NyayaSarthak

We at NyayaSarthak - Pro Bono Legal Initiative are thrilled to announce our Summer Internship Program starting this March 2025! Must Connect for More Information - https://lnkd.in/g92AmbTS This unique virtual internship is designed to provide invaluable experience in Drafting and Research work, allowing law students across the country to enhance their skills from the comfort of their homes. Here's what you can look forward to: - Virtual Mode: Participate from anywhere in the country. - Expert Sessions: Learn directly from seasoned legal professionals. - Comprehensive Support: We are committed to addressing every query you have as you embark on your legal career. - Empowering First-Generation Lawyers: We aim to boost legal aid for the underprivileged while supporting first-generation law students in their academic journey. - Unpaid Our mission is to foster legal excellence and provide robust support to law students, ensuring they are well-prepared to navigate their careers. Link - https://lnkd.in/gu4bpc_x 🔗 If you are Interested in the opportunity for the month of March 2025 then COMMENT Interested in comments box! Tag your friends so that they can get the opportunity too! Join us in making a difference and taking your first step towards a successful legal career! #NyayaSarthak #LegalAid #ProBono #LawInternship #LegalResearch #LegalDrafting #VirtualInternship #LawStudents #FirstGenerationLawyers #LegalEducation #KapilSibal #NarendraModi

- The Paradox of Bail: Justice or Privilege? In India, bail is a right, not a favor. Yet, our legal system often makes it feel like a privilege reserved for the influential. Consider this: A petty thief accused of stealing ₹500 can languish in jail for months due to lack of legal aid, while a high-profile offender accused of embezzling crores secures bail within days. Is this justice, or a system tilted in favor of those with resources? The Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” Yet, judicial delays, overburdened courts, and financial barriers often turn this principle into a distant dream for the underprivileged. So, where do we draw the line? Should bail be more accessible, or should we redefine its conditions to prevent misuse? Let’s discuss. Do you think our bail system needs urgent reform? Share your views. #LegalInsights #JusticeForAll #BailReforms

- The Right to be Forgotten vs. The Right to Know: A Legal Dilemma In the digital age, information is power—but should that power be absolute? The Right to Be Forgotten is an evolving legal doctrine that allows individuals to request the removal of personal data from search engines. But where do we draw the line between privacy and the public’s right to access information? Imagine a scenario where someone convicted of a crime decades ago has since reformed. Should their past still define them online? Conversely, should society have the right to know about past offenses, especially when public interest is at stake? Courts worldwide are struggling to balance these competing interests. The EU’s GDPR recognizes the Right to Be Forgotten, while in India, courts have acknowledged it in some cases but have yet to codify it into law. In contrast, the U.S. prioritizes free speech and public access over privacy in most cases. So, what’s the right approach? Should India enact a clear law on this? Where should we draw the boundaries between an individual’s right to move on and society’s right to remember? I’d love to hear your thoughts—let’s discuss! #Law #Privacy #LegalDebate #RightToBeForgotten

- Supreme Court Grants Relief to Ranveer Allahbadia but Raises Concerns Over Content Standards In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has stayed the arrest of Ranveer Allahbadia and clubbed multiple FIRs against him, providing temporary relief. However, the bench did not hold back in questioning the nature of his remarks during the show. The Court not only objected to his comments but also barred him from hosting any shows until further orders. A crucial point raised during the hearing was the distinction between freedom of expression and vulgarity. The Court pressed his counsel on this fine line, emphasizing the responsibility that comes with a platform of influence. This case once again brings to the forefront the debate on content regulation, artistic freedom, and societal standards in the digital age. Where should the line be drawn? Is the law keeping pace with the evolving nature of media? What are your thoughts on this ruling? Let’s discuss. #SupremeCourt #Ranveer #ChandraChud #Violation #FIRs

- The Curious Case of the Vanishing Contract (F) In a small town in Maharashtra, a young entrepreneur, Rajat, struck a deal with a supplier for premium-grade organic honey. They agreed on price, quantity, and delivery dates over emails and WhatsApp messages. Payments were made in advance, and Rajat eagerly awaited his consignment. Weeks passed, but the honey never arrived. The supplier, Ajay, claimed there was "no formal written contract," making Rajat’s claims baseless. Furious, Rajat approached the court, armed with his digital communications. The Bombay High Court ruled in Rajat's favor, emphasizing that "a contract does not need to be on paper; electronic agreements, emails, and WhatsApp chats can be valid proof under the Indian Contract Act, 1872." This case reinforced the evolving legal recognition of digital contracts in India. Rajat’s persistence paid off, and Ajay had to refund the money with interest. - Moral? Always document your agreements—even digitally! #LegalAwareness #ContractLaw #DigitalEvidence #NyayaSarthak

