Sex, Lies and Eternal Paranoia: The NLU Club

I first met Arun in my first year. We were both interning with an NGO in Bombay. We had grown up in fairly affluent suburbs of two different metropolitan cities, been introduced to the idea of law school at LST career workshops in each of our high schools and had eventually made it to two different NLUs. Here we were in my home town, teaching underprivileged children, exchanging life goals (lofty) and graphic novels (graphic) for the brief period of one month, after which we would go back to our separate lives in our separate cities across the country from each other. If this were a movie, we would have passed each other as two friendly ships in the night, but this was not a movie. Meeting Arun was actually my initiation into a club I didn’t yet know existed - the tiny, occasionally claustrophobic, frequently incestuous, unfailingly frightening NLU community – and this was not the last time I was going to meet him.

But I didn’t know that yet.

Arun and I got along excellently. Having grown up in different cities and gone to different schools, we had no common friends so we were foreign countries to each other. He went to one of the older NLUs, I to another, and being too junior in our respective colleges to have cultivated much chest-thumping loyalty we happily swapped all sorts of information in an unbiased fashion. We compared our respective colleges’ food (terrible), our CLAT ranks (close), our ambitions (animal rights’ activist and famous litigator respectively). When we discovered that we both loved the Sandman novels, our friendship was sealed for evermore. Or so we thought.

A couple of weeks after I’d returned to college, a senior came up to me during the lunch break and said “I went to school with Arun, cool guy.” A ten minute conversation later, it was arranged that I would be going to Ambagarh for the weekend with “some of the guys”. Ambagarh is a nondescript town a few hours from college, famed only for a Shiva temple that we would certainly not visit. I was going to be with some of the oldest, coolest biker dudes in my college and I was elated; I was a part of The Club! And all thanks to good ol’ Arun. I thought fondly of Arun and mentally thanked him. The elation did not last; in those two days, I fell off a horse, broke Arun’s friend’s camera and drunkenly hit on his girlfriend. We had to return to college early and the guys were not pleased. Over the next week, everyone in college heard of my stupidities. Arun was given a terse report of my uncoolness, which he must have greatly enjoyed, because he told everyone from my home town in his class about it. Among those people were my classmates from school – a couple of good friends and a girl I had had a crush on since Class 7 (What? My loyalty is old fashioned) who we will now call “Crush”.

The two good friends called me to inform me that: 1. I was an idiot and 2. Arun was a creep for slandering my good name before Crush. I was hurt that Arun would seek to gain social currency against my humiliation and annoyed that out of all the people in his class, he would choose my soulmate (shut up) to snitch to. Seeing no other way to vent my frustration, I decided to hit below the belt. “Hah, he thinks he is one big person, but his CLAT Rank was 45 less than mine” I said snidely to my friends and sniggered. My friends dutifully sniggered with me and as per NLU-Club protocol, faithfully went back and informed Arun of my jibe. If Arun had begun plotting for my death yet, I didn’t know because I was also, by this time, preparing for a major moot court competition whose speaking rounds were coming up quickly.

Do you know what happens when two months of hard work culminate in a moot win? You go berserk, and so we did, at the after-party. There was an open bar – whose genius idea was that, by the way? – and very little light on the dance floor, and one way or another I got to talking to a girl from the semifinalist team about the finer points of my argument, and at some point, ably assisted by alcohol – whose great idea was the open bar, you said? – we were, how shall I put this, caught in a passionate embrace (thanks, Mills & Boon!) before an amused and attentive audience of my brethren, who I was joyfully oblivious to. The next morning I awoke, my head populated by a thousand tiny men wielding jackhammers and got busy getting on a train back in college. Stories of my indiscretions had reached college before me (of course) and I was fully expecting to be ragged about them. I wouldn’t have minded that; pretty sure I’d have quite liked it in fact. What actually happened was that I was hauled before the Disciplinary Committee for violation of my college’s Honour Code in my capacity as representative of my institution at a moot court competition. When I had finished my awkward attempt to defend quasi-sexual activity before the 300 year old Proctor and Vice Chancellor, I pieced together the back story with my friends’ help.

The girl who had starred in my Night of Passion was, impossibly, Arun’s ex-girlfriend. My team’s liaison officer at the hosting college was, impossibly, Arun’s best friend. The result of these impossibilities was that a letter was soon drafted with the girl’s consent, addressed to my University, alluding darkly to all sorts of misbehaviour on my part due to which my college’s reputation had been lowered in their eyes. The Proctor promptly issued me a notice to ‘show cause’ and kindly sent one copy home. My father, in turn, called me and reduced my cell phone to a smoking pile of scrap metal solely with his venom; worse, he refused to arrange for me a promised internship with Big Shot Litigator because of my bad behaviour. I had been counting on this internship as the first step to black-robed stardom and would now have to intern with a *shudder* corporate firm instead. Arun’s memory turned to soot in my mind.

