The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law. How are the preventive detention laws justified under the same as an exception? Are similar laws like UAPA and PMLA the exception or the new norm? Justify your ...
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines thiRead more
The Doctrine of Frustration concerns the legal relationship that because of occurrence of some events beyond reasonable contemplation it becomes impossible to perform and therefore the parties are discharged of the performance of the contract. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 enshrines this principle to the effect of saying that ‘every contract to do an impossible act is void’. The contract becomes frustrated when there is an event that has the affect of making the purpose of the contract impossible, unlawful or totally unexpected by both the parties to the contract.
The most famous of these are the Indian case Of Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954). In this case, the role of Supreme court referred to the decision making under the rule of frustration that Say the contract becomes frustrated where there is a condition that went to the root of the contract and made its performance impossible. In the case, it is shown that the building land contract was interrupted due to the governmental orders during the Second World War. That is why the Courts ruled that due to the war related restriction the parties were unable to perform their obligations under the contract and thus, the contract was frustrated.
Disaffection cannot be recorded where the issue of the challenge in performance is temporal or where the event was anticipated. It is also not allowed where the contract has provided for how particular incidences should be handled in as much as they are contingencies.
See less
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, as an exception, preventive detention laws like the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) allow for detention without trial,Read more
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Indian criminal law, enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, as an exception, preventive detention laws like the National Security Act (NSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) allow for detention without trial, effectively reversing the burden of proof.
These laws are justified on the grounds of national security and public order, as they aim to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that may threaten the state. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention laws, provided they adhere to the procedural safeguards laid down in Article 22 of the Constitution.Laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have also been criticized for shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. While the government argues that these laws are necessary to combat serious crimes, civil liberties advocates contend that they undermine the presumption of innocence and due process.
The increasing use of such laws raises concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights and the creation of a new norm where the exception becomes the rule. It is crucial to strike a balance between national security and individual rights, ensuring that preventive detention laws are used judiciously and in accordance with constitutional principles.
See less