A leading group of intellectuals, analysts, and policy makers - Sunil Khilnani, Rajiv Kumar, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Prakash Menon, Nandan Nilekani, Srinath Raghavan, Shyam Saran, Siddharth Varadarajan - have released "NonAlignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First Century". The report was released two days ago in New Delhi, and a distinguished panel of speakers and guests commented on the publication, including, Shri M. K. Narayanan, Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal; Shri Brajesh Mishra, former National Security Advisor; Shri Shivshankar Menon, National Security Advisor.
"NonAlignment 2.0 is an attempt to identify the basic principles that should guide India’s foreign and strategic policy over the next decade. The purposes of this strategy document are three-fold: to lay out the opportunities that India enjoys in the international sphere; to identify the challenges and threats it is likely to confront; and to define the broad perspective and approach that India should adopt as it works to enhance its strategic autonomy."
The report can be downloaded here: http://www.cprindia.org/workingpapers/3844-nonalignment-20-foreign-and-strategic-policy-india-twenty-first-century; as well as here: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/worldwide/global/indiainstitute/index.aspx
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
"Do Not Disagree"
I saw this well written piece by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in today's Indian Express on the Prime Minister's allegations surrounding foreign funding of NGOs agitating around Bt cotton and nuclear power. As a foreigner (and American) I do not feel I can comment on this debate much without sounding self-serving .
That said, the controversy over foreign funding of NGOs, the internet censorship debate, and the inability of the state to provide a safe space for Salman Rushdie to visit India has certainly created a mood where there is a feeling that free speech is under siege in India. This concern seems to have gained some traction within the middle class, and certainly the South Delhi consensus seems to be tilting in regard to this government. I am curious whether the Supreme Court will see this as an issue where it has new found political capital to push more aggressively as it did in the anti-corruption debate. Of course, the Indian judiciary is well known for its contempt orders to deter criticism directed at its judges, and so might not immediately be seen as a natural free speech ally. That said, recent allegations of corruption against the judiciary didn't stop the Court from entering the anti-corruption fray.
That said, the controversy over foreign funding of NGOs, the internet censorship debate, and the inability of the state to provide a safe space for Salman Rushdie to visit India has certainly created a mood where there is a feeling that free speech is under siege in India. This concern seems to have gained some traction within the middle class, and certainly the South Delhi consensus seems to be tilting in regard to this government. I am curious whether the Supreme Court will see this as an issue where it has new found political capital to push more aggressively as it did in the anti-corruption debate. Of course, the Indian judiciary is well known for its contempt orders to deter criticism directed at its judges, and so might not immediately be seen as a natural free speech ally. That said, recent allegations of corruption against the judiciary didn't stop the Court from entering the anti-corruption fray.
Harvard Law School Global Legal Education Forum
I wanted to bring to your attention this exciting conference at Harvard Law School later this month!
Global Legal Education Forum
Harvard Law School
March 23-25, 2012
Conference Organizers:
Harvard Law School S.J.D. Students Association
The aim of the Global Legal Education Forum is to develop a thicker understanding of
the intellectual and professional trajectories of contemporary legal education reforms,their implications for global and national elite leadership, the potential distributive effects for law schools that lack the resources to “go global,” and the distinctiveness of these reforms relative to other disciplines. The Global Legal Education Forum will convene HLS S.J.D. Alumni, law school deans, law professors, legal practitioners,law students and graduate candidates, as well as academics from other disciplines.
Themes for discussion at the Forum will include:
• What is a “global law school” and who is a “global lawyer”?
• Setting the Agenda: What is the purpose(s) of legal education?
