Topics of Law T...

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations was challenged on the grounds that police visits to a suspect’s home (domiciliary visits), monitoring of a suspect’s movements, and home picketing were a violation of the fundamental right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Govind was a convicted criminal who had been marked for surveillance simply because of his criminal record.
The Supreme Court ruled in that case that mere conviction in a criminal case does not warrant any form of surveillance where there is nothing else that gravely imperils public safety. Domiciliary visits and picketing by the police can only take place where there is a clear case of danger to security. These should not be conducted in cases of routine follow-up after conviction or at the whim of a police officer.

The proposal to further simplify the regulatory regime for startups is most welcome. In particular, the promise to create a tax compliance regime that would permit a start-up to not spend more than an hour a month on tax matters sounds most appealing. India has a considerably large startup ecosystem and ensuring that the regulatory regime is conducive to innovation and setting up new businesses is essential for economic growth. The government has already put in place self-certification and other measures to ease compliance. The effort to reduce the time taken to comply with regulatory requirements without diluting the protections that the regulations provide is critical for sustainable economic growth. 
A simpler regime must not become synonymous with a lax regime, nor with dilution of labour protection, security and safety, and environmental norms. It must ensure that businesses have access to space to operate — this requires reasonable rents and stability of tenancy. 
This will mean creating functional markets in land and rental spaces. Access to stable power supply calls for ending the ills of the power sector. Easier starting up calls for systemic reform, for everyone. 

Consists of legal proposition(s) principle(s) (herein after referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principle may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to testy your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.
Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.

The proposal to further simplify the regulatory regime for startups is most welcome. In particular, the promise to create a tax compliance regime that would permit a start-up to not spend more than an hour a month on tax matters sounds most appealing. India has a considerably large startup ecosystem and ensuring that the regulatory regime is conducive to innovation and setting up new businesses is essential for economic growth. The government has already put in place self-certification and other measures to ease compliance. The effort to reduce the time taken to comply with regulatory requirements without diluting the protections that the regulations provide is critical for sustainable economic growth. 
A simpler regime must not become synonymous with a lax regime, nor with dilution of labour protection, security and safety, and environmental norms. It must ensure that businesses have access to space to operate — this requires reasonable rents and stability of tenancy. 
This will mean creating functional markets in land and rental spaces. Access to stable power supply calls for ending the ills of the power sector. Easier starting up calls for systemic reform, for everyone. 

The Supreme Court of India with its activism has opened new vistas of jurisprudence and new principles of administrative law have been enunciated. One can say that for the first 25 years from 1950 to 1975, the Courts in India have been looking to the courts from across the frontiers for principles of administrative law. But the post-Maneka era has totally transformed the scenario and the Indian Supreme Court is now looked with awe and admiration for evolving new principles of administrative law. Its contribution in the areas of prison jurisprudence, the emancipation of bonded labour, in spreading human rights culture, in crusading the cause of environmental protection and in providing the right to live with dignity for marginalised has been seminal.
Judicial activism has been necessitated because of executive non-action.  Another former Chief Justice J.S. Verma observed that judicial activism is like a sharp-edged tool which has to be used as a scalpel by a skilful surgeon, to cure the malady and not as a Rampuri knife which can kill. The function of the legislature is to make law, the function of the executive is to enforce the law and the function of the judiciary is to apply the law where it is clear and to make the law clear where it is not. In the instant case of the migrant workers, as the executive has initiated the process in the last week of March, the Supreme Court of India with due deference to the elected representatives has been judiciously observing the action of the executive from 31st March to 26th May before taking the suo motu cognizance of the plight of migrant workers. Since the establishment of the Supreme Court of India, it has been working consciously and tirelessly to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of the citizens. During these hard times of the global pandemic, the most affected section of the society is the migrant labourers. While taking the responsibility on its shoulders, the Supreme Court of India on May 26, 2020, suo moto took cognizance of the problems and miseries faced by the migrant labourers; In Ref Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers.
After hearing all concerned, the Court issued an interim direction that no fare either by train or by bus shall be charged from any migrant workers by the States and the Railways while transporting them to their home destination. The migrant workers who are stranded at different places in the country shall be provided food free of cost by the concerned States/Union Territories at different places which shall be publicized and notified to them during the period they are waiting for their turn to board the train or bus. The steps taken by the Apex court of the country seem to be in right direction which deserve appreciation. This is indeed an example of JUDICIOUS ACTIVISM.
Lastly the argument that an immediate lockdown was unconstitutional seems untenable principally because everybody wanted to lockdown without delay to pre-empt the spread of the disease. Today investigations in Britain are going on as to why lockdowns were delayed and the consensus is that delayed lockdown resulted in large scale loss of life. The court and eminent lawyers are not equipped to come to this decision. Some senior members of the bar have disregarded some very essential points during the entire debate. Firstly, there is scientific consensus that lockdowns are crucial in reducing the pandemic. Second, there was clear scientific advice in India to pre-empt large scale deaths, it would be preferable that India went into a lockdown mode. This was discussed in-extenso in the media. In fact, at that point there was a chorus of demands from members of the opposition demanding that India immediately go under lockdown. It is, therefore, a little bit strange that this sort of idea comes in hindsight whereby, they they start protesting that why lockdown has instituted in India in the first place. 
To argue that lockdown took away peoples liberty holds little water as the Governments primary focus is and has been on protecting lives; liberty comes after that. It would have also been better had the eminent lawyers and activists looked at High Court orders before writing letters to the Supreme Court, knowing fully well that the High Courts are not subordinate. Apparently, some people are more interested in demolition, than giving constructive ideas and preserving the sanctity of institutions. In a democracy, our effort should be towards strengthening the functioning of the institutions by criticizing them and not by destroying them.