The Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed several judgments in last couple of months on issue of protection to the minor girls who had approached the Court seeking protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The recent judgments in such matters have created a confusion amongst the legal fraternity and the society. In India, child marriage was outlawed in the year 1929. After Independence and adoption of our Constitution, the law on child marriage has undergone several revisions. Since long the minimum age of marriage has been 18 and 21 for women & men respectively. At present, the law related to prevention of child marriage in India is Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 which serves threefold purpose – Prevention of child marriage, Protection of children involved and Prosecution of offender. However, the actual data display a very different picture as child marriage is still prevalent in many states of India. Further, few recent judgments passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also ignored the issue of child marriage by focusing around Article 21 of Indian Constitution in various protection cases of couple claiming to live-in relationship.

Before discussing these particular cases, one must give an eye to few of the landmark cases which are relevant in this discussion. In case of Badri Prasad Vs. Dy. Director Consolidation, AIR 1978 (SC) 1557, the Supreme Court of India for the first time gave legal validity to a 50-year live-in relationship. In another case of Moniram Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, (2004) 5 SCC 120, the Apex Court held that if the accused played some role at any stage by which he either solicited or persuaded the minor to abandon the legal guardianship, it would be sufficient to hold such person guilty of kidnapping. Further, in case of Independent Thought Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 10 SCC 800, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that When the State on the one hand, has, by legislation, laid down that abetting child marriage is a criminal offence, it cannot, on the other hand defend this classification of girls below 18 years on the ground of sanctity of marriage.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed various judgments in last couple of months which are contradictory to the each other. Followings are judgments passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of the protection to minor girls:

Banshi Lal & Another v/s State of Haryana & Others, decided on 25.09.2020: The High Court held that right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major. The mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India.

Priyapreet Kaur And Anr v/s State of Punjab And Ors decided on 23.12.2020: In this case the petitioners are 18 and 19 year old seeking protection and the High Court held that “The female petitioner is well within her right to decide for herself what is good for her and what is not. She has decided to take a step to be in a live-in-relationship with petitioner No.2 who is also major, though may not be of a marriageable age. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners in the present case are major and have a right to live their life on their own terms.”

Seema Kaur and another v/s State of Punjab and others, decided on 03.06.2021: In this case court provided protection to a couple even though the girl was not of marriageable age and observed that even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a ‘domestic relationship’ has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word ‘wife’ has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in-couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament.

Baljinder Kumar and another v/s State of Punjab and others, decided on 04.06.2021: Girl being minor cannot be reason to deny protection to the couple as court said that though the issue in hand is not with regard to the validity of the marriage, but that the petitioners are seeking protection.

The High Court has also denied protection in some other cases and discussed the legitimacy of such relationships. Illustratively, in:

Amnider Kaur and another v/s State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.11.2009: In this case girl aged about 16 years and two months was minor and the Couple approached the High Court seeking protection. The High Court denied the protection and held that marriage of the minor girl, who had been enticed away out of the keeping of the lawful guardian, is void ab initio under Section 12 (a) of the PCM Act.

Neelam Rani and another v/s State of Punjab and others, decided on 21.12.2020: Girl aged about 16-1/2 years and boy aged about 18 years approached the Court for protection. The Court held that under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India read with National Policy and National Plan, a girl child between the age of 15 and 18 years need protection from early marriages and to provide the girl child a life of dignity.

Ujjawal and another v/s State of Haryana and others, decided on 12.05.2021: Petitioner no.1 was barely 18 years old whereas petitioner no.2 was 21 years old and court denied the protection to the couple, both being live -in relationship.

Daya Ram & another v/s State of Haryana & others, decided on 10.06.2021: The High Court denied protection to minor couple living in relationship and held that it is necessary to remind states to eradicate child marriage menace. The High Court further reproduced the suggestions given to the Government of India and State Governments by the Supreme Court of India in case of Independent Thought v/s Union of India & Anr. to follow the decision of State of Karnataka, which has declared child marriage as void ab initio through an amendment in PCM Act.

Apart of all these judgments, a protection matter has also been referred to larger bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Yash pal and another Versus State of Haryana and Others, CRWP-4660-2021 (O&M) to decide the following questions: –

Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case?

If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?

While these abovementioned High Court judgements are reflecting different views on this issue, there is a relevant judgement passed by the Madras High Court which had discussed the present issue in detail. In case of T. Sivakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, the Madras High Court had framed a question as to whether a marriage contracted by a person with a female of less than 18 years could be said to be valid marriage and the custody of said girl be given to the husband? The High Court while answering the said question held that the marriage contracted by a person with a female of less than 18 years is voidable. The male contracting party of a child marriage shall not be entitled for the custody of the female child whose marriage has been contracted by him.