- Justice for the Nepali Student at KIIT University – A Legal Perspective A deeply disturbing incident has come to light from KIIT University, Odisha, where a Nepali student allegedly died by suicide on campus. Reports suggest that an audio note of her ex-boyfriend abusing her was circulating, and she was in severe distress. Allegedly, a formal complaint was made to the university authorities, but no action was taken. What followed only aggravated the situation—instead of ensuring justice and addressing the students' grievances, Nepali students who protested were reportedly asked to vacate their hostels immediately. This move triggered a diplomatic response, with Nepal’s Prime Minister intervening and calling for action. #LegalAspectsatPlay: 1. Negligence & Institutional Responsibility: - If a complaint was indeed lodged but not acted upon, the university may be liable for negligence under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life & Personal Liberty) and the UGC regulations on student safety. - The university’s failure to act may also fall under vicarious liability if they neglected their duty of care towards students. 2. Abetment to Suicide (Section 108 BNS): - If evidence proves that mental harassment or threats contributed to her taking this extreme step, the ex-boyfriend and even any other responsible authorities can be prosecuted. 3. Protection of Foreign Nationals: - Foreign students in India are entitled to equal protection under law. If they were forced to leave their hostels as a reactionary move, it could be seen as discriminatory and a violation of their rights. 4. Violation of Women’s Rights & Anti-Harassment Laws: - If abuse or harassment was involved, it could invoke provisions under Section 74 BNS (Assault or Criminal Force on a Woman) and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, given that universities are considered workplaces for students. #CallforJustice This is not just a tragic loss of a young life but a serious legal and human rights issue. The authorities must ensure: ✔ A fair & independent inquiry into the incident ✔ Accountability for institutional negligence, if proven ✔ Action against anyone responsible for harassment & abetment ✔ Protection for foreign students studying in India This incident should be a wake-up call for educational institutions to take student complaints seriously, prioritize mental health, and act proactively to prevent such tragedies. May the soul of the deceased rest in peace, and may the truth prevail. #JusticeForNepaliStudent #StudentRights #LegalPerspective #HumanRights #KIIT #LawAndJustice

- "The Fine Line Between Free Speech and Defamation: Are We Crossing It?" In the age of social media, where opinions spread faster than facts, the boundary between free speech and defamation is becoming increasingly blurred. A recent legal battle (think Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard or the Rahul Gandhi defamation case) highlights a critical question: - When does an opinion become defamatory? Legally speaking, freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute. The moment a statement harms someone's reputation without justification, it enters the realm of defamation—be it written (libel) or spoken (slander). • But here’s the dilemma: - If someone voices genuine concerns about a public figure or company, should they fear legal repercussions? - Conversely, should individuals have unchecked freedom to make damaging, baseless allegations? The legal tests for defamation often require proving actual malice (for public figures) or damage to reputation (for private individuals). But in the digital era, where cancel culture and viral misinformation reign, proving and preventing defamation has become more complex than ever. What do you think? Should defamation laws be stricter to curb misinformation, or should we prioritize free speech at all costs? Let's discuss in the comments! #LegalInsights #FreeSpeech #DefamationLaw #SocialMedia

• When Logic Takes a Backseat to Conspiracy Theories While scrolling through LinkedIn, I came across a post by an MBA graduate who was trying to see a conspiracy in Ranveer Allahbadia hiring the son of former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud as his lawyer. The argument? That since the former CJI and the current CJI were once colleagues, it might influence the court’s decision in favor of his client. What a bizarre and cheap way to think. First, hiring a competent lawyer is every individual’s right. Second, this isn’t even a personal case of the lawyer himself—he’s simply representing his client like any other professional. Lastly, clubbing multiple FIRs is a well-established legal procedure that has nothing to do with who the lawyer’s father is. Just because something “looks” like a pattern doesn’t mean it is one. Spreading baseless theories to make posts “crispy” for engagement serves no real purpose to society. If we truly care about justice and fairness, we should discuss legal principles and due process rather than indulging in wild speculations. Let’s focus on real issues rather than imaginary conspiracies. Attaching the shared post! #LegalEthics #Judiciary #Justice #CriticalThinking #LawAndSociety

- The Case of the Missing Gold – A Landmark Judgment on Adverse Possession (F) In 1982, an old woman, Kamla Devi, left her ancestral home in Varanasi, believing she would return soon. Decades passed, and the house remained abandoned—except for Ramesh, a poor laborer who quietly moved in, cleaned the place, and lived there for 20 years, assuming it was unclaimed. One day, Kamla Devi’s heirs discovered the house and filed a suit for eviction. Ramesh, however, claimed ownership through adverse possession—a legal doctrine stating that if someone possesses property continuously, openly, and without challenge for 12 years, they can claim ownership. The Supreme Court ruled in K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2024) that merely staying in a property is insufficient—one must demonstrate hostile intent. Since Ramesh had believed the house was abandoned rather than claiming it as his own against the owner's will, his claim failed. This case clarified a crucial principle: Adverse possession is not just about time; it’s about intent. A lesson in how law protects rightful ownership while also recognizing long-term possession in exceptional cases.

• Is the Indian Judiciary Truly Accessible to All? Justice is meant to be blind, but is it also out of reach for many? In a country where legal proceedings can stretch for decades, where high litigation costs deter the marginalized, and where complex legal jargon alienates the common citizen, can we truly claim to have an accessible justice system? While Article 39A of the Indian Constitution mandates equal justice and free legal aid, the ground reality often tells a different story. Public defenders are overburdened, legal aid awareness remains low, and procedural complexities create barriers rather than bridges. As legal professionals, we must ask ourselves: ✅ How can we ensure that justice is not just a privilege of the wealthy but a right for all? ✅ Can technology bridge the gap through virtual courts, AI-powered legal assistance, or simplified legal processes? ✅ What role do pro bono initiatives play in making the system more inclusive? I’d love to hear your thoughts—what reforms do you think are needed to make our judiciary truly accessible? #AccessToJustice #LegalReform #NyayaForAll #LawAndSociety