Indian Citizenship Act

The Citizenship Act

Sec 1. Short title : This Act might be known as the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Sec 2. Interpretation.

(1) In this Act, unless the connection generally requires,

(a) “a Government in India” implies the Central Government or a State Government;

1[(b) “illicit migrant” means an outsider who has entered into India

(i) without a legitimate visa/ valid passport  or other travel documents and such other record or power as might be endorsed by or under any law for that benefit; or

valid passport

(ii) with a legitimate international ID or other travel reports and such other archive or power as might be recommended by or under any law for that benefit yet remains in that past the allowed time of time;]

(d) “Indian office” implies the workplace of any consular officer of the Government of India where a register of births is kept, or where there is no such office, such office as might be recommended;

(e) “minor” means a man who has not achieved the age of eighteen years:

2[(ee) “overseas citizen of India” means a man enlisted as an abroad resident of India by the Central Government under area 7A;]

(f) “person” does exclude any organization or affiliation or collection of people, whether fused or not;

(g) “prescribed” implies endorsed by tenets made under this Act;


(h) “undivided India” implies India as characterized in the Government of India Act, 1935, as initially sanctioned.

Explanation OF OBJECTS AND REASONS [The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005]

citizenship law

To grow the extent of gift of Overseas Citizenship of India to Persons of Indian Origin of all nations aside from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

(2) For the reasons of this Act, a man conceived on board an enrolled dispatch or airplane, or on board an unregistered boat or air ship of the Government of any nation, should be considered to have been conceived in the spot in which the boat or air ship was enrolled or, as the case might be, in that nation.

(3) Any reference in this Act to the status or depiction of the father of a man at the season of that individual’s introduction to the world might, in connection to a man conceived after the passing of his dad, be understood as a source of perspective to the status or portrayal of the father at the season of the father’s demise; and where that passing happened some time recently, and the conception happens after, the initiation of this Act, the status or depiction which would have been relevant to the father had he kicked the bucket after the beginning of this Act should be regarded to be the status or portrayal pertinent to him at the season of his passing.

(4) For the reasons of this Act, a man might be regarded to be of full age

on the off chance that he is not a minor and of full limit on the off chance that he is not of unsound personality.

1. Subs. by Act 6 of 2004, sec. 2, for provisos (b) and (el-and the stipulation to condition (c) (w.e.f, 3-12-2004). (See Annexe 1) .

2. Subs. by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005, sec. 2 (w.r.e.f, 28-6-2005), for proviso “(ee) “abroad native of India” means a man who-

(i) is of Indian beginning being a native of a predefined nation, or

indian nationality law

(ii) was a resident of India instantly before turning into a native of a predefined nation, and is enrolled as an abroad native of India by the Central Government under subsection (1) of section 7A;

3. Proviso (gg) excluded by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2005, sec. 2 (w.r.e.f, 28-6-2005).

Proviso (gg) before its exclusion remained as:

“(gg) “determined nation” implies a nation indicated in the Fourth Schedule:

Given that the Central Government might, by notice in the Official Gazette, change the said Schedule by method for expansion or exclusion of any passage in that:

Given further that each warning issued under this proviso should, when might be, after it is made, be laid before every House of Parliament”.

Securing of Citizenship

Area 3. Citizenship by conception.

1[Citizenship by conception. (1) Except as gave in sub-area (2), each individual conceived in India,-

(an) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, however before the first day of July, 1987;

(b) on or after the first day of July, 1987, however before the initiation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and both of whose folks is a subject of India at the season of his introduction to the world;

(c) on or after the initiation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, where-

(i) both of his guardians are subjects of India; or

(ii) one of whose folks is a subject of India and the other is not an unlawful transient at the season of his introduction to the world,

might be a subject of India by conception.

(2) A man might not be a subject of India by excellence of this section if at the season of his introduction to the world-

(an) either his dad or mom has such safety from suits and legitimate procedure as is concurred to an emissary of a remote sovereign force authorize to the President of India and he or she, as the case might be, is not a national of India; or

(b) his dad or mom is a foe outsider and the conception happens in a spot then under occupation by the enemy.]

1. Subs. by Act 6 of 2004, sec. 3, for area 3 (w.e.f. 3-12-2004). (See Annexe 1)

Area 4. Citizenship by plummet.

1[(1) A man conceived outside India might be a subject of India by plunge,-

(an) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, however before the tenth day of December, 1992, if his dad is a subject of India at the season of his introduction to the world; or

(b) on or after the tenth day of December, 1992, if both of his guardians is a subject of India at the season of his introduction to the world:

Given that if the father of a man alluded to in provision (a) was a subject of India by plunge just, that individual might not be a native of India by prudence of this section unless-

(a) his introduction to the world is enrolled at an Indian office inside of one year of its event or the initiation of this Act, whichever is later, or, with the authorization of the Central Government, after the expiry of the said period; or

(b) his dad is, at the season of his introduction to the world, in administration under a Government in India:

Given further that if both of the folks of a man alluded to in proviso (b) was a national of India by plummet just, that individual might not be a resident of India by goodness of this area unless-.

(a) his introduction to the world is enrolled at an Indian department inside of one year of its event or on or after the tenth day of December, 1992, whichever is later, or, with the authorization of the Central Government, after the expiry of the said period; or

(b) both of his guardians is, at the season of his introduction to the world, in administration under a Government in India:

Given likewise that on or after the initiation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, a man should not be a subject of India by prudence of this section, unless his introduction to the world is enlisted at an Indian office in such shape and in such way, as might be endorsed,-

(i) inside of one year of its event or the initiation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, whichever is later; or

(ii) with the consent of the Central Government, after the expiry of the said period:

Given additionally that no such conception should be enrolled unless the folks of such individual pronounce, in such shape and in such way as might be recommended, that the minor does not hold the visa of another nation.

(lA) A minor who is a native of India by prudence offhis section and is likewise a resident of whatever other nation should stop to be a native of India on the off chance that he doesn’t disavow the citizenship or nationality of another nation inside of six months of accomplishing full age.]

(2) if the Central Government so coordinates, a conception should be esteemed for the reasons of this section to have been enrolled with its authorization, despite that its consent was not got before the enlistment.

(3) For the reasons of the stipulation to sub-section (I), any 2[person] conceived outside unified India who was, or was considered to be, a national of India at the beginning of the Constitution might be regarded to be a resident of India by drop just.