As it is evident from the above-mentioned judgements that there are different legal versions available on the issue of protection to minor child, there is a dire need of implementation of suggestion given by the Supreme Court way back in 2017 in case of Independent Thought (Supra) wherein the Court suggested that any marriage of a child i.e. a female aged below 18 years and a male below 21 years is void ab initio in the State of Karnataka and this is how the law should have been throughout the country. Child marriage is a social evil and it needs to be prevented in this modern society. It has been observed that there has been a large number of such cases which are getting listed before the Courts. It is pertinent to mention here that one cannot overlook the detrimental effects that child marriages have on the overall growth of the child, especially the girl as her exposure to sex and its related issues adversely impact her health. Her nutrition, education, employability, confidence; it all gets adversely affected. The suggested amendment needs to be incorporated throughout the country to eradicate the menace of child marriage. Further, to improve nutrition level and lowering maternal mortality, the Union Government is considering to raise the minimum age of marriage for women which can be looked into on urgent basis along with some strict provisions to implement the same as a constant hike is being observed in cases of child marriage.

“The children of today will make the India of Tomorrow. The way we bring them up will determine the future of the country.”

—Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

(First Prime Minister of Independent India)

Undoubtedly, this pandemic has devastated each one of our lives whether directly or indirectly. Lakhs lost their lives, families, jobs, and many more. The life of children has been completely changed due to this invisible enemy. Thousands of children became orphaned as their parents lost their lives during a pandemic. The mode of education has been shifted from traditional to virtual one, due to which thousands have been devoid of it because of lack of economic resources. Many have been tied in the bond of marriage esp. Girls. Many are forced into child labor by the critical economic conditions of their family. In the meantime, children have become prone to physical assault and even sexual.

Rights form a very important part of humans’ lives so are children too. This pandemic time has witnessed a sudden increase in Child Rights violations. This piece of writing is an attempt to describe it through a legal lens.

A brief about Child Rights

According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, the term “CHILD” refers to, “any human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, the majority is attained.” As we have Human rights similarly Child Rights are too Human Rights, which aims to protect the rights of Humans when they were Children. The concept of Child Rights came into the picture after World War I when the Geneva declaration of 1924 was adopted by the League of Nations. Later after World War II League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations and a new Declaration of Rights of Child was adopted on 20th November 1959. This declaration laid 10 basic principles related to Children and their rights.

Relying on the need of the society Indian Legal system has provided several legal provisions which try to protect rights of children. The constitution being a Supreme Law of land also provides extra brownies to Children. Followed by it, several other Legislations are aiming to protect the rights of Children i.e. Guardians and ward Act 1890, Child Marriage restraint Act 1929, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, The Women’s and Children (Licensing) Act 1956, Probation of Offenders Act 1958, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

CHILDREN AND PANDEMIC

Childhood sufferings are those sufferings that go on with persons until they reach their graves. This pandemic has made millions of Children suffer in one way or the other. This period has also witnessed a sudden increase in violation of Child Rights. Some of them are as follows:

Education at the verge: Article 21A of the Indian Constitution provides Free and Compulsory education to the children of age group 6-14 years. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, says that Everyone has the right to education. According to UNICEF, 90% of students have been affected due to Corona VIRUS globally. Lakhs of Schools have switched from the traditional model of education to Digital. Up to some extent it has managed to compensate for the loss of students but a large number of students don’t have access to the Internet. A survey by Govt. of India 2019 reveals that only one-fourth of the total households have internet connectivity. Lots of students quit their education due to several inconveniences i.e. lack of access to the internet, economic issues, family problems, etc.

Rising Child Labor: Article 24 of the Indian Constitution states, “No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.” Other than it certain other legislations are dealing with Child Labor in India i.e. Bonded Labor (Abolishment) System Act 1976 and Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. According to United Nation, Child Laborers has increased to 160 million due to Covid globally, as India has the highest share of Children’s population then obviously India situation is alarming. A report said that by the end of 2022, about 9 million additional children can be pushed into the darkness of Child Labor. Another study conducted by Campaign against Child Labour (CACL) revealed that the proportion of Child Laborers has risen from 28.2% to 79.6%. The main reason for it was the Pandemic and closure of Educational Institutions.

