The Supreme Court has recently reserved its judgement on a Madras High Court decision in S. Harish v. Inspector of Police quashing proceedings against a 28-year-old man accused of watching child pornography. The ruling in S. Harish has sparked debate over whether watching child pornography falls within the purview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and sets a harmful precedent as it concludes that watching and possessing child pornography is not illegal, thereby raising the potential increase in demand for such material and putting innocent children at risk of exploitation.
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the first installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 (BNS) with the current provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the third installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the current provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the second installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 with the current provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Episode 26 of the 39A Podcast discusses the recent Pune Porsche case where a 17-year-old allegedly caused the death of two hapless victims while driving rashly and under the influence. The case has made waves in the media due to reports of preferential treatment and manipulation of evidence. However, the case also invokes questions of Juvenile Justice law which are largely unaddressed by mainstream media. In this podcast, Anup Surendranath converses with child rights experts— Bharati Ali, Swagata Raha and Mahesh Menon, who bring decades of experience with the juvenile justice system and analyse the legal and procedural aspects of juvenile justice in India.
This article looks at the ‘Pune Porsche’ case and answers the questions – first, what exactly does the law lay down? Second, was the law followed in this case? Third, is the public outrage, though understandable, placed correctly in the demands being made – in terms of bail for the juvenile, as well as exploration of the ‘judicial waiver’ – the option to ‘treat the child as an adult’ in the judicial process?
This article dissects the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, highlighting the significant change of the judiciary’s stance on arrest protocols under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It also highlights how this improved understanding has brought in more transparency while also safeguarding civil liberties.
On 26th January, the International Court of Justice issued an order on provisional measures in the case initiated by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. Following hearings on 11th and 12th January, the Court determined that provisional measures were necessary to safeguard the parties’ respective rights pending a final decision on the merits. The Court ruled in favor of South Africa, indicating six provisional measures against Israel. While there was near-unanimous support for the measures, with Judges Xue, Bhandari, and Nolte appending declarations to the order, Judge ad hoc Barak issued a Separate Opinion supporting certain measures, and Judge Sebutinde dissented, opposing all six measures.
Summary of arguments put forth by Israel on 12th January 2024 against South Africa’s Request for indication of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Summary of arguments put forth by Israel on 12th January 2024 against South Africa’s Request for indication of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
On December 29, 2023, South Africa instituted legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, asserting Israel’s breach of obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. In its application, South Africa has requested the ICJ to indicate provisional measures to ensure immediate relief in Gaza and protect the integrity of the ongoing legal proceedings. On January 11, 2024, South Africa made arguments on provisional measures as part of the first round of proceedings before the ICJ in this matter. This post briefly summarizes South Africa’s submissions.