1. Subs. by Act 6 of 2004, sec. 4, for sub-area (1) (w.e.f. 3-12-2004). (See Annexe 1)

2. Subs. by Act 39 of 1992, sec. 2, for “any male individual” (w.e.f. 10-12-1992).

section 5. Citizenship by enlistment.

1[(1) Subject to the procurements of this section and such different conditions and limitations as might be endorsed, the Central Government might, on an application made for this benefit, register as a native of India any individual not being an unlawful vagrant who is not effectively such native by ethicalness of the Constitution or of whatever other procurement of this Act on the off chance that he has a place with any of the accompanying classifications, in particular:-

(an) a man of Indian source who are commonly inhabitant in India for a long time before making an application for enrollment;

(b) a man of Indian source who is commonly inhabitant in any nation or place outside unified India;

(c) a man who is hitched to a subject of India and is usually occupant in India for a long time before making an application for enrollment;

(d) minor offspring of persons who are subjects of India;

(e) a man of full age and limit whose folks are enrolled as subjects of India under proviso (an) of this sub-area or sub-section (1) of section 6;

(f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration;

(g) a person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an overseas citizen of India for five years, and who has been residing in India for 2[one year] before making an application for registration.

Related Links: 
Indian Citizenship Act
Parliament Passes Bill to Amend Citizenship Amendment Act
Constitution of India/Citizenship

Tags : indian dual citizenship, indian citizen rights, indian citizenship act 1955, indian citizenship online, indian citizenship, indian nationality law

Source :

Judge B. Prabhakar Rao found dead under suspicious circumstances

Judge B. Prabhakar Rao accused in Janardhan Reddy cash for bail scam found discovered dead under suspicious circumstances

B. Prabhakar Rao

Judge B. Prabhakar Rao, charged in the cash-for-bail trick including previous Karnataka Minister and mining noble Gali Janardhana Reddy, passed away under suspicious circumstances on Monday. Mr. Rao is made due by his wife, little girl Dr. Susan and son David Prashant.

The Judge was discovered dead at his habitation in East Maredpally in Secunderabad. Police has precluded a suicide edge and have recommended that the pieces of information pointed towards it being an instance of heart failure. Mr. Prabhakar Rao’s wife, Ms. Marilyn Prabhalatha, a specialist at Government Hospital at Patancheru had invalidated the likelihood of her spouse submitting suicide and had said, “My spouse is not a weakling to end his life. He was gutsy. He endured a monstrous heart assault on Saturday night. I am a specialist. I identifies with the post-mortem examination specialists who uncovered principally that it was an instance of heart failure.”

Mr. Prabhakar Rao’s wife, Ms. Marilyn Prabhalatha, a specialist at Government Hospital at Patancheru had refuted the likelihood of her spouse conferring suicide and had said, “My spouse is not a defeatist to end his life. He was valiant. He endured a monstrous heart assault on Saturday night. I am a specialist. I addresses the examination specialists who uncovered principally that it was an instance of heart failure.” “He was blameless and confined in the safeguard trick case. He felt tormented.

My spouse was battling his case all alone in the court. The bogus assertions of his inclusion for the situation had tormented him and the crew. In any case, he didn’t submit suicide,” she included. Portraying the chain of occasions that prompted the revelation of the Judge’s body, Gopalapuram Assistant Commissioner of Police Shiva Kumar was cited as saying, “It seems, by all accounts, to be an instance of heart assault. For Christmas family came and stayed in their Marredpally habitation, their hereditary home.

His wife left to their Kompally habitation, however he kept on being set up there as he needed stay there for couple of more days. On Saturday morning wife had a go at contacting him to call him for the congregation petition to God administration.” “She alarmed her relatives as her calls went unattended, after which they went and tore open the way to discover him dead. His body was moved to Gandhi doctor’s facility where the post-mortem was directed.

We are anticipating the report. At first sight there is no confirmation to stay it as a suicide and all signs point to heart failure.” The trick concerned the safeguard conceded to Mr. Gali Janardhana Reddy, who was captured in Bellary on September 5, 2011, on the affirmations that the mining organization claimed by him in Andhra Pradesh disregarded a few standards. His case was being heard by Judge Pattabhi Rama Rao, who headed a Special CBI Court in Hyderabad. The safeguard was conceded on May 11, 2012. Then again, the Central Bureau of Investigation affirmed an arrangement of Rs. 10 crore for the safeguard. It was further claimed that Mr. Prabbhakar Rao, who had prior filled in as Secretary (Legal) in Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, had supposedly reached Pattabhi Rama Rao for encouraging safeguard.

On such charges, Judge Pattabhi Rama Rao was captured on June 19, 2012 and the Minister’s safeguard was wiped out a couple of days after the fact. Mr. Prabhakar was Family Court-cum-third Additional District and Sessions Judge of Srikakulam, when he was captured by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in July, 2012. He was one of the three serving judges to be captured for the situation. Judge K. Lakshminarasimha Rao, the Chief Judge of City Small Causes Court, was likewise captured. Both the Judges confronted the same destiny and were suspended later in July, 2012. Mr. Prabhakar had got safeguard and was speaking to himself under the steady gaze of the Court.

Related links :
Judge Prabhakar Rao
Judge accused in Janardhan Reddy bail scam found dead

Source :

Alimony in India

In spite of the fact that provision is an essential matter to manage amid the prosecution of a separation case, the very impression of right to assert the money related backing for post separation upkeep was not exactly a natural idea among the Indian separation seekers, particularly ladies even couple of years back. Yet, as the rate of separation is expanding in India at a quick speed, individuals are getting to be mindful of the different subtle elements identified with separation laws. The period of women’s activist crusades, and spread of training among ladies have added to the developing appropriateness of provision in separation cases.

The divorce settlement or the spousal backing is a commitment by laws in every one of the nations of the world. It is normal that both the life partners independent of the sex must bear the upkeep support amid and after marriage.

The idea of provision came in vogue because of the insolubility way of marriage. By traditions marriage is a consecrated union. Once the bunch is tied, the obligations and commitments of marriage are to be done for whatever is left of the life regardless of the possibility that there is mental difference or physical detachment between the spouse and the wife. The spouse will undoubtedly take up the obligations regarding the support of his wife despite sharing an irritated relationship. As time changed, the laws and instruction enabled lady, separation came as an unconstrained answer for an unsuccessful marriage.