This was war.

Fast forward one month, I walked into the intern room of the firm only to see – who else – the man himself, seated insolently at a desk. This should have been impossible since I? already knew he had failed two papers (next post: “The Law School Grapevine”) and should not have been able to get this internship, but – “The partner is my uncle.” – ah, of course. I approached him and said in my snidest tones, “I thought you were going to be a wildlife activist.” to which he said equally coldly, “I thought you were going to be a litigator.” Overwhelmed by each other’s wit, we fell to silence and spent the rest of the internship trying to get each other in trouble. The internship ended; I got excellent reviews and a callback, and Arun got shortchanged because his tracking Associate was a good friend of mine. I celebrated by going back to my PG and attempting to share my smug joy with my only roommate; I was rebuffed (he was Arun’s ex’s current boyfriend’s best friend and uh, yeah, he’d heard about me, no, he didn’t want a cigarette, thanks, you creep.)

Arun retaliated by returning to college and promptly getting into a relationship with Crush.

I found out when my best friend (studying at an NLU neither Arun nor I go to) called me and said dude, do you know Crush is now going out with Arun. How do you know! I said, clutching my chest. I know because my Rakhi sister’s own brother is Crush’s Rakhi brother and she tells him everything, said my friend. No escaping it, then, I thought glumly, for if it came from the Rakhi brother of the sister of the Rakhi brother of Crush, it must be an indisputable fact indeed. I sighed and proceeded with the rest of my life, although it were but sordid and joyless in the aftermath of my heartbreak. Well done, Arun, I thought gamely, in my mind, well played.

A few months later Arun and I faced off at the same corporate firm again. One short, bloody battle later I got the job and he didn’t. We went our separate ways and I forgot about him until a year later when I saw him across the negotiating table from my team, representing another firm on a deal. When we were introduced, he simply said, “Oh we’ve been introduced before” and ostentatiously refused to offer me his card. If not for this, there would have been no evidence of our strange history that spanned three law schools and five years. An epic story. Like Veer-Zara, but without Priety Zinta.

The star of this long and torturous story, however, is neither him nor me; it is the tiny, terrible club we belong to by virtue of studying in an older NLU. Arun and I would have continued in blithe ignorance of each others’ idiocies if his classmate had not been my senior, my crush had not been his classmate, his classmates had not been my classmates, my indiscretion had not been his ex-girlfriend, her friend and my liaison officer not been his best friend, his uncle not been a partner at the firm, my friend not been his tracking associate and my best friend not been his girlfriend’s Rakhi brother’s sister’s Rakhi brother. The whole thing reeks of impossibility to outsiders – indeed, I would have laughed at the preposterousness of it but a few short years back – but today, even though I know that in theory, a tally of parallel batches of NLU students would add up to a few hundred people, I have come to suspect that the entire NLU community is actually populated by only about ten people and that you will spend your entire life coming in contact with only these ten people. If you encounter anyone else, he/she will be either their husband, wife, boss, best friend, girlfriend or boyfriend.

And they will know everything about you.

This theory makes Facebook more interesting and gossip more salacious. In turns, it disgusts you, depresses you and frightens you. Eventually you develop a reluctant affection for it (Google “Stockholm Syndrome”), but you never stop looking over your shoulder to see if anyone’s watching you screw up, because you are a paranoid wreck.

…all of which is a long way of saying, “This is why I blog anonymously.” HELL yes.

Source: Bar & Bench

Honour Killing in India

An honor killing, or honour killing is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. Honor killings are directed mostly against women and girls, but have been extended to men.(wikipedia)
Stringent Indian laws on honor killings fail to curb the increasing trend. Interestingly, honor killings happen, irrespective of a person’s religion or social status. Every year over 5, 000 brides are killed for dowry in India. In 2007, approximately 655 cases were registered as honor killings. Imagine what the unofficial statistics must be really like. The worst affected region in India is Muzaffarnagar (U.P), with 25 percent of honor killing in official police reports.Indian laws do not treat honor killings in a specific or separte clause.

