The online gaming industry is among the few industries that have survived the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, and is projected to witness a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21% over FY21-FY25. Today, online gaming platforms host a diverse variety of games – ranging from rummy and poker to ‘fantasy sports leagues’ relating to cricket.Continue Reading Madras High Court’s judgment on gaming law – Does it provide absolute immunity from regulatory scrutiny?
Rights issue, as the term denotes, is the recognition of an inherent right of an equity shareholder against dilution of his shareholding in the company. It is a pre-emptive right of the equity shareholder to subscribe to his proportionate share in all further issuance of equity shares.Continue Reading Rights Issue – Is the Board’s Discretion to Allot Unsubscribed Shares Absolute?
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc[1]. The much-anticipated decision attempts to provide clarity on the venue-seat conundrum in arbitration cases — cases where an arbitration agreement fails to specify the ‘seat’ of an arbitration but does specify a ‘venue’.
Continue Reading The Seat–Venue–Place Conundrum: Supreme Court Weighs In
On 24 August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) declared privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution (Privacy Judgment)[1]. The Supreme Court while holding the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty, and informational privacy as a facet of the right to privacy; highlighted the need for government to examine and enforce a robust regime for data protection.
The Supreme Court suggested balance between data regulation and personal privacy as there are legitimate state concerns (like protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits)on one hand and individual interests in the protection of privacy on the other. Appreciating the complexity of all these issues, the Supreme Court (upon being informed of the constitution of an expert committee chaired by Hon’ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of Supreme Court), left the matter for determination by the said expert committee (Expert Committee), which was required to give due regard to what the Supreme Court had held in the Privacy Judgment.Continue Reading Genesis of (True) Data Protection Framework for India
Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017
Published here is Part II of the blog piece on the Indra Sawhney Case, which examines in-depth, the case of Indra Sawhney, the use of ‘caste’ as a factor in determining backwardness for the purpose of reservation, and the delicate balance between the needs of the society and the constitutional vision.
We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.
II. The Mandal Commission and the case of Indra Sawhney
A. The Mandal Commission and its Recommendations
In the year 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) was set up which was tasked with, inter alia, determining the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes. After an exhaustive survey, the Mandal Commission identified 52% of the Indian population as “Socially and Economically Backward Classes” (SEBCs). Subsequently, it recommended a 27% reservation for SEBCs in addition to the previously existing 22.5% reservation for SC/STs.
In the year 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced that his government would implement reservations on the basis of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.[1] Two office memoranda, O.M. No. 36012/13/90-Estt (SCT) dated August 13, 1990 as amended by O.M. No. 36012/13/90-Estt(SCT) dated September 25, 1990 sought to enforce these recommendations. The decision sparked widespread controversy and led to thousands of students coming out onto the streets to protest against the decision. There was a complete breakdown of law and order and some students even immolated themselves.[2]Continue Reading Casteism Much? – An Analysis of Indra Sawhney: Part II
Image credit: Scroll.in, September 26, 2017
This is the third blog piece in our series entitled “Those Were the Days”, which is published monthly.
This is a two-part piece which analyses the Indra Sawhney Case – a case that is famous for both settling several issues and unsettling several others in the great Indian backward-class-reservation jurisprudence. Published here is Part I of the piece, which examines the legal history of affirmative action in India.
We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.
The “Mandal Commission Report” and the controversy that followed it, is etched in the memory of every Indian. By upholding the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the Apex Court judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, established a central role for itself in every debate on the sensitive issue of reservations in India.
One of the avowed objectives of the Indian Constitution is the creation of an egalitarian society, including, and especially, by way of the eradication of caste and the caste system. In support of this objective, several successive governments have devised various affirmative action policies to eradicate caste and support the social mobility of backward classes. These measures typically include reserving seats in representative and educational institutions or public employment for members of certain classes that have been traditionally and historically marginalised. However, over time, these measures have become a tool for populism and to appease certain communities. Therefore, every time such a measure is introduced, it has resulted in dividing public opinion and caused widespread controversy. On some occasions, this divide has escalated into public demonstrations and even riots, for or against reservation.[1]
When these hotly contested measures have come up for adjudication, the judiciary’s role has not been easy; it has to account for social realities, while simultaneously grounding its decision within the sacred framework of the Constitution. One recurrent controversy that has arisen on multiple occasions before the Apex Court is the criteria for determining backwardness in order to qualify for reservation. There have been several cases that directly deal with this question. Of these, the most significant is the 1992 decision of by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217 [2] (Indra Sawhney).Continue Reading Casteism Much? – An Analysis of Indra Sawhney: Part I
At least since 2012, there has been a fair amount of legal uncertainty on the ambit of powers of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the 2003 Act) to award what came to be known as a “compensatory tariff” in case of tariff-based competitively bid power generating projects.
The issue took centre stage in 2011-12 with the promulgation of regulations by Indonesia, which barred export of coal from that country below a certain benchmark price. A number of Indian power project developers had submitted aggressive tariff bids during 2006-2009 relying on the import of relatively cheaper coal from Indonesia to India to fuel their power projects.Continue Reading SC Clarifies the Scope of Regulatory Power under Section 79 (1) of Electricity Act, 2003