The present society treats men and ladies break even with, therefore the weight of divorce settlement can now fall upon either side of the gathering relying on the budgetary circumstances of the mates. In spite of the fact that in the present period of fairness both men and ladies are currently equivalent according to law, practically speaking men are more subject to give break backing to their ex life partner amid the case technique.

After separation both of the life partner has the privilege to claim divorce settlement. Despite the fact that not a flat out right, but rather can be allowed by the court contingent on the circumstances and money related states of both the life partners.

The accompanying are the conditions relying upon which divorce settlement is recompensed by the court.

Provision is by and large not conceded to the looking for companion in the event that he or she is as of now getting support amid the season of separation. In spite of the fact that the compensating of provision can be changed in such occasions in light of the contentions for guaranteeing the backing.

If there should be an occurrence of a challenged separation, frequently mates neglect to go to any comprehension with respect to support. In such circumstances, the court takes up the errand of settling on a choice on the measure of divorce settlement to be paid.

Just under certain convincing circumstances the court ventures out to change the officially confined support. A few times the court may even hand over the weight of paying for the upkeep to an open body.

The accompanying are the components that impact the span and sum to be paid as provision.

The sum and span of divorce settlement by and large relies on to what extent the marriage existed. Relational unions that kept going over 10 years are qualified for be conceded a deep rooted divorce settlement.

Age of the life partner is likewise mulled over while honoring divorce settlement. Regularly a youthful beneficiary of divorce settlement gets it for a brief timeframe if the court conceives that he or she will soon have the capacity to end up monetarily solid trough imminent vocation perfection.

Support is additionally in vogue so as to even out the monetary state of both the life partners. The higher procuring life partner is qualified for pay an overwhelming sum as provision.

The mate why should anticipated be getting a charge out of a prosperous vocation is subject to pay high divorce settlement sum.

In the event that one of the companions is experiencing weakness, the other is subjected to installment of high support to guarantee legitimate solution and prosperity of the other life partner.


Work law otherwise called job law is the assemblage of laws, managerial decisions, and

points of reference which address the legitimate privileges of, and limitations on, working individuals and their

associations. All things considered, it intervenes numerous parts of the relationship between exchange unions,

bosses and workers. At the end of the day, Labor law characterizes the rights and commitments as specialists,

union individuals and bosses in the working environment. By and large, work law covers:

 Industrial relations – accreditation of unions, work administration relations, aggregate

haggling and out of line work rehearses;

 Workplace wellbeing and security;

 Employment norms, including general occasions, yearly leave, working hours, out of line

releases, the lowest pay permitted by law, cutback strategies and severance pay.

There are two general classifications of work law. In the first place, aggregate work law identifies with the tripartite

relationship between representative, business and union. Second, singular work law concerns

representatives’ rights at work and through the agreement for work.

The work development has been instrumental in the sanctioning of laws ensuring work rights in the

nineteenth and twentieth hundreds of years. Work rights have been vital to the social and monetary improvement

subsequent to the modern unrest.

1.1.History of Labor laws

Work law emerged because of the requests oflabourers for better conditions, the privilege to arrange, and the

concurrent requests of bosses to confine the forces of specialists in numerous associations and to

keep work costs low. Businesses’ expenses can increment because of specialists arranging to win higher wages,

on the other hand by laws forcing excessive prerequisites, for example,well-beingg and security or meet open doors

conditions.Labourers’ associations, for example, exchange unions, can likewise rise above simply modern

debate, and increase political force – which a few businesses might contradict. The condition of work law at

any one time is in this manner both the result of, and a part of, battles between various

intrigues in the public eye.

Global Labour Organization (ILO) was one of the first associations to manage work issues.

The ILO was set up as an office of the League of Nations taking after the Treaty of Versailles,

which finished World War I. Post-war reproduction and the security of worker’s organizations involved the

consideration of numerous countries amid and quickly after World War I. In Great Britain, the Whitley

Commission, a subcommittee of the Reconstruction Commission, prescribed in its July 1918 Final

Report that “modern chambers” be set up all through the world. The British Labour Party had

issued its own particular recreation program in the report titled Labour and the New Social Order.

In February 1918, the third Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conference (speaking to appoints from

Extraordinary Britain, France, Belgium and Italy) issued its report, pushing a worldwide work rights

body, a conclusion to mystery discretion, and different objectives. What’s more, in December 1918, the American Federation

of Labour (AFL) issued its own unmistakably opinionatedd report, which required the accomplishment of

various incremental upgrades by means of the aggregate bartering process.

As the war attracted to a nearby, two contending dreams for the post-war world rose. The main was

offered by the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), which required a meeting in Berne

in July 1919. The Berne meeting would consider both the fate of the IFTU and the different

proposition which had been made in the past couple of years. The IFTU likewise proposed including

delegates from the Central Powers as equivalents. Samuel Gompers, president of the AFL, boycotted the

meeting, needing the Central Powers delegates in a subservient part as an affirmation of blame for their

nations’ part in the achieving war. Rather, Gompers supported a meeting in Paris which would

just consider President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points as a stage. Regardless of the American

blacklist, the Berne meeting proceeded as booked. In its last report, the Berne Conference

requested a conclusion to wage work and the foundation of communism. On the off chance that these finishes couldn’t be

promptly accomplished, then a worldwide body connected to the League of Nations ought to authorize

what’s more, uphold enactment to secure labourer’s and exchange

Indian State Governments(Civics For Kids)

India has 29 states and a solitary Prime Minister or President can’t in any way, shape or form pay consideration on each and every point of interest in each state. Henceforth every state has its own legislature.

The Constitution unmistakably sets out the matters (subjects) which the state government will manage and the matters which the union government will manage. For instance, general wellbeing and sanitation is on the state subject rundown. It would be senseless if every time a clergyman needed to fly down from Delhi to keep an eye on a healing facility in Satara or Bajrangipur.

The Railways, then again, is a Union subject. The reason is that Railways need to advantage the whole nation. So the focal government must choose the trains, their courses et cetera. You can’t have a train that runs just in Maharashtra. What might you do in the event that you needed to go from Mumbai to New Delhi? On the off chance that railroads were a state subject, then you would need to change trains three or four times!

A few issues can be totally explained at the state level like utilizing the neighborhood police to manage nearby goondas. Some different issues must be taken to the larger amount such as issuing travel permits or utilizing the Army, Navy or Air Force for peace. Regardless of what the issue, the state and union government need to take after the constitution.

