Anna is up in
arms and calls the government version the "Joke Pal Bill." Anna Hazare declared that he
would begin another fast in Delhi on August 16. Hours before he was to begin his hunger
strike, the Delhi Police detained and later arrested him. There are widespread protests all
over the country against his arrest.
The website of the India Against Corruption movement calls the Lokpal Bill of the
government an "eyewash" and has on it a critique of that government Bill.
1. An institution called LOKPAL at the center and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up
2. Like the Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of
the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.
3. Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any
case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in the next one year
so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years.
4 The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of
conviction.
5. How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed
time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which
will be given as compensation to the complainant.
6. So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being
made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in
prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time. You could also report any
case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads being
constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its
investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within
two years.
7. But won't the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That
won't be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and
constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and
participatory process.
8. What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/
Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall
be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.
9. What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and
anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers
and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
10. It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimized
for raising their voice against corruption.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Freedom of the press refers to the minimal interference of the state in the
operation of press on any form of communication including, print (newspapers,
magazines, journals, reports); audio (radios, podcasts); video (news channels,
OTT platforms like YouTube) and over other electronic mediums like news apps,
social media feeds, etc.
The liberty of the press in the words of Lord Mansfield is, “consists of printing
without any license subject to the consequences of law”. Therefore, we can
conclude that freedom of the press refers to having the freedom to express
what one pleases without any prior permission from law.
Without this liberty, freedom of the press is nugatory. Though this right is also
implicit in the freedom of expression, Romesh Thapar v State of Madras makes
it explicit. The mainline of difference between the freedom of the press and
freedom of expression for an individual is that an individual can’t communicate
to masses on his own, but a press can by means of its publications on various
mediums like print, broadcasts, electronic, etc. Thus, freedom to spread
information is an intrinsic part of freedom of the press.
Freedom to criticize
The press, just like individuals, have the liberty to criticize the government, its
officials, its policies, its actions, its laws, its statements, etc. However, the press
cannot abuse this right and cannot provoke the public against the government
or cannot abet riots, rebels, or mutiny or insecurity of the state or the
government.
Again, the heart of the liberty to press. If the press is not equipped with the
information, it cannot empower the public with the knowledge and thus, the
right of expression will become futile because there will be no access to
information on whose basis anything can be expressed.
Freedom to conduct interview
This right is necessary to bring in first hand knowledge from the experts on the
particular subjects and to enlighten the society at large. Though this right is not
absolute, there are three caveats to it as follow:
Article 361 of the Constitution equips us with the right of publishing a kosher
report of the parliamentary proceedings. The only limitation of this freedom is
that there should be no mala fide intention behind such publications. When the
right of reporting of legislative proceedings which is implicitly envisaged in the
right of expression (A.19) is in discord with parliamentary privileges (A.105 and
A. 194), the right of speech and expression shall overshadow the parliamentary
privileges. Today it is mandatory to do a live telecast of the parliamentary
proceedings.
We know that the major income of most of the presses comes from the
advertisement, whether it is a radio, or news channel, or mobile application, or
newspaper. It was after Tata Press v Mahanagar Telephone Nigam that SC
incorporated the right to advertisement as a part of the right to freedom of
expression.
Freedom to broadcast
In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, SC held that the speeches made by any
person (citizen or non-citizen) which encourage the people to commit offences
like dacoity, murder, robbery, etc is without a doubt a threat to the security of
the state. Hence such a speech will be considered as a prejudice towards the
sovereignty or integrity of the state, and the order to stop or curtail such
communication is covered under reasonable restrictions of A.19(2).
Public Order
This term was inserted by the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951. This
clause was added to curtail the effects of Romesh Thappar v State of Madras
where the SC had held that the right to circulation is an intrinsic organ of Right
to freedom of expression.
The term “public order” has a broad meaning and covers a multitude of actions
which may endanger the security of the state. In Madhu Limaye v Sub Divisional
Magistrate Monghyr SC held that the term “public order” can be construed as
“no insurrections or riots or disturbance to public peace.”
In Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP the constitutionality of the Section 295A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) was being questioned. The argument advanced was
that the mentioned section infringes the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression guaranteed under Part III in Article 19(1)(a) under the Constitution.
The petitioner, who was the printer, publisher and the editor was held guilty of
offenses under Section 295A of the IPC. Further, it was contended that this
section has no protection under the reasonable restrictions of A.19(2) of the
constitution. The SC dismissed this argument and held that if an individual by
exercising his/her right the freedom of expression causes public disorder, then
he or she can be prosecuted under the mentioned section which comes within
the purview of reasonable restrictions.
Decency or morality
For preserving the decency or morality in the country, the state has the
authority to limit the freedom of speech and expression of an individual. Further
elaboration of this ground is reflected in Sections 292 to 294 of the IPC. The
mentioned sections list down some acts as crime such as selling obscene
publications to young individuals, making indecent gestures in Public places etc.
In Ranjit Udeshi v State of Maharashtra SC held that the S. 292 of IPC is
constitutional as it prohibits obscenity in public places and promulgates public
decency and morality. It was further supplemented in Chandrakant Kalyandas
Kakodkar v State of Maharashtra by SC that while tackling the question of
decency and morality, the court has to consider the proposition as to whether or
not the indecent or immoral acts were sufficient to pollute the mind of the
young individuals or is there a possibility that their minds would become
depraved.
Contempt of Court
There is no doubt that freedom of speech and expression is very crucial for
societal development, but on the other hand, providing and maintaining justice
and equity is also equally substantial. Though, the freedom of speech and
expression reckons but it can’t be wielded to cancel out courts’ actions of
justice.
The SC under Article 129 & the HCs under Article 215 of the constitution is
empowered to take punitive actions for contempt of court. It was further held in
C.K. Daphtary v O.P. Gupta it was held that the S.228 of IPC and A.129 of the
constitution are valid and are covered within the purview of reasonable
restrictions enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution. Thus,we can infer from
the above discussion that the freedom of speech and expression is prone to
Articles 19(2), 129, and 215 of the constitution.
Defamation
Just like with the term “public order”, this ground was also inserted in Article
19(2) of the Constitution via Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. This
main objective of incorporating this restriction was to counter the antagonistic
and mala fide propaganda against any foreign country which may have friendly
connections with the Republic of India.
Incitement to an offense
Just like the terms “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign states”, this
ground of reasonable restriction was incorporated in the constitution via the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. In State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, it
was held by SC that any communication which leads to incitement of any
criminal act can be restricted and any order for such ban will fall within the
purview of reasonable restrictions envisaged in Article 19(2) of constitution.
The above-mentioned seven grounds of reasonable restrictions act as a line in
the sand for the demarcation of the right to freedom of speech and expression
which also includes the right to freedom of press. So, one can infer that the
right to free press prevails within the boundaries of reasonable restrictions
enshrined in Article 19(2) of the constitution.
Conclusion
Currently, India’s rank in the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Borders is 140th amongst 180 countries. This rank has taken some serious
declines in the last decade from 133 to 136 in 2017; 136 to 138 in 2018; 138 to
140 in 2019. This dip is due to the beating, prosecution and even deaths of
journalists on the line of work. We often see videos of journalists getting
lynched and being publicly beaten for trying to expose politicians or government
officials. This shows some serious concern pertaining to the freedom given to
press in the country with the world’s biggest Constitution and bureaucratic
setup.
Though, without a shred of doubt, for preserving democracy and not promoting
informed citizenry in the nation, we have to give reasonable freedom to the
press. The present government has tried to curb this freedom by amending RTI
Act, Whistleblower Act, and proposing the Sedition Act in the parliament which
in the opinion of the author goes against the basic tenets of the constitution of
tearing apart the very fabric of democracy