The darkness of Child Marriage: Child Marriage is a crime against humanity. There is two main legislation specifically dealing with it i.e. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 and Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 (Popularly known as Sarda Act). Girl children are the main sufferers of this social evil. India is a home of 1/3rd child marriages happening globally. RTI filed in Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (UMWCD) states that from June to October 2020 there has been an increase of 33% in child marriages in comparison to 2019. A tweet of Smriti Irani in April 2020 revealed that 898 Child marriages were stopped during Lockdown. These are only reported cases many goes beneath the table. This shows that how pandemic has been used as an opportunity to propagate this social evil.

The increasing number of Child rights violations is not limited to this. There has also been an increase in cases related to Child Trafficking, Sexual and Physical assault on children, and many others.

CONCLUSION

Children are full of energy if channelized properly, they can do miracles for society and the Nation. At the same time if the channelization was improper then they can be quite vulnerable to society. This pandemic has led to a massive increase in Child Rights violations. It is important to note that Poor children are more vulnerable to the violation of rights. As always poor is the worst sufferer of any social evil prevalent in society.

Government must take strict action to tackle such violations and should ensure the rights of children are fully protected. At the same time, General Public should also recognize child rights and should refrain from violating them.

Using violent means to achieve political goals, especially by targeting innocent civilians, is a hallmark of terrorism., Nonetheless, in the last three decades, the world has come to realize that terror can be inflicted on countries and organizations, not just through guns and bombs, but also through digital networks and the internet. These attacks can cause incalculable damage, given humanity’s dependence on the internet and information technology. Such attacks are referred to as Cyber terrorism and fervently instances of Cyber-terror have increased exponentially in the past few decades, and Cybersecurity

is forced to adapt for defending information systems, sensitive information, and data from Cyber terrorists. India has the maximum number of internet users, called ‘Netizens’ after the USA and China. The over-dependency on the internet increases the vulnerabilities & transforms their aggressions into the feeling of revenge, which turned them into criminals, Cyber warriors, and hostility to the country. Most Indian citizens are insensitive towards cyber threats of being victimized by the virtual world. Information technology has opened the ocean of opportunities to the world for the development of their financial infrastructures. Cybercrimes are increasing every moment and the netizens are ignorant of the state of mind that their activities are unnoticed. We generally share our significant & super-sensitive data & information unintentionally on social media. The momentous growth of the Cyberworld posed the threats of Cyber terrorism.

Cyber-attacks tend to the depiction of lethal, non-lethal psychological

wellbeing, public confidence & political attitudes. Generally, it is considered that Cyber terrorism affects only the national security system but given the fact- it also affects their citizens psyche & cognition. Cyber terrorists have expanded the growth of Cyber-attacks, which has dramatically increased in the past few years.

It has caused mass destruction & damage to nuclear facilities & the critical command & control system. The Cyber experts are working to strengthen more and more capacity to restrain Cyber-attacks over Govt. system, defence websites, financial and banking systems, and most important nuclear facilities.

MEANING OF CYBER TERRORISM

In simple words, when terrorist organizations use the internet to further their goals and objectives, it is considered to be Cyber terrorism. Information and

communication technology, commonly referred to as ICT, has changed the world as we know it but also offers plenty of scopes for terror outfits to expand, recruit, and propagandize on various ICT platforms. The internet can be used by terrorists for financing their operations, training other terrorists, and planning terror attacks. The more mainstream idea of Cyber terrorism also includes the hacking of government or private servers to access sensitive information or even siphon funds for use in terror activities. However, there is no universally accepted definition of Cyber terrorism, to date.

PUNISHMENT FOR CYBERTERRORISM

In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (after this the IT Act) defines and prescribes the punishment for Cyber terrorism. It was in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks that shook the country that this law was amended in the year 2008 to address the Cyber terrorism threat to national security. Accordingly, Section 66F was inserted into the IT Act, which is the closest thing we have to a Cyber terrorism Act. According to the IT Act, Cyber terrorism is:

• An act that is done with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people of India.

• A show that denies access to computer resources, or attempts to access a computer resource without authorization.

• The introduction of any computer contaminant is likely to cause death or injury to people or destruction of property.

• Disrupting services that are essential to the community’s life, or adversely affecting the critical information infrastructure in the country.

• Attempting to access information or data that is restricted to ensure national security, public health and order, and good foreign relations.

• An act that promotes contempt of court, defamation, or incites others to commit an offense.

The punishment for an act of Cyber terrorism in India is imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life. Even an attempt to commit an act of Cyber terrorism draws the same punishment. In some circumstances, Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code may also be invoked to punish the individual as it covers the waging of a war against the Government of India.