The legislature in the state is similar to a little scale adaptation of the Union Government.


  • President is the counselling head
  • Head administrator and Cabinet settle on essential choices for the nation
  • The governing body is made out of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
  • The Supreme Court is the incomparable legal force
  • Situated in the national capital ( New Delhi)


  • Senator is the consultative head
  • Boss Minister and bureau settle on critical choices for the state
  • The lawmaking body is made out of Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly) and Vidhan Parishad (Legislative Council)
  • The High Court is the preeminent legal force
  • Situated in the capital of the individual states


Find every state on the guide of India.
Discover when the accompanying states were made part of the Indian Union-Sikkim, Jharkhand, Uttaranchal, Chhatisgarh.

38 Important Questions On Indian Constitution

1. When was the Constituent Assembly convened ?Answer: 1946

2. When was the first session of the Constituent Assembly held ?
Answer:9 December, 1946

3. Under which Plan was the Constituent Assembly constituted ?
Answer:Cabinet Mission Plan

4. Who was the President of the Constituent Assembly ?
Answer:Dr. Rajandra Prasad

5. Who was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee ?
Answer:B R. Ambedkar

6. When was the drafting of the Indian Constitution completed and adopted ?
Answer:26 November, 1949

7. When was the Constitution of India put into effect?
Answer:26 January ,1950

8. Since when India became a Republic ?
Answer:26 January, 1950

9. Who was the first Vice- President of the Indian Union ?
Answer: Dr. Rajendra Prasad

10. Who was the first Vice- President of the Indian Union ?

11. Who was the first Prime Minister of the Indian Union ?
Answer:Jawaharlal Nehru

12. Who was the last Governor- General (Viceroy) of British India ?
Answer:Lord Mountbatten

13. Who was the first Governor- General of the Indian Dominion (Independent India) ?
Answer:Lord Mountbatten

14. Who adopted the National Flag of India ?
Answer:The Constituent Assembly (July 1947)

15. Who set forth the main objectives of the Constituent Assembly in the form of the Objective Resolution ?
Answer:Jawaharlal Nehru

16. How many articles are there in the Indian Constitution ?
Answer:395 Articles

17. How many Fundamental Rights have been guaranteed by the Indian Constitution ?

18. How many Fundamental Duties have been assigned to the citizens of India ?

19. Who appoints the Prime minister of India ?
Answer:The President of India

20. How is the President of India elected ?
Answer: By Electoral College

21. What is the name of the Upper House of the Indian Parliament?
Answer: Rajya Sabha

22. What is the name of the Lower House of the Indian Parliament?
Answer: Lok Sabha

23. Who presides over the session of the Lok Sabha?
Answer: The Speaker

24. Who presides over the session of the Rajya Sabha?
Answer: The Vice-President of India

25. Can President’s rule be imposed on the Central like that in the states?
Answer: No

26. Who appoints the Governors of States?
Answer: The President of India

27. What is the total number of members in the Lok Sabha?
Answer: 552

28. What is the number of elected members in the Lok Sabha?
Answer: 530

29. How many members constitute the Rajya Sabha?
Answer: 250

30. How are the members of the Rajya Sabha elected?
Answer: Proportional representation by single transferable vote

31. How many representatives are there in the Lok Sabha from West Bengal?
Answer: 42 representatives

32. What is the total number of members in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly?
Answer: 294 Members

33. What is the tenure of Lok Sabha?
Answer: 5 years

34. Which is the highest Judicial Court of India?

Answer: The Supreme Court

35. How many Judges constitute the Supreme Court?
Answer: 26 Judges

36. How many times till 2006 the Parliamentary Elections have been held?
Answer: 14 times

37. A citizen of how many years of age can cast vote?
Answer: 18 years

38. How many Indian Territories are there in the Indian Union?
Answer: 7 (seven)

39. How many times (till October 2006) Indian Constitution has been amended?
Answer: 93 times

SOURCE: preservearticles

Forest Conservation Act 1980



An Act to accommodate the protection of forests and for matters associated therewith or ancillary or accidental thereto. Be it established by Parliament in the Thirty-first Year of the Republic of India as takes after:- 1. Short title, extent and commencement.(1) This Act might be known as the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. (2) It reaches out to the entire of India with the exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 25th day of October, 1980.


ACT NO. 69 OF 1980 [27th December, 1980.]

(1) This Act may be called the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 25th day of October, 1980.


Despite anything contained in whatever other law for the present in power in a State, no State Government or other power should make, aside from with the former endorsement of the Central Government, any order directing

(i) That any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved.

(ii) That any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.

(iii) That any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) That any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees

which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reforestation.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for –

(a) The cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;

(b) Any purpose other than reforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.


The Central Government may constitute a Committee consisting of such number of persons as it may deem fit to advise that Government with regard to –

(i) The grant of approval under Section 2; and

(ii) Any other matter connected with the conservation of forest which may be referred to it by the Central Government.

Whoever contravenes or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period which may extend to fifteen days.


(1) Where any offence under this Act has been committed –

(a) by any department of Government, the head of the department; or

(b) by any authority, every person, who, at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge, of, and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the business of the authority as well as the authority, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Given that nothing contained in this sub-segment should render the leader of the office or any individual alluded to in provision (b), subject to any discipline on the off chance that he demonstrates that the offense was submitted without his insight or that he practiced all due industriousness to keep the commission of such offense.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-segment (1), where an offense culpable under the Act has been submitted by a division of Government or any power alluded to in condition (b) of sub-area (1) and it is demonstrated that the offense has been conferred with the assent or conspiracy of, or is inferable from any disregard with respect to, any officer, other than the leader of the office, or on account of any power, any individual other than the persons alluded to in statement (b) of sub-segment (1), such officer or persons might likewise be regarded to be liable of that offense and should be at risk to be continued against and rebuffed in like manner.

Segment 4. Energy TO MAKE RULES.

(1) The Central Government might, be notice in the Official Gazette, make precludes for conveying the procurements of this Act.

(2) Every principle made under this Act might be laid, when might be, after it is made, before every House of Parliament, while it is in session, for an aggregate time of thirty days which might be contained in one session or in two or more progressive sessions and if, before the expiry of the session quickly taking after the session or the progressive sessions aforementioned, both Houses concur in making any change in the tenet or both Houses concur that the standard ought not be made, the guideline should from there on have impact just in such adjusted frame or be of no impact, as the case might be, in this way, in any case, that any such alteration or cancellation should be without bias to the legitimacy of anything already done under that run the show.

