The Civil trial courts have powers to reopen the case which was dismissed for default, if the petitioner shows reasonable cause to the court. The Civil procedure code order 9 discusses with the default provisions. The civil court has inherent jurisdiction through which it can see beyond the scope of the Act to do justice to the needy. The same rules are not available to the Criminal courts. If the complainant did not appear before the court at the time of call work and in such case, the court can dismiss the complaint. The funniest part is the criminal court can take the conginzance of the offence, it can do trial and pass judgment but the court did not have the powers to reopen the case on dismissal for default. Therefore, the law framers has to look into this aspect and do the necessary amendments to the law

As per section 125 of the criminal procedure code, the wife can file a case for maintenance against her husband either at the place of last residence or at the wife resides but the same privilege is not accorded to the deserted parents. Therefore, we demand to amend the law in such a way to enable the deserted and old parents to file a maintenance case against their children at their place of residence

The son of former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy is going to attend the CBI investigation on November 4th in Illegal miinnig case. the CBI lodged a complaint against Jagan Reddy who in criminal conspiracy with his father YS Raja Sekhar Reddy cheated the government exchequer by making illegal gains to some companies people and officials. This is first time that the Jagan Reddy is attending the CBI enquiry. CBI may question the links with Gali Janardhan Reddy and with Obulapuram Mining Company. Jagan Reddy is already facing two CBI enquiries in related to EMAR case and disproportionate assets case

The market potential of the legal and allied services in India is about 4 billion dollars per annum but the legal profession is still like a raw material, may be because of the stringent laws and ideologies mainly adopted from British Raj. We have to do a hell lot of exercise, to modernize the profession and if we allow the foreign law firms to encroach upon our soil without any work outs, no doubt, those firms will rule our country.
The Bar Council of India is the main regulatory body in India supported by State Bar Councils which reviews the professional conduct of the Advocates in litigious and also non-litigious matters with outside world. Every lawyer gets enrolled with any of the State Bar Councils to take up the profession and follows the dictum of the Council.
From the last several years, the foreign law firms eyeing the Indian market to open their operations and even the Reserve Bank of India have no objection for pumping foreign money into such firms. As on today, the UK and US law firms want to take up non-litigious matters such as solicitation and liaison work, for which the claim that enrolment in a Bar Council is not necessary. The Bombay High Court in a recent judgment confirmed that the enrolment is compulsory even for practicing non litigious matters. While the matter stood thus, our government is already in talks with British law minister to set guidelines for allowing the UK based law firms to operate in India. The government led by law minister of India is leading the dialogue with all the effecting parties including the Bar Council Chairman.
One thing is clear. The people of India are not happy with the way our advocates practice. This will be a definite advantage to the foreign law firms, which are more efficient, transparent and prompt in service. There is a fear that if we allow these firms to work in India, the fate of our lawyers will be same to that of our accounting professionals after the entry of Pricewaterhousecoopers, Delloitte and Ernst and Young etc into the Indian market. The legal profession is still an unorganized sector in India. The competition and the new breathe can bring reforms into the profession to match with the rapidly changing world. We welcome the competition and at the same time, we appeal to the fellow advocates that we should be precise in our approach to litigation in coming days to stay in the competition.

An extract from one of the articles published in New York Times paper during the emergency period in India

If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hall marks of its first 18 years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court. It was Justice Khanna who spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week in dissenting from the Courts decision upholding the right of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government to imprison political opponents at will and without court hearings. The submission of an independent judiciary to absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society and the Indian Supreme Court decision appears close to utter surrender.

India got its democracy back from the clutches of Emergency after 21 months of struggle and sufferance. More than 1, 40, 000 people were arrested during Emergency and they were released later. Justice Hans Raj Khanna was died in 2008. No one erected any monument to the Justice. His fight against Emergency might have cost him the chair of Chief Justice, but gained a place in the history of India as a true hero.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shiv Kanth Sukla case during the emergency period is one of the horrible interpretations to the basic principles of the Constitution in the history of India as it hit at the very objectives of the democracy. This case is popular as Habeas corpus case. When this case was referred to the constitutional bench comprising of Justices AN Ray, YV Chandrachud, MH Beg, PN Bhagawathi and HR Khanna, all the judges except Justice HR Khanna have accepted the then Indira Gandhi government's argument that the citizens of India cannot claim their fundamental rights to life and liberty in President's rule. During that period, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi arrested almost all the opposition leaders at her will and without court hearings. Justice HR Khanna opposed to the above view of the constitutional bench and argued that the constitution did not permit the fundamental right to life and liberty to be subject to any government orders. His views were sidelined with 4:1 majority and all the remaining judges nodded their heads in favour of the then absolutist government. Now, after 35 years from passing of the above Judgment, Justice PN Bhagawathi is trying to tender apologies for what he did during the emergency. When the entire nation was waiting for the apex court reaction to rescue democracy, the then high profile intellectual of our country, Justice PN Bhagawathi, who later became the Chief Justice of India, opined that the government at its whims and fancies can curtail the right to life and liberty of the citizens to achieve political goals.

The ruling of Kesavananda Bharathi's case was further strengthened by Minerva Mill's case by overruling the above mentioned Habeas corpus case. The Honourable Supreme Court opined that though by Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament is given the power to amend the Constitution, that power cannot be exercised so as to damage the basic features of the Constitution or so as to destroy its basic structure.

.......................................................Editorial Board, Lawjawab

On this auspicious day of Vijayadasami, we are very proud to announce the launch of the website lawjawab.com, the first ever news magazine on Indian law. We publish news items, articles, synopsis to the latest judgments, editorials and public opinion on policy research etc with daily updates.
We believe our Constitution is our heritage bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, no less are we, the people of India, the trustees and custodians of the values which pulsate within its provisions. Constitution is a way of life and has to be lived up to. Therefore, we have no hesitation to adopt the preamble of our Constitution as our ideology and we are strictly committed to it.
We, the people of India, are law abiding citizen by nature. Even our fight to Independence established our respect towards ethics and values. With our experience in past 60 years of Independence, we come to a conclusion that the people of our country are more democratic than the corrupted politicians, dictatorial executives and absolutist judiciary. Even the media houses have their own agendas and are hijacking the public sentiments to their own benefits. We, therefore, promise that we will not spare anybody- the police, politicians, judges, officers or ministers, media or press, if they are biased. We believe that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
We present the news and views in forthright manner without any fear and favour. We appreciate, suggest and criticize any legal issue in analytical way. Our articles will not consume much time of our readers. The language and presentation style will be straight, simple and aimed at a layman of normal prudence in understanding the outlines of the issue.
We certainly criticize governments and we won't spare even the public, if they cross their self-governing limits. At the same time, we offer full support to the government or the people in crisis, if they adhere to the egalitarian values. We believe that except democracy, there in on other political solution to the long pending issues of our country.
We know that reviewing any judgment is almost playing with fire. We believe that the power of the judiciary rest in public confidence but not in the rules of contempt. Fair criticism is the need of hour even for the law disbursing system. We are accepting this responsibility with due respect to the judiciary.
We hope, in the coming days, we become the main platform of making public opinion and presenting ideas in the field of law and policy research. We want to be lawjawab in letter and spirit and we need your support and contribution in sharing your expertise and experience. We thank all of you in anticipation.
Date: 6-10-2011 Editorial Board, Lawjawab