CONCLUSION

To protect ourselves against such attacks and counter the Cyber terrorism threat to national security, the Government of India will have to ensure that Cybersecurity systems are up to date and fully capable of fending them off.

With each passing day, multiple anti-state outfits are moving their operations towards the internet, and it is, therefore, crucial for individuals as well as governments to remain vigilant and improve efforts to make databases more secure and trustworthy.

There needs to be more attention given to the training and encouragement of Cybersecurity professionals to meet the ever-increasing demand in the country and also the world. One factor that could undoubtedly improve the efforts to tackle Cyber terrorism would be a universally accepted definition across the globe. As individuals, we can also play a role by ensuring that we follow the

Cyber-safety advisories and recommendations that are usually issued by governments and Information and Communication technology institutions.

The advent of 2021 has put the Tech World in a frenzy with a multitude of rules, guidelines, and notifications coming into play, with the view of scrambling the tech companies off their feet and making them amenable to the law of the land. One such set of rules is the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 which has been in the limelight since its introduction in February 2021, with the recent controversy surrounding Twitter and WhatsApp. The ongoing discussions surrounding social media rules bring to the spotlight one key issue: Privacy. In the modern era, privacy is considered a fundamental right and an integral component of all communication on the Web. Unfortunately, in the clash of government rules and tech policies, the one stakeholder that suffers the most is the Consumer.

In the backdrop of the race to personal data dominance between Big Tech-hegemony and State-intervention, the authors seek to analyse the changing countours of Privacy over the years since 2017 and its impact on consumer preferences.

DOES THE IT RULES 2021 CONTRAVENE THE TENETS OF THE K.S. PUTTASWAMY JUDGEMENT?

In the famous case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (W.P. (C) NO. 342/ 2017), the Supreme Court held Privacy, inclusive of one’s rights over personal decisions, bodily integrity, and protection of personal information, as a fundamental right within the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is a landmark judgment that is of great significance due to the stance taken by the Apex Court in the pivotal issue of Personal & Data Privacy.

However, looking into the provisions of the IT Rules 2021 in the optic of the Puttaswamy judgment, social media intermediaries will have to maintain access to the messages of users to be able to abide by the mandatory requirement of tracing the origin of messages, thereby infringing the end-to-end encryption and creating a substantial breach of privacy, along with raising concerns on security of the data obtained and stored. The purpose of tracing the messages is to aid the law enforcement agencies in tracing those who are accused of spreading fake, inciteful, or offensive messages, and in bringing them to justice accordingly. Furthermore, the 2021 IT Rules take into consideration the interest of the nation’s sovereignty, public order, morality, and national security for making tracing mandatory. Stanford Internet Observatory Scholar Riana Pfefferkorn in her opinion observes that, “The new traceability and filtering requirements may put an end to end-to-end encryption in India.” The logical follow-up is that in India, where there is an absence of a specific Data Privacy Law, this mandatory procedure could be deleterious as because there is no legislative measure that safeguards the users against the arbitrary use of traceability.

In context to whether the newly introduced IT Rules is in breach of the constitutional safeguards laid down in the Puttaswamy judgment, the answer is two-fold – First, in its observation, the Court made it abundantly clear that the fundamental right of Privacy accorded to the citizens is not absolute and it is subject to reasonable restrictions by the State, which is expressly mentioned under Part III of the Indian Constitution corresponding to Fundamental Rights. The Court opined that any exception made has to be for the interception of data by the State on the grounds of national security & public order and morality. In consonance with the exception, a “Triple Test” needs to be adhered to for any infringement of privacy by the State to be legitimate, which ordains that any State action should:

(i) Have a “Legitimate Aim” that should be inclusive of goals of the State, i.e. security, proper deployment of resources, etc.

(ii) Have “Proportionality” which underlines the rational nexus between the object and the means that would be adopted to achieve the object

(iii) Have “Legality” vis-à-vis the law of the land.

Second, it has to be noted that in its judgment, the Apex Court mentioned also the need for data protection laws for citizens. The Court undertook a notably worthy and pro-active outlook aimed at citizen-welfare. Although the judgment was pronounced three years ago, yet there lies confusion on the enactment and enforcement of the Personal Data Protection Bill to date. At this juncture, one cannot set aside the fear or aspersion of the provisions being used potentially as a weapon for infringement of privacy as the rules give wide powers to the Government to strong-arm the social media intermediaries to procure users’ data.