Segment 5. Nullify AND SAVING.

(1) The Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 is thus revoked.

(2) Notwithstanding such cancelation, anything done or any move made under the procurements of the said Ordinance should be regarded to have been done or taken under the comparing procurements of this Act.

Related Link :
Indian Forest Act, 1927
Forest (Conservation) Amendment Rules
Source :


A minor is a man who does not have the legitimate privileges of a grown-up. A minor is generally characterized as somebody who has not yet came to the period of larger part. In many expresses, a man achieves greater part and gets the majority of the rights and obligations of a grown-up when he or she turns 18.

Until a minor achieves the legitimate time of adulthood, he or she may not be in charge of his/her own particular activities (counting the ability to go into an agreement which is enforceable by the other party), for harms for carelessness or deliberate wrongs without a guardian being obligated, nor for discipline as a grown-up for a wrongdoing. The national lawful age for drinking or purchasing mixed refreshments is 21. Marriage with or without parental assent, driving, arraignment for wrongdoings, the privilege to pick a fetas removal and obligation for harms fluctuate from state to state.

An agreement, generally legitimate, went into by a minor, can’t be affirmed in view of the minor’s minority if the agreement is to pay the sensible estimation of necessaries. The importance of the expression “necessaries” relies on upon the actualities of the individual case. It relies on upon numerous things, including the specific circumstances of the minor, the real need, and the utilization to which the bought article is to be put. On the other hand, the regular law grouping of necessaries as including sustenance, lodging, garments, prescription, medicinal consideration, and instruction is for the most part perceived to the degree such things are suited to the minor’s social position and circumstance in life, despite the fact that such things are not completely required.

Children Rights Under The Constitution

Children rights under the constitution

Youngsters by virtue of their youthful age and juvenile personality need uncommon consideration and insurance. They have certain uncommon rights and lawful privileges that are being recognized broadly and universally. The constitution of India perceived the privileges of kids surprisingly and incorporated a few articles managing their freedom, work, and improvement of adolescence, non-separation in instructive circles, necessary and free training and forbidden of their vocation in manufacturing plants, mines and perilous commercial enterprises.

Socially and physically kids are the weakest component of the general public. They are not in charge of a considerable lot of the cases and don’t should endure. They have nothing to do with any of the matters of wrongs such as war or outer obligation. It has been rightly expressed in the 1924 presentation of privileges of the youngster (revelation of Geneva) that has now been utilized for all kid causes “humanity owes to the chills the best it needs to give”. Youngsters are what’s to come. By putting resources into them social orders will have a brilliant future?

Right to training

Article 21-An of the constitution expresses that “privilege to training the state might give free and obligatory instruction to all offspring of the age of six to fourteen years in such a way as the state might, by law decide.”

The Supreme Court in its liberal translation of life and freedom as under Article 21 held that the term freedom incorporates freedom as well as incorporates occupation additionally the privilege of individuals to live with pride and that likewise incorporates the privilege to training, and hence, right to instruction is a basic directly under the constitution. The instance of Mohini Jain case came to be braced by the incomparable courts ensuing constitution seat of Unnikrishnan’s case, which held that privilege to training can be limited to essential instructive level and not to higher optional level.

Article 45 Provision for right on time youth care and instruction to youngsters underneath the age of six years-

The State might try to give early adolescence administer to all kids until they finish the age of six years.

Children rights under the constitution
Children rights under the constitution

This article has been substituted by the Constitution (eighty-6th amendment) act, 2002 which got consent of the President on Dec. 12 2002. By this revision another Article 21-An accommodating right to instruction has additionally been embedded. This is with regards to the trust communicated in the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan[1] and Mohini Jain[2] that change of the State’s commitment under Article 45 into an essential right would accomplish the objective at a speedier speed. This is presently additionally a basic obligation of folks and gatekeepers to instruct such kids as gave in condition (k) of Article 51-A.

Article 45 states the “procurement for nothing and mandatory training for kids the State should try to give, inside of a time of ten years from the initiation of the Constitution, for nothing and necessary instruction for all kids until they finish the age of fourteen years”. However this objective has not been accomplished even following fifty years of the beginning of the Constitution. It was held that there was nothing to keep the State from releasing that grave commitment through the legislature and supported the schools, and Article 45 does not require the commitment to be released to the detriment of minority communities.[3]

It was held on account of Mohini Jain v. condition of Karnataka and others, AIR1992 SC 1858

The order standards which are major in the administration of the nation can’t be segregated from the principal rights ensured under part III. These standards, must be perused into the key rights. Both are supplementary to one another. The state is under the sacred command to make conditions in which the central rights ensured to the people under part III could be appreciated by all. Without making “right to training” under Art.41 of the constitution a reality the principal rights under Chapter III might remain past the span of expansive dominant part which is ignorant.

Children rights under the constitution
Children rights under the constitution

“Right to life” is the succinct expression for each one of those rights which the courts must implement in light of the fact that they are essential to the stately happiness regarding life. It stretches out to the full scope of behavior which the individual is allowed to seek after. The privilege to training streams straightforwardly from right to life.

The Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

This demonstration was sanctioned on 23rd December 1986 by the parliament and was upheld on 26th might 1993 by the focal government. The demonstration was insufficient for more than 8 years because of the latency of the state and focal government. The object of the demonstration is

(i) restriction on the job of youngsters i.e., the individuals who haven’t finished their fourteenth year, in indicated occupations;

(ii) set out a method to choose adjustments to the calendar of banned occupation and forms;

(iii) control the states of work of kids in vocation where they are not restricted from working;

(iv) set down improved punishments for business of youngsters infringing upon the procurements of this demonstration, and different acts which preclude the job of the kids;

(v) to get consistency in the meaning of “youngster” in the related laws

The goal of this demonstration was to boycott the engagements of youngster work in specific livelihoods and to manage in zones where it has not been denied. It gives energy to the legislature to make rules with reference to wellbeing and security wherever the livelihoods of kids are allowed. Night work for youngsters is precluded. The hours of work for the kids are additionally to be considered by the state and the focal governments.