Indian Laws on Honor Killings: Community Mentality and Bifurcations

Typically, the police investigate honor killings but we still live in a society where we have learned to segregate people on the basis of social status, economic standards, religion and caste. The community mentality tends to be basic - an individual is identified by his caste and status rather than by anything else. Sometimes religious outfits and caste-based social units also encourage bifurcations based on caste and religion. The extent of orthodoxy in the Indian society is still a paradox because of the considerable chasm between the beliefs of those who prefer to live the life of the traditional society and those who embrace modern views with a vision to create a changed order.

Indian Laws on Honor Killing: A Severe Criminal Offence

Indian laws pertaining to honor killings are covered under the Indian Penal Code. Clearly, the IPC considers honor killings as a heinous crime. Unfortunately, honor killing is not classified as a separate crime in India. However, the government of India is set to add new section to the criminal law to define honor killing as a separate crime.

The proposal has already been approved by the Home Ministry and the Law Ministry. The government is likely to pass a bill in Parliament in the next budget session.

The punishment for honor killing carries the same punishment as that of murder. The punishment could range from life term to death sentence. 

Even,Muslim women have been the unfair victims of many brutal cultural practices. Honor killings are seen as the most gruesome of these. Islam has clear laws regulating sexual conduct and killing a girl in such a manner is against the fundamental principles of Islam.

Adverse possession

Adverse possession, is the possession of property by a person which is adverse to every other person having, or claiming to have a right of possession by virtue of a different title. The law of prescriptive rights is best summed up by the Brocard, ‘nec vi, nec clam, nec precario’, indicating the acquisition of a right by prescription must be in circumstances that exclude ‘force, stealth or licence’. A prescriptive right is essentially one that is created by uncontested assertion of the right for a given period of time. The principle is based in many ways on a sort of estoppel in rem. In India, the Limitation Act, 1963 is the legislation that governs the period within which suits are to be filed, etc.. The principle that pervades statutes of limitation at common law is that ‘limitation extinguishes the remedy, but not the right’ this means that the legal right itself is not defeated, but only the right to claim it in a court of law is extinguished. An exception to this general rule is the law of prescriptive rights, whereby the right itself is destroyed. Section 27 of the limitation Act, 1963 proclaims:

Section 27: Extinguishment of Right to Property- At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished.

This provision, when read with Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 establishes the law of adverse possession as it stands in India today. These two Articles both prescribe a period of twelve years within which the right to claim a particular property is extinguished, but the two differ in so far as the date on which such period of limitation begins to run.

Article 64 deals with cases where the dispute is over possession not necessarily based title, and in such cases the period of limitation runs from the time when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property.

Article 65 deals with cases where the dispute is over title as such also and in such cases the period of limitation runs from the time when the defendant becomes adverse to that of plaintiff.

Adverse possession of the land is the process by which title to another’s land is acquired without his permission. Adverse Possession is a possession which is opposed to once interest of the real owner of the property. It is possession in denial of the title of the true owner. According to Supreme Court of India, “The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owners and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true owner.” In layman language it is called “land grabbing.” Roots of this type of land grabbing lies in the national policy called “Land to the Tiller”. Although the aim of the policy was to abolish of intermediaries between the tiller and Government, some dishonest person used this policy as a license to grab the other person’s land.

Once adverse possession is proved by the person despite by wrong means, the true owner loses his right over the land/property. A person can prove adverse possession if the possession is:

• Actual - Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on the land, whether legal or not, is essential. A trespass may commence adverse possession, but there must be more than temporary use of the property by a trespasser for adverse possession to be established. Physical acts must show that the possessor is exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise. Ordinary use of the property—for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling timber—indicates actual possession. In some states acts that constitute actual possession are found in statute.

• Open and Notorious

An adverse possessor must possess land openly for the entire world to see, as a true owner would. Secretly occupying another’s lands does not give the occupant any legal rights. Clearing, fencing, cultivating, or improving the land demonstrates open and notorious possession, while actual residence on the land is the most open and notorious possession of all. The owner must have actual knowledge of the adverse use, or the claimant’s possession must be so notorious that it is generally known by the public or the people in the neighborhood. The notoriety of the possession puts the owner on notice that the land will be lost unless he or she seeks to recover possession of it within a certain time.

• Exclusive

Adverse possession will not ripen into title unless the claimant has had exclusive possession of the land. Exclusive possession means sole physical occupancy. The claimant must hold the property as his or her own, in opposition to the claims of all others. Physical improvement of the land, as by the construction of fences or houses, is evidence of exclusive possession.