Hence, a concern of a risk of potential breach of the Puttaswamy judgment arises, all the more now as the State has introduced a set of Rules which legitimizes the interception of data and the tracing of the first originator of messages, in the absence of an appropriate data protection law – and this places citizen-welfare and autonomy in a precarious spot.

THE LION AND THE RINGMASTER: THE CIRCUS SHOW OF FACEBOOK, WHATSAPP & CCI

In recent times, news has been strife about the legal matter in the doors of the Delhi High Court of WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy being put to scrutiny by the competition regulator by way of a Suo moto cognizance. Prior to diving into the row between the Competition Commission of India (CCI). & WhatsApp, one needs to understand the concept of Suo moto cognizance and the working of the CCI. Suo moto cognizance essentially means the legal action taken by the government or authorities upon receiving information regarding violation of rights or any infringement thereof. The purpose for the establishment of CCI is to promote a competitive environment which brings better goods and services to the consumers. One of the main duties of the CCI is to protect the interest of the consumers and ensure freedom of trade. In the fulfillment of its duties, as per Section 19 of the Competition Act 2002, CCI can inquire into alleged contravention of their provisions, upon receipt of information from persons/trade associations or from references made by the Central/State Government. Moreover, according to Section 60 of the Act, the provisions will have an overriding effect over any law in force, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein. This means the CCI will have the power to take matters in its hands which it believes falls within its purview, and accordingly issue notices or conduct probes.

On the face of it, consumer welfare seems to have prompted the CCI to launch an inquiry into the putative abuse of market dominance by Facebook and WhatsApp. The nose-diving of the CCI by taking a Suo motu cognizance of the matter (the very first in relation to social media intermediaries!) is in contrast to its generally placated self, and it seems to have been triggered after Whatsapp introduced a revamped privacy policy in January of this year. To draw a parallel, comparable to the German competition authority, the CCI also considers data & privacy protection to be a strand of qualitative non-price competition, which basically means that the competition rules must be evoked to discipline any commercial entity which is abusing its dominant position by causing a slump in its service quality by coercing or forcing users to adhere to such terms and conditions that might damage their privacy rights.

As much as the heart of the CCI is at the right place, however, the haste in which this probe is being undertaken against one of the largest Big Tech conglomerates functioning in India seems not just uncanny, but can also lead to legal ambiguities in the near future considering that the nation is gearing up for the advent of a new data protection law. If the CCI doesn’t introspect and perform a course correction, then it is gearing itself up for an impending discordance with the Personal Data Protection Bill, which is now being refined under the auspices of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Indian Parliament.

Ostensibly, the CCI seems to be driven by impulse and an arguably shallow grasp of the link between privacy and competition in its rush to straighten Facebook and WhatsApp out. Curiously, the entire premise of the CCI behind its examination of the Big Tech conglomerate is based on the notion that data becomes an integral ingredient of competition by virtue of being the price the consumer has to pay for availing services of social media & messaging platforms – thus, what CCI essentially contends is that the market dominance of Facebook and Whatsapp increases with a decrease in the levels of privacy.

However, there is a critical oversight from the CCI’s end in its approach. As much as the concerns, needs, and necessities of protection and preservation of data and privacy are crucial to consumer welfare, nonetheless credible research showcases that consumers profess to be very concerned about their data and privacy, although they also continue to provide their personal as well as sensitive data to platforms that provide free services on the internet – a contradiction that we call the “Privacy Paradox” in common parlance.

Hence, it may come as a surprise, but research shows that a substantial chunk of the consumer base for digital services in India believes that their personal data is a good barter to avail “free” services offered by platforms and subsequently targeted advertisements being shown to them. And, this re-emphasizes the necessity to examine the Privacy Paradox in the Indian milieu in greater depth and nuance.

It needs to be noted that one of the very rudimentary premises of Competition law is built on the edifice of consumer welfare. Therefore, the need of the hour is to ponder over, first and foremost, if consumers really are opposed to the data & privacy policies of social media and messaging platforms, and if yes, then why, and what are their concerns? A follow-up to the preceding question is whether the consumer base is in favor of giving precedence to the “free” services provided by Big Tech in exchange for its use of the consumers’ personal data.

Secondly, and substantially, a pertinent question arises – should privacy solely be the metric that the CCI peruses for measuring competition in the social media & messaging market segment?

Unless such precursory issues are not delved in detail, and active stakeholder consultations are not undertaken, then any action by the CCI carries with it the risk of absolutely disregarding consumer preferences – which contravenes the very premise of Competition law.

