The whole observation was made by a bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit and represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to put a stay on the Supreme Court order and also critically pointed out that the SC/ST verdict which had resulted to loss of life so it must be addressed to the larger bench for the reason to satisfy the principle of equity and conscience. By justifying its March 20^th order the bench acclaimed that meanwhile, they were coming up to a pivotal decision on the verdict on this issue have mostly considered all the aspects dealt with this act before coming to any conclusion.

The review petition was followed up after protests and Bharat Bandh across the country; it was foremost essential for the government to file for Review Petition to have an over-look over this matter. Attorney General K K Venugopal who have appeared on behalf of centre mentioned that supreme court should not make any rules or guidelines in conflict with the law passed by the legislature but the supreme court have rejected the demand of staying order and pointed out that the judgement was not in conflict with any law and doesn’t lead to the deaths of innocent and it aimed at immediate arrest already and will like to continue in this matter on May 16^th, 2018.

The post SC/ST Act Controversy takes new turns appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The students who have challenging the notification in the plea which came on April 9 of the MCI who contested that they were ineligible for the second round according to the earlier procedure set up by MCI, were made eligible by the recent order. The bench at the time of rejecting their pleas observed and quoted that, “It is clear from the record that the MCI decided to make certain changes to the method of admissions to the PG courses to arrest the blocking of seats by certain candidates which was detrimental to the interest of meritorious candidates in the all India quota.”

Apex Court also mentioned that there is no sign of infringement of any legal right found of the petitioners in change of method. Only reduction of chances of admission doesn’t necessitate in any violation of any right or if any changes found in method of counselling were found was due to circumstances which lead the necessary changes to come up in position and there is no reason found to interfere by them but the petitioners have already participated in second round for upgrading and the counselling session for all India quota is completed. Thus, need of further interference is unnecessary.

The judgement is on the basis on the plea which was initially filed by the medical student Mr Rachit Sinha and many others who claimed that as per the MCI notification, the competition level for second round was increased because the earlier candidates who were not eligible to participate were permitted to compete for admissions and their another contension was that this change shouldn’t be brought after the commencement of the admission for this year as it is not fair play by MCI.

READ JUDGEMENT:

[embeddoc url=”http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2018/14546/14546_2018_Judgement_03-May-2018.pdf” download=”all”]

The post Supreme Court refuses to entertain any matter relating to NEET PG medical courses (Read Order) appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

There have been other recommendations that will likely to backfire on those who are seeking information. Eg, the proposal mandates more documents than before while applying under RTI. If they are found unsuitable, the appeal can be returned. “They have made the process more cumbersome.” The appellant has to file complaints within 90 days of the cause. Afterward, a special request has to be made to accept the delay and explain the cause of it. However, in most cases, violation of RTI Act by officials, such as providing false information, comes to light much later.

The very important proposal which is been made is that complaints must be accompanied by a copy of the RTI application which needs to be submitted to the Public Information Officer.However, often, the PIO refuses to accept an application and  Even then, or in complaints related to non-appointment of PIOs, the appellant has to submit the PIO-approved RTI application copy, a mandatory requirement or else need to struggle through the end for completing the required routine cycle. This is certainly in direct violation of SC orders.

RTI Officials agrees that there is a huge scope of some improvements. A stronger mechanism needs to be introduced to deal with non-compliance of information commissioners’ orders, which is a common complaint But the overall situation is worrying, especially because the RTI Act is currently the world’s most widely used transparency law: as many as 4-6 million people use it annually.

The post Draft RTI rules still waiting for approval, stagnant progress and uncertainty affecting millions annually appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

With the given direction, the court listed the matter for further hearing.The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation alleging that there are many private airlines who are trying to violate and circumventing mandatory provisions for air safety and airworthiness issued by the DGCA.The plea has also claimed that the regulator has no mechanism to effectively check the non-compliance and blatant violation of the provisions.

Refuting the allegations made in the public interest litigation, the DGCA said that it has safety oversight and surveillance programmes for airworthiness management and aircraft maintenance.It told the court that all of the civil aviation planes in operation in the country are following the aircraft maintenance programme.The regulator also claimed that there is no shortage of flight operation inspectors.However, the petitioner, Alok Kumar, has claimed that there are 72 vacant posts of flight operation inspectors in the DGCA.

The post Delhi High Court solicit the latest position on air safety from DGCA appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The Standing Committee’s report:

The Bill which was introduced in parliament, November 2016 which was later referred to a Standing Committee, in its report in August 2017, where there was they reversed every key feature of the SRB. Extraordinarily, it was stated that imposing altruism on women was a paternalistic form of exploitation and these surrogates suffered from the lack of proper regulation of the surrogacy sector and from the even lower-paying alternatives they had to commercial surrogacy. It insisted to propose a model whereby women’s reproductive labor would be compensated at a rate fixed by the state taking into consideration numerous factors. Only gestational surrogacy would be permitted; the surrogate need not be related to the commissioning parents and would be empaneled. The surrogate was to receive extensive counseling to ensure informed consent; she was entitled to substantial insurance cover.

