Constitutional Law queries [228]

All Resolved Open

Anonymous 06 February 2010 at 11:39

freedom of speech

Freedom of speech covered under which article?

SUBHASH SHARMA 05 February 2010 at 23:06

ONE OF MY CLIENT WHO WAS DRIVING A CAR ALONG WITH HIS TWO COLIGUES IN DELHI NEAR SHAKAR PUR IN NIGHT AT ABOUT 10 PM. HE STOPED THE CAR TO DROP ONE OF THEM. THEY ALL DISCUSSING SOMETHING AND ALL WERE IN THE CAR.

SUDDENLY ONE BIKE RIDER HIT THE CAR WHO WAS DRIVING BIKE VERY SPEEDLY MORE THAN 80 KM. HE HIT MY CAR AND HE INJURED IN A BIG WAY. HE WAS TAKEN TO HOSPITAL BY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE WATCHING THE ACCIDENT.

MY CLIENT CALLED THE POLICE BY DILING 100 NO. I.O. TOOK HIM TO POLICE STATION. AFTER 2-3 HOURS THEY RELEASED ME TILL THAT TIME NO FIR WAS LAUNCHED BY THE POLICE.

NOW WHAT SHOULD I DO. KINDLY SUGGEST.

THANKS

Continue

anshul sangal 05 February 2010 at 20:14

Cessinn of Indian territory

Sir my question is
Cession of indian territory to foreign country is possible under indian constitution?

Continue

shantanu dekhane 05 February 2010 at 15:19

procedure of admin law.

In administrative procedding whether rules of civil procedure are applicable?

Continue

Anonymous 04 February 2010 at 23:26

Centre's directive that all licenced weapons in the NCR shou

Hi All,

I have a query which I feel is very important for all citizens of the country and I am thinking of filing a PIL through "E-Filing" at http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/ I want the opinion of experts here, is it all right for me to proceed with below mentioned points for filing a PIL. Or something more is needed to be added or removed.

Reference: http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20100102/814/tnl-gurgaon-police-orders-submission-of.html and http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20091218/1053/tnl-gurgaon-police-to-verify-licensed-ar.html and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8756

By asking the affected licensed firearm holders to submit their firearms even when there is no valid case related to the misuse of firearm by them, I think following are being violated by government:

1) The very purpose of keeping a legal firearm for self protection is getting defeated.
2) By asking the legally owned firearms to be deposited, the right to self protection as allowed by Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code is getting infringed. And this very act of government by rendering the citizens incapable of effectively defending themselves, is a violation of right to life as guaranteed by Constitution's article 21.
3) By this order, the government by asking to deposit all legal firearms, is rendering law abiding citizens defenseless against random violent crime by terrorists and criminals. Government is indirectly saying that the citizens do not have the inalienable right to protect their life and property. Hence the violation of Article 21 of Constitution is confirmed.
4) Government is making an assumption that all legal firearm owners are prone to misuse their weapons, which is an affront to the law abiding citizens keeping legal firearms.
5) Government is making an assumption that terrorists and criminals are fully dependent on legally held firearms, whereas the data says just exactly the opposite.
6) The government is equating all legal firearm owners with criminals and terrorists, which is an affront to the law abiding firearm license holders.
7) The government is going against the very principles and objectives of Arms Act, on basis of which firearm licenses have been legally issued.
8) This order is against the spirit and objective of the ruling of Supreme Court for Right of Private Defense. Ref: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/RIGHT-OF-PRIVATE-DEFENCE-LATEST-SC-JUDGEMENT-DATED-15-1-2010/4237/ By taking away the means for self defense, how does the government expect the citizens to defend themselves from criminals armed with all manner of illegal weapons?
9) There are legal precedents wherein the Hon'able courts have held that the right of citizens to acquire arms to better defend themselves is equated with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Citizens right to protect their life and personal liberty is meaningless if they are denied the means with which to protect themselves.
10) This order completely violates the stated objectives of the Arms Act, which amongst others states as two of it's primary objectives to be “(b)(ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege; and (iii) that firearms required for training purposes and ordinary civilian use are made more easily available on permits.”

So two fundamental questions of law arise:

1) Under what "justifications" can the right to self protection of citizens, as allowed by Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code and the Right to Life under Article 21 can be infringed upon by taking away legal firearms which have been allowed by following the due procedures laid down by Arms Act etc.

2) What is the "justification" to disarm only and all those citizens who have followed the due process of the law to legally keep firearms for self protection? Is this order also going to disarm all the criminals holding unknown number and type of illegal weapons?

Any opinion of experts will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.