Papers by Siddhartha Mitra
The International Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 2019
The Indian Penal Code 1860 is a monumental contribution to the Indian legal system by the British... more The Indian Penal Code 1860 is a monumental contribution to the Indian legal system by the British rulers. The first draft of the Indian penal code 1860 was prepared by Lord Thomas Babbington Macaulay, in order to apply the collective principles of civil procedure code as well as Criminal Procedure Code in British India. Chapter XVI Section “377” of the above mentioned statute deals with unnatural offences which states as follows:
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine” .
Unnatural offences cover all homosexuality offences as well as the non-consensual penile non vaginal sex and penile vaginal sex involving minors. Questions have been raised constantly on the constitutionality of the above mentioned section. The most recent one was put up in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India . Not only India, but various other countries like USA & UK also have such laws regarding unnatural offences in the name of sodomy laws. However, in the late 1960s some states in the United States of America began to repeal their sodomy laws and finally, in 2003 in the landmark case of Lawrence vs Texas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Having discussed the state of affairs in the United States, let’s take a look at the law in the United Kingdom. Sodomy laws in the UK were introduced during the reign of Henry VIII . Prior to this law coming into force, such offences have been dealt by the ecclesiastical courts. The statute so introduced was named as the Buggery Act of 1533. The word buggery was defined as “unnatural sexual offences against the will of the God and man” which was later changed by the court to only anal penetration and bestiality. The act remained in force until it was repealed and replaced by the Offences against Persons Act of 1828. It is in comparison to these laws in foreign nations that the judgement in Naz foundation case will be analysed below.
Good Governance and Human Rights in Developing Nations, 2017
Access of justice is one of the basic principles and part of the fundamental right of the Indian ... more Access of justice is one of the basic principles and part of the fundamental right of the Indian Constitution. As it can be fairly estimated, for a country like India with such a large number of people below poverty line and marginalized who are still waiting to realize their basic rights, it is necessary to provide free legal aid services to these people to prevent them from exploitation and to realise the constitutional obligation. As on May 2016 as per World Bank data, 22 percent of India's population which equalled to 270 million people lived below the poverty line due to various socio-economic reasons. These individuals are not having proper access to basic facilities and services such as basic human needs. Insensitivities on the part law enforcement agencies further victimises these people. It is moreover perceived that denial of proper justice due to lack of free legal aid and related services to such a large number of people is simply an unacceptable reality which must be addressed in an urgent basis.
In light of this existing scenario, the current study seeks to examine the challenges involved in getting access to justice to the marginalised and the poor in India. Moreover it focuses on to study the Constitutional guarantees which are available to realise the right to access to justice to the poor and marginalised in India. Finally the study highlights some of the lacunas which are involved in effective implementation of constitutional guarantees in order to suggest find some solutions and recommendation to address the issues at hand.
Uploads
Papers by Siddhartha Mitra
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine” .
Unnatural offences cover all homosexuality offences as well as the non-consensual penile non vaginal sex and penile vaginal sex involving minors. Questions have been raised constantly on the constitutionality of the above mentioned section. The most recent one was put up in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India . Not only India, but various other countries like USA & UK also have such laws regarding unnatural offences in the name of sodomy laws. However, in the late 1960s some states in the United States of America began to repeal their sodomy laws and finally, in 2003 in the landmark case of Lawrence vs Texas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Having discussed the state of affairs in the United States, let’s take a look at the law in the United Kingdom. Sodomy laws in the UK were introduced during the reign of Henry VIII . Prior to this law coming into force, such offences have been dealt by the ecclesiastical courts. The statute so introduced was named as the Buggery Act of 1533. The word buggery was defined as “unnatural sexual offences against the will of the God and man” which was later changed by the court to only anal penetration and bestiality. The act remained in force until it was repealed and replaced by the Offences against Persons Act of 1828. It is in comparison to these laws in foreign nations that the judgement in Naz foundation case will be analysed below.
In light of this existing scenario, the current study seeks to examine the challenges involved in getting access to justice to the marginalised and the poor in India. Moreover it focuses on to study the Constitutional guarantees which are available to realise the right to access to justice to the poor and marginalised in India. Finally the study highlights some of the lacunas which are involved in effective implementation of constitutional guarantees in order to suggest find some solutions and recommendation to address the issues at hand.
“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine” .
Unnatural offences cover all homosexuality offences as well as the non-consensual penile non vaginal sex and penile vaginal sex involving minors. Questions have been raised constantly on the constitutionality of the above mentioned section. The most recent one was put up in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India . Not only India, but various other countries like USA & UK also have such laws regarding unnatural offences in the name of sodomy laws. However, in the late 1960s some states in the United States of America began to repeal their sodomy laws and finally, in 2003 in the landmark case of Lawrence vs Texas the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Having discussed the state of affairs in the United States, let’s take a look at the law in the United Kingdom. Sodomy laws in the UK were introduced during the reign of Henry VIII . Prior to this law coming into force, such offences have been dealt by the ecclesiastical courts. The statute so introduced was named as the Buggery Act of 1533. The word buggery was defined as “unnatural sexual offences against the will of the God and man” which was later changed by the court to only anal penetration and bestiality. The act remained in force until it was repealed and replaced by the Offences against Persons Act of 1828. It is in comparison to these laws in foreign nations that the judgement in Naz foundation case will be analysed below.
In light of this existing scenario, the current study seeks to examine the challenges involved in getting access to justice to the marginalised and the poor in India. Moreover it focuses on to study the Constitutional guarantees which are available to realise the right to access to justice to the poor and marginalised in India. Finally the study highlights some of the lacunas which are involved in effective implementation of constitutional guarantees in order to suggest find some solutions and recommendation to address the issues at hand.