The demonstration empowers the legislatures to choose reviewers to implement the procurements of the demonstration and it has likewise given stringent punishments including detainment to infringement of the procurements of the demonstration.

Any occupation which might be joined with transport of travelers, products and sends, soot pressing, development of railroads, offering of fireworks and so on… .might be incorporated as kid work exercises. Procedure might incorporate bidi-production, floor covering weaving, bond make, fabric printing, weaving, coloring, assembling of matches, explosives and so on will fall under the classification of tyke wor

Right To Bail In India

When you are arrested, you are taken into authority. This implies you are not allowed to leave the scene. Without being captured, you can be confined, nonetheless, or held for addressing for a brief span if a cop or other individual trusts you might be included in a wrongdoing. For instance, an officer might keep you on the off chance that you are conveying an extensive box almost a theft site. You can likewise be confined by vendors in the event that they think you have stolen something. Whether you are captured or confined, you don’t need to answer any inquiries but to give your name and address and demonstrate some distinguishing proof if asked. The object of capture and detainment of the got to individual is basically to secure his appearance at the trial and to guarantee that on the off chance that he is discovered liable he is accessible to get the sentence. On the off chance that his vicinity at the trial could be sensible guaranteed generally than by his capture and detainment, it would be unjustifiable and uncalled for to deny the blamed for his freedom amid the pendency of the criminal procedures against him. The procurements in regards to the issue of summons or those identifying with the capture of the got to individual under a warrant or without a warrant or those identifying with the arrival of the got to at his trial however without nonsensical and ridiculously meddling with his freedom. Accordingly this article is connected with the procurements related with the arrival of a man on a safeguard.

In expressions of Krishna Iyer J. .. the subject of safeguard:-

” ….. fits in with the obscured zone of criminal equity framework and to a great extent relies on the hunch of the seat, generally called legal attentiveness. The Code is enigmatic on this theme and the Court wants to be implicit, be the request custodial or not. But, the issue is one of freedom, equity, open wellbeing and weight of open treasury all of which demand that a created statute of safeguard is vital to a socially sharpened legal procedure.”

In this manner discharge on safeguard is significant to the blamed as the results for pre-trial detainment are given. On the off chance that discharge on safeguard is denied to the got to it would imply that however he is dared to be honest till the blame is demonstrated past the sensible uncertainty he would be subjected to the mental and physical hardship of prison life. The correctional facility got to loses his occupation and is kept from contributing viably to the arrangement of his barrier.

Along these lines where there are no dangers included in the arrival of the captured individual it would be brutal and uncalled for, to deny him safeguard. The law safeguards ” needs to dovetail two clashing requests in particular, on one hand, the necessities of the general public for being protected from the dangers of being presented to the misfortunes of a man asserted to have carried out a wrongdoing; and on the other, the major ordinance of criminal statute. The assumption of purity of a charged till he is discovered blameworthy”.

Keeping in mind the end goal to sub serve the above said goal, the Legislature in its intelligence has given exact bearings for giving or giving safeguard.

Why Bail?

Before actually determining the place of bail within human rights framework as conferred by the Constitution, it is important to examine the object and meaning of bail, such that an analysis of these fundamental objects and change therein may reveal a change. The object detention of an accused person is primarily to secure her/his appearance at the time of trial and is available to receive sentence, in case found guilty. If his/her presence at the trial could be reasonably ensured other than by his arrest or detention, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive the accused of his liberty during pendency of criminal proceedings.

Thus it is important to note the relevant provisions enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:-

Article 9- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10- Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11(1)- Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

There are thus several reasons which have been enumerated as to why bail ought to be allowed to prevent pre-trial detention


Bail, in law, means procurement of release from prison of a person awaiting trial or an appeal, by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority.

“Bail has been defined in the law lexicon as security for the appearance of the accused person on giving which he is released pending trial or investigation.”

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, what is contemplated by bail is to “procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court.”.


According to Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. hereinafter), does not define bail, although the terms bailable offense and non-bailable offense have been defined in section 2(a) Cr.P.C. as follows: ” Bailable offense means an offense which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offense means any other offense”. That schedule refers to all the offenses under the Indian Penal Code and puts them into bailable and on bailable categories. The analysis of the relevant provisions of the schedule would show that the basis of this categorization rests on diverse consideration. However, it can be generally stated that all serious offenses, i.e. offenses punishable with imprisonment for three years or more have seen considered as non bailable offenses. Further, Sections 436 to 450 set out the provisions for the grant of bail and bonds in criminal cases. The amount of security that is to be paid by the accused to secure his release has not been mentioned in the Cr.P.C. Thus, it is the discretion of the court to put a monetary cap on the bond.

Indian Courts however ,have greater discretion to grant or deny bail in the case of persons under criminal arrest, e.g., it is usually refused when the accused is charged with homicide.

It must be further noted that a person accused of a bailable offenses is arrested or detained without warrant he has a right to be released on bail. But if the offense is non-bailable that does not mean that the person accused of such offense shall not be released on bail: but here in such case bail is not a matter of right, but only a privilege to be granted at the discretion of the court.
Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, makes provisions for release of accused persons on bail. Section 436 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of bailable offenses. Section 436 provides that when person not accused of a non-bailable offense is arrested or detained he can be detained as right to claim to be released on bail. The section covers all cases of person s accused of bailable of fences cases of persons though not accused of any offense but against whom security proceedings have been initiated under Chapter VIII of the Code and other cases of arrest and detention which are not in respect of any bailable offense.

This section entitles a person other than the accused of a non-bailable offense to be released on bail, it may be recalled that S. 50(2) makes it obligatory for a police officer arresting such a person without a warrant to inform him his right to be released on bail.

Section 436 (1) of the Code signifies that release on bail is a matter of right, or in other words, the officer-in-charge of a police station or any court does not have any discretion whatsoever to deny bail in such cases. The word ” appear in this sub- clause is wide enough to include voluntary appearance of the person accused of an offense even where no summons or warrant has been issued against him. There is nothing in S. 436 to exclude voluntary appearance or to suggest that the appearance of the accused must be in the obedience of a process issued by the court. The surrender and the physical presence of the accused with the submission to the jurisdiction and order of the court is judicial custody, and the accused may be granted bail and released from such custody.

The right to be released on bail under S. 436(1) cannot be nullified indirectly by fixing too high amount of bond or bail-bond to be furnish by the person seeking bail. Section 440(1) provides the amount of every bond executed under this chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive. Further S. 440(2) empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced.