The committee liberalized the eligibility criteria for commissioning parents extending the surrogacy option to live-in couples, divorced women, widows, NRIs, PIOs and OCIs but not other foreign nationals. Also, one year of proven infertility was sufficient to avail of surrogacy. Instead of a parentage order, the committee proposed a comprehensive, legally binding agreement between the commissioning parents, the surrogate and the clinic, to be registered with the state.Counteracting the SRB’s carceral approach, the committee called for punishments to be proportionate to the nature of the infraction, always keeping in mind the best interests of the child born through surrogacy. Finally, it suggested that an independent agency with quasi-judicial powers resolves disputes between parties and that the ART Bill be passed prior to the SRB.

Proposed laws over the past 15 years have gone from being highly favorable to fertility clinics (and less so to surrogates) to protecting surrogates and punishing clinics. Over this time, categories of who could avail of commercial surrogacy progressively narrowed, excluding gay, lesbian and transgender individuals and couples in 2012, then foreigners, including even those of Indian origin in 2015. The 2016 SRB went a step further to prohibit commercial surrogacy altogether and replace it with a familial model of altruistic surrogacy.The Standing Committee’s compensated surrogacy model meanwhile liberalizes access to surrogacy and provides for compensation for the surrogate under the watchful eyes of the state. The state will set the compensation levels and even impanel surrogates. The regulator’s imagination has thus traversed from a medico-liberal model in 2005 to a socially conservative prohibitionist model in 2016 to a proto-socialist model in 2017 placing faith in turn in the market, family and the state, respectively, to protect the interests of surrogates and children born out of surrogacy.

The post Surrogacy Regulation to be Stuck Between Commercial Market, Family and State appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The landlord appealed to the apex court challenging that the landlords had not made any compromise before the high court. However, the bench which was headed by Justice R Banumathi was not convinced with this submission and thus observed that:“This compromise is not convincing for the reason that the High Court has clear records that the submission made by the counsel for the appellants-landlords which states that they have no objection for the tenant to keep the shop, it was provided that the tenant pays the enhanced rent of Rs. 10,000.” The court then refused to interfere with the previous order of the high court as the tenant was paying arrears as directed by the high court.

The landlord tried approaching the bench again, by filing an application seeking to recall or recollection of the order, this time it was contended that he has already filed a complaint against his counsel before the Bar Council of India, with relation to the statement before the high court made without his instructions which the court later, modified the matter by relegating the matter to the high court for de novo consideration of the case of the parties so far as the property is concerned.

The post Supreme Court to recollect part of its order as the litigant claims his lawyer made statement before High Court without his Instructions appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The Pressure

Long working hours and constant pressure trying to prevail in an inherently adversarial system, lawyers also deal with very serious, real-life problems (involving emotional and important aspects of peoples’ lives, such as family, money, freedom and so on) with lots of stress and pressure from superiors. Over times are countless, pressure is unbearable, if one wants to make a way as a leading lawyer.

The Constant Arguing

Some pressure is inevitable in this field but constant arguing goes for most of the litigators over precedent and facts in court, it will grind you and stress you daily and many give up because of it.

The Lack of Control

Due to the long working hour, one must lose their lack of control. It is one of the essential to get success and happiness in this profession because due to non-cooperation one can highly frustrated.This is why many lawyers leave (or opt out of firms and other large organizations to open their own solo practices).

Boredom With the Work

Modern legal work is boring and tiresome.  If you went to law school with visions of giving often, compelling opening and closing arguments in court and executing surgical cross-examinations on a regular basis, the reality of modern law practice might come as a harsh surprise. Very less any case end up in a trial and most of this work consist of writing in office and doing research work. The law itself, in theory, is pretty fascinating. Who think daily grinding will be easy to adapt are the one who leaves this profession even after attending law school.

The money isn’t great

For many lawyers who struggling presently, after law school debt are fond of big bucks in return when they try to work for someone or working for themselves but even though if they earn millions per year are trying to sacrifice their life by working for long hours daily to attain that post. So in order to fail in earning money tend to divert themselves and leave the profession.

The nature of the attorney-client relationship

A lawyer’s responsibility is to take some problem, analyze it and find solutions. It’s challenging and intellectual pursuit, but it’s also a stressful one and few clients are difficult to deal. Often times, issues are raised, necessitating to try to meet deadlines. Few clients’ problems cannot be solved, but merely managed. Few clients are unappreciative of the work they receive, even when they win. Almost no one is pleased with the costs, even when cases are staffed and run efficiently. And once in a while, clients will try to skip out on bills.

