Skip to main content


Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

                 Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill To curb and curtail the practices of exploiting the women, the Government of India has also introduced the bill named as Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, 2021 which was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 1. It was initially introduced in September 2020 but passed now. The bill seeks to regulate Assisted reproductive technology clinics with requisite facilities and registered medical practitioners practicing with the National Medical Commission and banks which is involved in the collection and supply of sperm or semen and oocytes or oocyte donors to the ART clinics. It is done so to regulate ethical practice in a long unregulated sphere. There are guidelines which are laid by the Indian Council of Medical Research which should be kept in mind but since these are only guidelines which is not backed up by the laws, it is often neglected or ignored. The ART actually refers to all the techniques which attempt to obtain the pregna

Surrogacy Bill

                               Surrogacy Bill There is no second thought or doubt that women are exploited in the name of surrogacy. Their body are sometimes used for making babies for commercial purposes where women are also happy because they get money and obviously the person who is influencing the woman to be a surrogate mother is happy because now he or she can do whatever. In a layman’s language, commercial surrogacy refers to the kind of surrogacy where it is done for the financial benefits and also involves the compensation beyond the medical expenses and insurances at the time of pregnancy. Lately, the government of India realized this by constant pressure from the women groups. They felt the need to stop the exploitation of women by introducing a progressive Bill which will regulate the Surrogacy in India with some more rules and regulations. In 2016, it was introduced in Lok Sabha named as Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, but was blocked by the Rajya Sabha . In 2017, it me

Judicial Pronouncements In India And Separation Of Power Theory

  Judicial Pronouncements In India And Separation Of Power Theory Judicial Proclamations in India and the Theory of Separation of Powers This section discusses the evolution of the theory as it has been revealed via a series of court decisions and case laws. It may be concluded from the foregoing discussion that there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary in the United States. The legislative branch is referred to as a lawmaker, whereas the judiciary is referred to as a law interpreter. The division of authority, jurisdiction, and so on is tacitly established. In Re, Delhi Laws Act, the Supreme Court of India declared for the first time that, unless in cases where the power has been delegated to an organ by the constitution, the principle that one organ shall not undertake functions that belong to another organ is adhered to in the country. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, for example, the Supreme Co

An Overview of Article 14

  An Overview of Article 14 Generally speaking, everyone in this room is familiar with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which establishes the right to equality. We have not yet achieved full freedom despite our country's 73-year history of independence. Discrimination and other ills are still prevalent in our society today, unfortunately. Even the guy who created our country's Constitution suffered from this anathema. Today, there are still parts of the world where individuals are treated unequally and discriminated against based on criteria such as their religion or race or gender or caste or place of origin. With knowledge of the situation in India, our Constitution-makers incorporated Article 14 into the Indian Constitution as a fundamental right that applies to both citizens and non-citizens of our nation. In this article, the primary objective is to provide clarification on Article 14. When we see a husband assaulting his wife, a girl who is unable to complete her ed

Iranian legal system

 Iranian Legal system The principle of legality of crimes and punishments (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) states that an act is not regarded a crime and does not warrant punishment unless the legislator first determines and publishes the criminal title and penalty. Individual security is protected by the legality principle, which ensures basic individual liberties against the state's arbitrary and unlawful intervention. As a result, a criminal court cannot declare an individual's actions to be crimes and assign punishments to them, or impose punishments that are not authorised by the Legislator and are not based on the wording of the law. It is not considered a criminal whether an act is morally rebuked or socially against the public order, and the Legislator is the only authority who may identify such actions as crimes. The Constitution and regular legislation of Iran's legal system, both before and after the Islamic Revolution, have clearly highlighted

Fast track justice

  Fast track justice The statement by Justice A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India and Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, that the acquittal decision in the Best Bakery trial by a fast-track court was a "miscarriage of justice," is not limited to that case, but can be applied to the entire mechanism of so-called fast track courts as envisaged by the previous NDA government and now scrapped by the current UPA administration. The state did very little to return justice to its proper 'quick' track, and it is impossible for the average person to appreciate the question of when he would receive ultimate justice in criminal or civil action.  The decision to allow the fast-track courts to close by the end of April, a year earlier than the five-year deadline, by starving them of funds because the Twelfth Finance Commission did not recommend any allocations, will bring the experiment to an end without finding a viable alternative or doing anything to resolv

Note on Purposive Rule

  Note on Purposive Rule Introduction Purposive construction is a statutory and constitutional interpretation technique in which common law courts read an enactment (that is, a statute or a clause of a constitution) in light of the reason for which it was enacted. The historical source of purposive interpretation is the mischief rule which was established in Heydon's Case. Purposeful interpretation was established as a replacement for the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule, and the golden rule in order to determine instances. Courts utilize deliberate interpretation when they incorporate extraneous materials from the pre-enactment period of legislation, such as early draughts, committee reports, and so on. In the purposive interpretation, the exclusionary rule is disregarded. Purposivism's critics argue that it ignores the legislature's and the court's separation of powers. The legislative is responsible for enacting legislation, while the judiciary is responsible fo