• Hostile

Possession must be hostile, sometimes called adverse, if title is to mature from adverse possession. Hostile possession means that the claimant must occupy the land in opposition to the true owner’s rights. One type of hostile possession occurs when the claimant enters and remains on land under color of title. Color of title is the appearance of title as a result of a deed that seems by its language to give the claimant valid title but, in fact, does not because some aspect of it is defective. If a person, for example, was suffering from a legal disability at the time he or she executed a deed, the grantee-claimant does not receive actual title. But the grantee-claimant does have color of title because it would appear to anyone reading the deed that good title had been conveyed. If a claimant possesses the land in the manner required by law for the full statutory period, his or her color of title will become actual title as a result of adverse possession.

• Continuous & Uninterrupted – All elements of adverse possession must be met at all times through the statutory period in order for a claim to be successful. The statutory period, or “statute of limitations”, is the amount of time the claimant must hold the land in order to successfully claim “adverse possession”. (In India as per Limitation Act 1963, the statutory period is 12 years)

The Lawyer and the Environmental Crusader

My first reaction when approached by Bar & Bench to write a piece for their Working Title series was to wonder if they’d contacted the right person. Who, me? Why on earth would my professional trajectory be of interest to anyone, and especially to lawyers and law students? After all, I’m the person who introduces myself to people I meet as a “recovering lawyer,” and am usually at pains to impress upon others that I’m the last person they should turn to if they ever need legal advice.

I gathered that Bar & Bench was interested in people who’ve bridged the legal profession and other fields. But the idea of a bridge presupposes that one is rooted in two places at once, and I had to ask myself the question: “Am I still tied to the law in any way or have I made a total departure, making law school completely irrelevant to my career?” During the process of writing this article I answered that question for myself, and I’ll tell you the answer…but not just yet!

First, a quick snapshot of what I do.

I’m currently a Climate Solutions Analyst at The Climate Reality Project in Washington D.C. The organization (formerly known as The Alliance for Climate Protection) is a nonprofit that was founded and continues to be chaired by Nobel Laureate and Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

We are an advocacy group as well as an educational entity, building awareness about the threat of climate change, its impacts, and solutions. Often when people don’t act on an issue, it is simply because they don’t know enough or can’t readily grasp the information out there. Our objective is to make complex climate science more accessible to people, and break down cutting-edge clean energy technology developments to help people understand them better. We do cool stuff like this video to make greenhouse gas emissions more tangible for people or this one that drives home the local impacts of a warmer planet. We work—independently and in coalitions—to support key legislation or policy that could bring us one step closer to solving the climate crisis. We’ve done this in the United States, and we also show our support for beneficial climate law and policy around the world. Additionally, we also spur citizen leadership on climate change by empowering a global corps of individuals who are influential members of their own communities, and by equipping them with the tools to talk about climate science and policy. Mr. Gore and our staff train these volunteers to make compelling presentations and hold workshops in their own spheres of influence, educating their audiences about the defining issue of our time.

My role at The Climate Reality Project—as part of a small team of brilliant and creative colleagues— is to make sure that our messages are based on accurate, credible climate science and that we rely on the best-available data to communicate about clean energy solutions. My day-to-day responsibilities include keeping abreast of the latest studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals or cleantech portals, reviewing them, analyzing the implications, translating the information into user-friendly research briefs or blog posts, and getting the word out to our members, our online audience, our millions of supporters and a wide range of actors. In short, I absorb, distill and disseminate. (Hmm…I wonder where I honed those particular skills? Keep reading for answers!)

Prior to my joining The Climate Reality Project I worked at The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in New York City for three years. I started my tenure there as a research associate in the Institutional department, assisting NRDC’s President, Executive Director and senior management with research inputs on a broad range of topics, from environmental issues (food and agriculture policy, transportation policy, individual actions to reduce emissions etc.) to organizational matters (strategic planning, Board relations etc.). Within a few years my background as an Indian-trained lawyer and my understanding of India’s environmental, social and political context, coupled with my interest in climate and energy policy, propelled me towards a natural transition within NRDC towards international issues; I joined NRDC’s India Initiative as a policy analyst and—as part of a team—helped initiate a number of climate change mitigation and adaptation projects in India (such as scaling up energy efficiency adoption in buildings in Hyderabad, building public health capacity against the health impacts of climate change in Ahmedabad, strengthening US-India collaboration on clean energy etc.).