Sub-section (2) of S. 436 makes a provision to effect that a person who absconds or has broken the condition of his bail bond when released on bail is a bailable case on a previous occasion, shall not as of right to be entitled to bail when brought before the court on any subsequent date even though the offense may be bailable.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621

The amount of the bond should be determined having regard to these relevant factors and should not be fixed mechanically according to a schedule keyed to the nature of the charge. Otherwise, it would be difficult for the accused to secure his release even by executing a personal bond, it would be very harsh and oppressive if he is required to satisfy the court-and what is said in regard to the court must apply equally in relation to the police while granting bail-that he is solvent enough to pay the amount of the bond if he fails to appear at the trial and in consequence the bond is forfeited. The inquiry into the solvency of the accused can become a source of great harassment to him and often resulting denial of bail and deprivation of liberty and should not, therefore, be insisted upon as a condition of acceptance of the personal bond.

It also stated that there is a need to provide by an amendment of the penal law that if an accused willfully fails to appear incompliance with the promise contained in his personal bond, he shall be liable to penal action.

J. Per Bhagwati & Koshal, JJ. further observed that it is now high time that the State Government realized its responsibility to the people in the matter of administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases.

In Moti Ram & Others. v. State of M.P [1978] 4 SCC 47

Urgent need for a clear and explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the release, inappropriate cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond without sureties and without any monetary obligation.

Criminal courts today, are extremely unsatisfactory and needs drastic change. In the first place it is virtually impossible to translate risk of non- appearance by the accused into precise monetary terms and even its basic premise that risk of financial loss is necessary to prevent the accused from fleeing is of doubtful validity. There are several considerations which deter an accused from running away from justice and risk of financial loss is only one of them and that too not a major one. In this case the court also pointed out the enlightened Bail Projects in the United States such as Manhattan Bail Project and D. C. Bail Project shows that even without monetary bail it has been possible to secure the presence of the accused at the trial in quite a large number of cases. The Court laid down following guidelines, that determine whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing, the Court should take into account the following factors concerning the accused:

1. The length of his residence in the community, 2 His employment status, history and his financial condition, 3. His family ties and relationships, 4 His reputation, character and monetary condition, 5.His prior criminal record including any record or prior release on recognizance or on bail, 6. The identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability. The nature of the offense charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non appearance, and If the court is satisfied on a consideration of the relevant factors that the accused has his ties in the community and there is no substantial risk of non-appearance, the accused may, as far as possible, be released on his personal bond.

Of course, if facts are brought to the notice of the court which go to show that having regard to the condition and background of the accused his previous record and the nature and circumstances of the offense, there may be a substantial risk of his non-appearance at the trial, as for example, where the accused is a notorious bad character or confirmed criminal or the offense is serious (these examples are only by way of illustration), the court may not release the accused on his personal bond and may insist on bail with sureties. But in the majority of cases, considerations like family ties and relationship, roots in the community, employment status etc. may prevail with the court in releasing the accused on his personal bond and particularly in cases where the offense is not grave and the accused is poor or belongs to a weaker section of the community, release on personal bond could, as far as possible, be preferred. But even while releasing the accused on personal bond it is necessary to caution the court that the amount of the bond which it.
Section 436A . Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained –

The new provision Section 436Awas introduced in order to solve the problems of undertrials’ who were languishing in jails as they will now be given an opportunity to be set free instead of endlessly waiting for their trial to take place. This move has been made due to a faulty criminal justice system and provides a makeshift method of providing justice and relief to undertrial prisoners. This seems to suggest that the Legislature and the Government have accepted the existence of the faulty system and their inability to do anything about it. For this purpose section 436 A was inserted.

According to S. 436-A, a person who has undergone detention for a period extending upto half of the maximum period of imprisonment imposed for a particular offense, shall be released on her/his personal bond with or without sureties. The procedure provided is that the Court has to hear the Public Prosecutor and give its decision with reasons in writing. The Court may release the applicant, or if not satisfied may order for the continued detention of the applicant. However, no prisoner can be detained for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment provided. The exception to the section is that it is not applicable to offenders who have been sentenced to death.

Moving onto the (de)merits of the provisions itself, S. 436-A gives discretion to the Court to set the prisoner free or to make him/her continue imprisonment. There is no mention of any applications having to be filed under the section. The first part of the section states that any prisoner who has served more than half the term of his/her imprisonment ‘shall’ be released. However, the proviso puts a restriction on the mandatory provision by giving discretionary powers to the courts. This raises questions regarding the implementation of the provision. There is every chance that a prisoner may be sent back to jail to serve a period longer than the half term of his/her sentence. Till the Judges give their written reasons for the same, one will not know on what grounds a continuation of the term can be ordered as the section does not provide any guidelines. Will the undertrial prisoner continue to serve term till the maximum period of the

Granting of Bail with conditions

Section 437 of the Code provides for release on bail in cases of non-bailable offenses. In such cases, bail is not a matter of right. Court has sufficient discretion to deny or to grant bail. First Schedule to the Code provides the list of bailable and non-bailable offenses. Further cases often arise under S. 437, where though the court regards the case as fit for the grant of bail, it regards imposition of certain conditions as necessary in the circumstances. To meet this need sub-section (3) of S. 437 provides:

When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offense punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offense under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abatement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offense, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary: –

(a)In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b)In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c)Otherwise in the interests of Justice.

It will be noticed that: –

1)The power to impose conditions has been given to the court and not to any police officer 2)The power to impose conditions can only be exercised –

i)Where the offence is punishable with the imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or

ii)Where the offence is one under Chapter VI (Offences against the State), Chapter XVI (offences against the human body), or Chapter XVII (offences against the property) of I.P.C, or

iii)Where the offence is one of the abetment of or conspiracy to or attempt to commit any such offence as mentioned above in (i) and (ii).


According to S. 437(5) any court which has released a person on bail under (1) or sub sec (2) of S. 437 may if considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and committed to custody.

The power to cancel bail has been given to the court and not to a police officer. Secondly, the court which granted the bail can alone cancel it. The bail granted by a police officer cannot be cancelled by the court of a magistrate. For cancellation of bail in such a situation, the powers of the High Court or Court of Session under S. 439 will have to invoked. Rejection of bail when bails applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable cases than to cancel a bail granted in such case. Cancellation of bail necessary involves the review of a decision already made and can large be permitted only if , by reason of supervening circumstances it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. However, bail granted illegal or improperly by a wrong arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances. If there is no material to prove that the accused abused his freedom court may not cancel the bail.