The post Top Reasons: Why lawyers exit their profession? appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

What Is a Paralegal Assistant?

Defining the term paralegal is tricky as it is widely known as a person who is qualified through education, training or work experience who has abilities to do substantive legal work under the guidance and supervision of an attorney since this is also applies to legal assistants the National Association of Legal Assistants made a distinction between the two roles in 2004. These terms  “paralegal” and “”legal assistant” are commonly misinterpreted while using them interchangeably in this profession but paralegal is used for certified employees.

Duties of Paralegals vs. Legal Assistants

Paralegals and legal assistants generally performs many duties of an attorney where he had not hired such a professional. They mainly do all the legal research, draft pleadings,contracts, leases and other legal documents necessary for court. They also help in trial preparations and aid clients when they’re answering questions.They score well in term of giving legal advice or guiding clients so they’re restricted from those areas. Whereas, they also cannot sign pleadings or any other documents as it is a job of attorneys areas to sign and check.

Legal Secretaries vs. Paralegals and Legal Assistants

In many law firms refer their legal secretaries as legal assistants so they can clearly present it to their clients for these employees’ hours as well payments but the legal secretary’s duties are more limited. Their work may only concentrate in drafting correspondence and organizing files and do word processing, transcribing the attorney’s dictation and following directives for other tasks and also take phone calls but aren’t entrusted with answering client’s questions. More or less they are stuck with deadly drafting work consisting questions in a memo which is passed on to the attorney so he has a full understanding of the client’s concerns. Legal secretaries are up for  appointments and calendar court appearances and events in each case. Many law firms use  “paralegal” and “legal assistant” to avoid confusion with secretarial and other legal support roles.

EDUCATION

The first difference between a paralegal and a legal secretary is the level of education that is required. The vast majority of paralegals have at least a college degree. Many schools offer paralegal programs, which are four-year bachelor’s degree programs, in which a person will learn most of the legal basics. Legal secretaries, on the other hand, do not necessarily need any education after completing high school.

CLIENT CONTACT

One of the main differences between legal secretaries and paralegals is the type of client contact that they have. Legal secretaries have administrative roles, in which they perform administrative tasks for an attorney, such as scheduling meeting, taking messages from clients, and collecting information from clients. Paralegals tend to have a different level of contact with clients. Paralegals are not technically able to provide legal advice to a client, but they are involved in the drafting of loan documents and can help to explain what the loan documents are saying to the clients.

CASE PREPARATION

Whenever a lawyer is taking a case to trial, whether it is criminal or civil, a significant amount of preparation has to go into place. Both legal secretaries and paralegals are heavily involved in the preparation for cases. A legal secretary will work to organize working files, organize documents for attorney review, and help to schedule meetings for the attorney and paralegal. A paralegal will be involved in a more detailed role. They can help to perform research on the case, spend time interviewing potential witnesses and parties to the case, and help to prepare arguments and statements that will be given in the courtroom. Once they case comes to trial, the paralegal will be able to provide assistance to the attorney as well.

SALARIES

Another key difference between a legal secretary and a paralegal is the overall compensation. Due the higher amount of education that is required and the type of work that is completed, paralegals tend to earn much more. Most paralegals will make at least $60,000 per year, and those that are in management positions at bigger firms can earn over $100,000 per year. This is compared to legal secretaries who normally will earn closer to $40,000 per year and likely will not have as much potential for future career advancement.

The post Distinctions Between Paralegal and Legal Assistant & their Job profiles appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

In this present writ petition it tries to relate to  serious violations of the right to life, maternal health, the right to health, and the right to basic human dignity, these are those families who flown from Myanmar and faced violence, displacement etc and now living in deplorable conditions in refugee camps situated in  Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi and Salheri Village, Mewat District, Haryana etc.There are 150 refugees families in Rohingya who don’t have access to basic medical care, maternal health care, pediatric care, or sources of clean water, nutritious food, or secure shelters.

Apex Courts judgment in Human Rights Commission v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996), Consumer Education and Research Centre v. UOI (1995) and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti (1996) is referred by the petitioners in this case and many other references are made to the provisions relating to  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Child.

The post SC directs states to submit reports about conditions in Rohingya Camps after site visits appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

It was later observed by the bench that the second FIR wasn’t filed by the same person so whoever had filed the first FIR, which can result into a different case but here it isn’t like that here. The court also justified that the facts of the case in first FIR was against 5 persons based on similar and one set of allegations but in second FIR the allegations were different from the one made in the first FIR. The court referred previous judgment, The case Upkar Singh v Ved Prakash & Ors,  it had observed: “Be that as it may if the law laid down by this Court in TT Antony case is to be accepted as holding that the second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences.”

READ JUDGEMENT-http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2014/30732/30732_2014_Judgement_19-Mar-2018.pdf

The post Supreme Court: No prohibition for filing second FIR with respect to the same incident appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.