The kick-off point for my work in the climate and energy policy space was my Master’s degree from The School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University in New York. My two-year Master of International Affairs (MIA) program allowed me to focus on a subject-matter of my interest, Environmental Policy Studies. Studying at Columbia exposed me to an invaluable peer group of smart, driven, ambitious and inspiring classmates as well as to faculty with exceptional knowledge of the issues I was deeply invested in. While at Columbia I also gained insight into real-world application of climate and energy policy during my internship at The Clinton Foundation’s Climate Initiative. I owe a great deal to those two years at grad school.

Why did I choose to pursue a Master’s in Public Policy and International Relations instead of a Master’s in Law (LLM)? Because I’d realized by then that what makes me tick is advocacy for broad policy shifts and transformative macro-level changes, as opposed to piecemeal victories. I’d always known, of course, that I wanted to effect change in the environmental sector; since I was a child I’ve cared immensely about the state of our planet and what we’re doing to it. I knew I could only be really, truly happy in life if I work on issues I’m passionate about, in a meaningful way that allows me to feel like I am contributing to solutions instead of perpetuating the problems. I knew I wanted to help move the needle towards a better, safer future.

But before I was ready to begin that journey, and before I could start applying myself to finding solutions to environmental challenges, I felt it was essential for me to supplement my knowledge of the law with a more complete understanding of the earth and its component-systems. I wanted a holistic education that would be the basis of sound, informed judgments in my future career, be it as a campaigner, a writer, as a member of a non-profit organization, as part of a lobbying group, or as part of government. I wanted to understand why some legal approaches to environmental problems work while others don’t. I was also eager to gain insights into the fundamentals of hydrology, geochemistry and biophysics, as it was important to me that I be able to comprehend scientific data and translate that understanding into an effective response. My time at Columbia not only gave me all this, it surpassed my expectations by also affording me exposure to management theory, program-design, cost-benefit analysis, statistics, project-management, environmental economics and much more. In essence, my Master’s in a non-legal field to help me deepen and diversify my education by teaching me all these skills.

But I would be remiss in not acknowledging the real launching pad for my career – my years in law school at The National University of Juridical Sciences in India. After all, it is my grounding in law that was the foundation for my further studies in public policy. Even though I do not practice law, the skills law school taught me have been valuable assets at grad school and at work. Wading through hundreds of paragraphs of judgments in AIRs to find the main takeaway (ratio) of the decision; poring over thousands of pages of WTO disputes to identify the most important issues involved; familiarizing myself with arguments both for and against a topic and determining the merits and demerits of each type of argument; writing five papers every semester (over 50 in five years!), from outlines through first drafts, second drafts and final papers – a process that got quicker every time and led to steadily better quality writing and analysis; moot courts that taught me how to argue for a position, even if I did not personally agree every time; learning how to compellingly lay out my arguments in a brief and structure my case in a logical, systematic way; improving my public speaking skills through moot courts and gaining confidence in my ability to address rooms full of strangers, or worse, adversaries. The list is long, but if I had to summarize it, I think it wouldn’t be much different than absorb, distill, disseminate!

In addition to developing, honing and deepening professional skills, law school also gave me valuable real-world exposure. Over five years, I did a diverse set of internships that helped in contextual learning. My work with Tarun Bharat Sangh in the desert of Rajasthan and with ATREE in tribal areas of India’s North-Eastern states afforded me unique insight into grassroots environmental initiatives, including community-based natural resource conservation, decentralized accountability systems in environmental management as well as traditional water harvesting and forestry practices. I also gained experience in environmental policy-analysis and formulation as a result of my assignments relating to India’s draft environmental policy of 2004 and identification of the reforms needed in forestry law and policy. My internships at the World Bank and the Department of Indo-European Studies, MDI gave me opportunity for extensive research into food quality issues, national and global food safety standards as well as WTO law and trade-environment conflicts – an area that continues to fascinate me today. While at law school I was also fortunate to gain international experience in environmental advocacy through my internships at Greenpeace, Australia and Earthjustice, USA. At Greenpeace I obtained an insider’s perspective to civil society strategies and campaign management, while at Earthjustice I worked to assist the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in its consideration of an international human right to a healthy environment. Looking back, many of these internships wouldn’t have materialized had it not been for these organizations’ interest in having a law student on board. So law school gave me an edge there too.

Last but not the least, law school shaped the person I’ve turned out to be by bringing me in contact—directly and indirectly— with some exemplary teachers. I received guidance and encouragement from some of the best environmental theorists and practitioners: Dr. Meena Panicker, Dr. B. S. Chimni, Eileen Kaufman, Louise Harmon, Professor Ved Nanda, Professor Martin Wagner, and­—most significant of all­—Professor Armin Rosencranz. Each of them has left an indelible mark on me and helped me move closer to my goals.