• Teaching across systems and borders: Comparative and Transnational Business
Law, Public Law, and Private Law
• Methods of Learning and Engagement: Technology, Language and Clinical
Legal Education
• Methodologies for Global Legal Thought
• Educational Innovation in the Global South and North
Please visit the Harvard Law School SJD Association website for a complete program and speaker information: www.harvardsjd.org
For further details on the Forum, please contact: hls.sjdassociation@gmail.com
Global Legal Education Forum
Harvard Law School
March 23-25, 2012
Conference Organizers:
Harvard Law School S.J.D. Students Association
The aim of the Global Legal Education Forum is to develop a thicker understanding of
the intellectual and professional trajectories of contemporary legal education reforms,their implications for global and national elite leadership, the potential distributive effects for law schools that lack the resources to “go global,” and the distinctiveness of these reforms relative to other disciplines. The Global Legal Education Forum will convene HLS S.J.D. Alumni, law school deans, law professors, legal practitioners,law students and graduate candidates, as well as academics from other disciplines.
Themes for discussion at the Forum will include:
• What is a “global law school” and who is a “global lawyer”?
• Setting the Agenda: What is the purpose(s) of legal education?
• Teaching across systems and borders: Comparative and Transnational Business
Law, Public Law, and Private Law
• Methods of Learning and Engagement: Technology, Language and Clinical
Legal Education
• Methodologies for Global Legal Thought
• Educational Innovation in the Global South and North
Please visit the Harvard Law School SJD Association website for a complete program and speaker information: www.harvardsjd.org
For further details on the Forum, please contact: hls.sjdassociation@gmail.com
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Article 19(1)(c) Amended
The text of the 97th amendment to the Indian constitution, which makes the right to form cooperative societies a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) [now, the right to form “associations or unions or cooperative societies” (emphasis supplied)] is now available here. The amendment also inserts a new directive principle into Part IV of the constitution, Article 43B, which reads: “The State shall endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of cooperative societies”. The website says that the amendment came into force on January 12, 2012 (the date of assent).
Friday, February 24, 2012
The Seniority Norm
Once appointed to the court, Supreme Court judges in India enjoy security of tenure. They cannot be removed except by a strenuously difficult impeachment process, their tenures cannot be shortened or renewed, and their salaries cannot be altered to their disadvantage. For this reason, the second and third “Judges Cases” arguably did more for the structural independence of the judiciary in the High Courts, than for Supreme Court judges. Between 1973-78, the government tried to tamper with this independence by interfering with the “seniority norm” on the Supreme Court of India and superseding judges. Supersessions were used to punish judges who had decided against the government by overlooking them for promotion to the post of Chief Justice of India. The seniority norm has been obeyed ever since, and is a vital unwritten norm which safeguards the independence of the judiciary.
In a paper published in this week’s issue of the Economic and Political Weekly, I examine the historical origins of the seniority norm, and find that there was only weak evidence of its existence before the creation of the Supreme Court of India. In the 1950s, the successive appointment of six Chief Justices of India by the seniority norm was an aberration that had little historical precedent, and the seniority norm is probably a contemporary development.
In a paper published in this week’s issue of the Economic and Political Weekly, I examine the historical origins of the seniority norm, and find that there was only weak evidence of its existence before the creation of the Supreme Court of India. In the 1950s, the successive appointment of six Chief Justices of India by the seniority norm was an aberration that had little historical precedent, and the seniority norm is probably a contemporary development.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Foreign Law Firms
The order dated February 21, 2012 issued by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of A.K. Balaji v. Government of India, spells out what foreign law firms can and cannot do in India. The court stated the issue in paragraph 44 of the order:
“[W]hether a foreign law firm, without establishing any liaison office in India visiting India for the purpose of offering legal advice to their clients in India on foreign law, is prohibited under the provisions of the Advocates Act. In other words, the question here is, whether a foreign lawyer visiting India for a temporary period to advise his client on foreign law can be barred under the provisions of the Advocates Act.” (emphasis supplied) In a nutshell, the court answered the question in the negative. In other words, foreign law firms can: (1) send their lawyers to India for temporary periods of time, (2) to advise their clients on foreign law, and (3) without establishing a liaison office in India.
What is permitted?
