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 ...
In the last ten years, two landmark judgments in India are: Aadhaar Judgment (2018): In the Puttaswamy judgment (2018), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the Aadhaar scheme, a biometricRead more
In the last ten years, two landmark judgments in India are:
- Aadhaar Judgment (2018): In the Puttaswamy judgment (2018), the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the Aadhaar scheme, a biometric identification program, is constitutional but only if it meets certain conditions, including the requirement of consent and the data must be used for the purpose it was collected.
- Sabarimala Verdict (2018): In the Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala judgment (2018), the Supreme Court of India lifted the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, allowing women of all ages to worship at the temple. The court ruled that this restriction was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 (equality) and Article 25 (freedom of conscience) of the Indian Constitution.
Now, about the NOTA Judgment in 2013:
NOTA Judgement (2013): In 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India that a voter has the right to exercise a “None of the Above” (NOTA) option in an election. This option allows voters to choose NOTA if they are dissatisfied with all the candidates contesting an election. The court held that this option is essential for democratic governance and would help to ensure that voters are not forced to vote for a candidate they do not want.
The NOTA option was introduced by the Election Commission of India through an amendment to Rule 49(0) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in January 2013. The option is available to all electors, except those who are voting by postal ballot or proxy.
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