Today, even though my bookshelves are not lined with legal textbooks and case laws, and even though I don’t wear robes when I go out to make my case on critical issues, my training as a lawyer remains an intrinsic part of me. If I pause and think about it, I use the skills I gained or strengthened in law school, on a daily basis. Whether I’m reading a scientific study and trying to hone in on the most relevant findings or whether I’m writing a research brief and trying to organize my thoughts in a coherent, systematic manner, I’m drawing on what I did in law school for five straight years. Sure, I like to joke that there’s nothing “lawyerly” about me anymore, but I think my friends will disagree and remind me of my argumentative streak, my verbosity, my urge to always look at both sides of an issue and understand both perspectives, my fierce sense of fairness and my outrage at injustice. So, far from being irrelevant to my career trajectory, deeper reflection tells me that law school was pivotal to my work in public policy and environmental advocacy, and to who I’ve become as a person. (For better or for worse!)

As I wrap this up, I’m also aware that I’m sitting in Washington DC, a city overrun by people who trained as lawyers and even spent a part of their careers as lawyers but who’ve branched out into countless other pursuits. It’s hard to go an hour here without meeting someone else who started out in the legal profession and has used the law as a platform to move on to things he or she is passionate about: conflict resolution, journalism, human rights activism, public health, campaign finance reform….and yes, environmental advocacy. The list is endless. And that’s a reminder to me that law school is much the same: limitless. It can open up as many doors as you want, and can accelerate your success on any chosen path. Just follow your heart, do what’s important and meaningful to you, and don’t be afraid of separating from the herd. Good luck!

By:-  Shravya Reddy

Source: Bar & Bench

Law relating to Downloading of Obscene Material by Customer in Internet Cafe

If a customer who visits an Internet Cafe downloads any obscene material for personal viewing on the terminal that is assigned to him and the Internet Cafe owner is aware of this, it is a serious offence that the owner can be held liable for under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code(I.P.C.), read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

For an offence under Section 292 of I.P.C., it is usually imprisonment (simple or rigorous) on the first conviction for a term that may comprise up to two years, and with fine which may extend up to two thousand rupees. If this is a second conviction or more than that, it will be most likely imprisonment (simple or rigorous) for about five years, with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

For an offence under Section 67 of the I.T. Acton first conviction, the punishment is imprisonment (simple or rigorous) for up to five years, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. In second or other convictions, the imprisonment (simple or rigorous) can extend up to ten years, also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.

It is advisable for Internet Cafe owners to set up some effective hardware or software that prevents customers from accessing or viewing any obscene websites. Further, display clear disclaimers that inform customers about this policy. Customers should be made aware that obscenity is an offence which is taken seriously and is punishable with imprisonment under Indian cyber laws. If customers persist in viewing and downloading obscene materials despite adequate warning, they will be personally responsible and the cafe owner will not be considered liable.

Source: Legal point.

What is Employment Discrimination law(U.S)?

 This subset of Employment Law, refers to the laws that protect employees from discrimination on the basis of age, race or nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion or various other reasons. Federal and state statutes make up most of the employment discrimination laws. There are many practices that have been identified as discriminatory, which are legally prohibited. They include demonstrating discriminatory bias in the following work-related activities: promoting, transferring, recalling and laying off workers; compensating, assigning and classifying employees; dispensing fringe benefits; hiring and/or firing employees; recruiting workers and posting job openings; testing; training and apprenticeship programs; retaliation; pay, retirement and disability leave; and various types of harassment. 

There are several federal employment discrimination laws, some very well-know and some less so: 

- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on color, gender, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, and sex, including sexual harassment; 

- The Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides for monetary damages in cases where there is intentional employment discrimination;

- The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) helps protects employees who are 40 years of age or older;

- The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act disallows discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities;

- The Equal Pay Act addresses unequal pay related to gender;

- The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees time off for specific health conditions, without putting the worker’s employment in jeopardy; and 

- Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) makes it illegal to discriminate based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee

Most of these Acts are interpreted and enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which also supervises and coordinates all federal equal employment opportunity practices, policies and regulations. 

These laws and policies set out specific procedures necessary to pursue any claims for employment discrimination. One must first file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, or if available, with his local Fair Employment Practices Agency (FEPA), and before pursuing a civil lawsuit, the employee must receive a “right to sue” notice from the agency. Additionally, these procedures set out specific time limits for filing.


Source: HG.org legal dictionaries