(1) Advice on foreign law/diverse international legal issues, while temporarily in India: “In the light of the scheme of the Act, if a lawyer from a foreign law firm visits India to advice (sic) his client on matters relating to the law which is applicable to their country, for which purpose he ‘flies in and flies out’ of India, there could not be a bar for such services rendered by such foreign law firm/foreign lawyer.” [paragraph 59] The advice could pertain to “foreign law” or to “diverse international legal issues” [paragraph 63(ii)]. This includes taking part in negotiations and settling up documents in India [paragraph 51]. “The corollary would be that such foreign law firm shall not be entitled to do any form of practice of Indian Law either directly or indirectly.” [paragraph 60].
(2) Conducting International Commercial Arbitrations: “[F]oreign lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration.” [paragraph 51, paragraph 63(iii)]
(3) Miscellaneous: “Some of the companies have been carrying on consultancy/support services in the field of protection and management of intellectual, business and industrial proprietary rights, carrying out market surveys and market research and publication of reports, journals, etc. without rendering any legal service, including advice in the form of opinion, but they do not appear before any courts or tribunals anywhere in India. Such activities cannot at all be considered as practising law in India.” (emphasis supplied) [paragraph 51]
In short, it appears, for example, that foreign transactional lawyers can visit India temporarily and negotiate/draft share purchase agreements, or work as international counsel for securities offerings.
“[W]hether a foreign law firm, without establishing any liaison office in India visiting India for the purpose of offering legal advice to their clients in India on foreign law, is prohibited under the provisions of the Advocates Act. In other words, the question here is, whether a foreign lawyer visiting India for a temporary period to advise his client on foreign law can be barred under the provisions of the Advocates Act.” (emphasis supplied) In a nutshell, the court answered the question in the negative. In other words, foreign law firms can: (1) send their lawyers to India for temporary periods of time, (2) to advise their clients on foreign law, and (3) without establishing a liaison office in India.
What is permitted?
(1) Advice on foreign law/diverse international legal issues, while temporarily in India: “In the light of the scheme of the Act, if a lawyer from a foreign law firm visits India to advice (sic) his client on matters relating to the law which is applicable to their country, for which purpose he ‘flies in and flies out’ of India, there could not be a bar for such services rendered by such foreign law firm/foreign lawyer.” [paragraph 59] The advice could pertain to “foreign law” or to “diverse international legal issues” [paragraph 63(ii)]. This includes taking part in negotiations and settling up documents in India [paragraph 51]. “The corollary would be that such foreign law firm shall not be entitled to do any form of practice of Indian Law either directly or indirectly.” [paragraph 60].
(2) Conducting International Commercial Arbitrations: “[F]oreign lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration.” [paragraph 51, paragraph 63(iii)]
(3) Miscellaneous: “Some of the companies have been carrying on consultancy/support services in the field of protection and management of intellectual, business and industrial proprietary rights, carrying out market surveys and market research and publication of reports, journals, etc. without rendering any legal service, including advice in the form of opinion, but they do not appear before any courts or tribunals anywhere in India. Such activities cannot at all be considered as practising law in India.” (emphasis supplied) [paragraph 51]
In short, it appears, for example, that foreign transactional lawyers can visit India temporarily and negotiate/draft share purchase agreements, or work as international counsel for securities offerings.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Delhi Law Review: Call for Papers
Delhi Law Review: Call for papers
Delhi Law Review (DLR), one of the oldest law journals in India and a publication of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, invites articles,papers, case notes, book reviews and essays from academicians, independent researchers, practitioners and students for its forthcoming edition to be published in July, 2012. The contribution may be on any contemporary legal issue. Biographical information of the contributor should be provided on a separate page. Regarding the style of referencing, citations must conform to standards laid down in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (18th ed. 2005).
A soft copy of the submission must be emailed to delhilawreview.editor@
Those contributors whose submissions are selected for publication shall be informed as soon as the selection process is completed. Contributors are requested to submit only original work which is not under consideration with any other publication.
The last date for submission is March 15, 2012. No submissions will be considered after this date.
For further clarification regarding entries for the edition or any other subject matter, please feel free to contact the Editorial Team at the previously mentioned email address under the subject 'DLR Entry Clarification'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)