In Public Prosecutor v. George Williams1951 Mad 1042

The Madras High Court pointed out five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and be recommitted to jail:

(a)Where the person on bail, during the period of the bail, commits the very same offence for which is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby proves his utter unfitness to be on bail; (b)If he hampers the investigation as will be the case if he, when on bail; forcibly prevents the search of place under his control for the corpus delicti or other incriminating things; (c)If he tampers with the evidence, as by intimidating the prosecution witness, interfering with scene of the offence in order to remove traces or proofs of crime, etc. (d)If he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground, or beyond the control of his sureties; and (e)If he commits acts of violence, in revenge, against the police and the prosecution witnessed & those who have booked him or are trying to book him.


The right to bail is concomitant of the accusatorial system, which favours a bail system that ordinarily enables a person to stay out of jail until a trial has found him/her guilty. In India, bail or release on personal recognizance is available as a right in bailable offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment and only to women and children in non-bailable offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. The right of police to oppose bail, the absence of legal aid for the poor and the right to speedy reduce to vanishing point the classification of offences into bailable and non-bailable and make the prolonged incarceration of the poor inevitable during the pendency of investigation by the police and trial by a court.

The fact that under trials formed 80 percent of Bihar’s prison population, their period of imprisonment ranging from a dew months to ten years; some cases wherein the period of imprisonment of the under trials exceeded the period of imprisonment prescribed for the offences they were charged with- these appalling outrages were brought before the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360

Justice Bhagwati found that these unfortunate under trials languished in prisons not because they were guilty but because they were too poor to afford a bail. In Mantoo Majumdar v. State of Bihar AIR 1980 SC 846 the Apex Court once again upheld the under trials right to personal liberty and ordered the release of the petitioners on their own bond and without sureties as they had spent six years awaiting their trial, in prison. The court deplored the delay in police investigation and the mechanical operation of the remand process by the magistrates insensitive to the personal liberty of the under trials, remanded by them to prison. The Court deplored the delay in police investigation and the mechanical operation of the remand process by the magistrates insensitive to the personal liberty of under trials, and the magistrate failure to monitor the detention of the under trials remanded by them to prison.

The travails of illegal detainees languishing in prisons, who were uniformed, or too poor to avail of, their right bail under section 167 Cr.P.C. was further brought to light in letters written to Justice Bhagwati by the Hazaribagh Free Legal Aid Committee in Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar (1982) 2 SCC 583. The court recognized the inequitable operation of the law and condemned it- “The rule of law does not exist merely for those who have the means to fight for their rights and very often for perpetuation of status quo… but it exist also for the poor and the downtrodden… and it is solemn duty of the court to protect and uphold the basic human rights of the weaker section of the society. Thus having discussed various hardships of pre-trial detention caused, due to unaffordability of bail and unawareness of their right to bail, to under trials and as such violation of their right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 as well as the obligation of the court to ensure such right. It becomes imperative to discuss the right to bail and its nexus to the right of free legal aid to ensure the former under the Constitution- in order to sensitize the rule of law of bail to the demands of the majority of poor and to make human rights of the weaker sections a reality.


Article 21 of the Constitution is said to enshrine the most important human rights in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court had for almost 27 years after the enactment of the Constitution taken the view that this Article merely embodied a facet of the Dicey on concept of the rule of law that no one can deprived of his life and personal liberty by the executive action unsupported by law. If there was a law which provided some sort of procedure, it was enough to deprive a person of his life and personal liberty.

In the Indian Constitution there is no specifically enumerated constitutional right to legal aid for an accused person. Article 22(1) does provide that no person who is arrested shall be denied the right to consult and to be defended by legal practitioner of his choice, but according to the interpretation placed on this provision by the Supreme Court Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1951 SC 227. in this provision does not carry with it the right to be provided the services of legal practitioners at state cost. Also Article 39-A introduced in 1976 enacts a mandate that the state shall provide free legal service by suitable legislations or schemes or any other way, to ensure that opportunities for justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities – this however remains a Directive Principle of State Policy which while laying down an obligation on the State does not lay down an obligation enforceable in Court of law and does not confer a constitutional right on the accused to secure free legal assistance.
However the Supreme Court filled up this constitutional gap through creative judicial interpretation of Article 21 following Maneka Gandhi’s case. The Supreme Court held in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra a AIR 1978 SC 1548nd Hussainara Khatoon’s case that a procedure which does not make legal services available to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore go through the trial without legal assistance cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. It is essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 that a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court process should have legal services made available to him.

The right to free legal assistance is an essential element of any reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21.
Thus the Supreme Court spelt out the right to legal aid in criminal proceeding within the language of Article 21 and held that this is….

“a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.”


It is indisputable that an unnecessarily prolonged detention in prison of under trials before being brought to trial is an affront to all civilized norms of human liberty and any meaningful concept of individual liberty which forms the bedrock of a civilized legal system must view with distress patently long periods of imprisonment before persons awaiting trial can receive the attention of the administration of justice. Thus the law of bails must continue to allow for sufficient discretion, in all cases, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to give way to the humanization of criminal justice system and to sensitize the same to the needs of those who must otherwise be condemned to languish in prisons for no more fault other than their inability to pay for legal counsel to advise them on bail matters or to furnish the bail amount itself.

While concluding, it seems desirable to draw attention to the absence of an explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the release, in appropriate cases, of an under trial prisoner on his bond without sureties and without any monetary obligation. There is urgent need for a clear provision. Undeniably, the thousands of under trial prisoners lodged in Indian prisons today include many who are unable to secure their release before trial because of their inability to produce sufficient financial guarantee for their appearance. Where that is the only reason for their continued incarceration, there may be good ground for complaining of invidious discrimination. The more so under a constitutional system which promises social equality and social justice to all of its citizens. The deprivation of liberty for the reason of financial poverty only is an incongruous element in a society aspiring to the achievement of these constitutional objectives. There are sufficient guarantees for appearance in the host of considerations to which reference has been made earlier and, it seems to me, our law-makers would take an important step-in defence of individual liberty if appropriate provision as made in the statute for non-financial releases.

Related Links:
Legal aid
Anticipatory bail