IV. Concluding remarks

“When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.” – David Brin. This aptly captures the irony which exists, whereby personal accountability is shoved into the oblivion, but demanding rights and privileges is always priority one. One must also be wary to not muddle the concerns of data-breach and security with that of data-sharing by an informed user, only on the premise that every bit of data shared is subject to eventual misuse.

The contrasting approaches of the Puttaswamy judgment & the CCI’s probe, distinct in the issues contended & the forums approached to seek relief from, are merged on their emphasis of keeping Consumer welfare first. As a constitutional truism, the actions of statutory bodies are regarded to be governed by the principles of equity and good conscience, keeping the interests of the general public at an elevated pedestal. However, if in the garb of welfare, ad lib actions are taken hastily, it can have a detrimental effect – the burden of which will be incurred by the Consumer.

Privacy is a sensitive issue, taking into account the voluminous communication over the Internet via a myriad of platforms on a daily basis. The need of the hour is to give due consideration to the opinion of the relevant stakeholders, including that of the consumer-base, and a conscious deliberation over the measures taken to regulate Big Tech in India with the view of promoting sustainable development. Additionally, consumers should be apprised of the importance of their data, thereby enabling them in taking informed decisions with regards to their personal data and privacy sharing.

In the end, all that we as consumers are left with is the wild wonder of what privacy is: A myth, a right, or a currency?


In context to whether the newly introduced IT Rules are in breach of the constitutional safeguards laid down in the Puttaswamy judgement, the answer is two-foldL: First, in its observation, the court made it abundantly clear that the fundamental right of privacy accorded to the citizens is not absolute and it is subject to reasonable restrictions by the state, which is expressly mentioned under Part III of the Indian Constitution corresponding to Fundamental Rights. The court opined that any exception made has to be for the interception of data by the state on the grounds of national security & public order and morality.

In keeping with the requirements of the changing circumstances, the Telangana High Court has issued practice directions to Magistrates and Trial Courts having jurisdiction to try offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court (In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act) regarding the trial of Cheque bouncing cases. We had seen how a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had in April 2021 issued a set of directions to expedite the trial of cheque dishonor cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court had requested the High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial. We shall discuss these directions later as stated in Annexure-A of this circular.

At the outset, it must be stated that the Telangana High Court in ROC NO.1608/SO/2020 dated 21.06.2021 in its Circular No. 11/2021 pointed out first and foremost that, “Attention is invited to the Orders dated 16.04.2021 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the High Courts have been requested to issue practice directions to all the Courts under their control to streamline the procedure being adopted in the cases instituted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.”

Most remarkably and also most significantly, it is then pointed out in this circular that, “Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the following Practice Directions are issued to all the Courts dealing with the cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in the State.

PRACTICE DIRECTIONS

1) All the Magistrate Courts trying the cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act shall invariably follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Banks Association Vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590 as appended to this Practice Guidelines vide ‘Annexure-A’. 2) All the Magistrate Courts shall invariably register the cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act initially as Summary Trial Cases – Negotiable Instruments (STC-NI) in view of the directions of the Apex Court in Indian Banks Association Vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590.

3) The Magistrate Courts need not insist for the personal presence of the complainant for registration of the Complaint. (vide A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 360).

4) The power of attorney holder may be allowed to file the complaint, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act (vide A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 630 and Sk. Tamisuddin Vs. Joy Joseph Creado. Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2012, dated 25.09.2018). An exception to the above is when the power of attorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transaction, then he cannot be examined (vide Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217).

5) Recording of complainant’s sworn statement under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in view of the provisions under Section 145 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (vide A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 630). The sworn affidavit filed under Section 145 Negotiable Instrument Act can be considered in lieu of the sworn statement in view of said provision.

6) In the cases where the place of residence of the accused is situated outside the territorial limits of the Court, the Courts shall follow Section 202 Cr.P.C. which mandates the inquiry by the Court. However, the said provision is not a hurdle or barrier in respect of the cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the Constitution Bench decision dated 16.04.2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act). However, the Courts shall look into and consider the affidavit of the Complainant which may be filed under Section 145 of N.I. Act and the documents filed in support! of his case to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and to issue the process.

7) The complaint shall contain a statement as to computation of the amount claimed, e-Mail ID of the complainant/accused, bank particulars of the complainant.

8) The Courts shall insist for filing the verification affidavit as to the correctness of pleadings. (vide Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663).

9) If all the above are duly complied, the Magistrates shall take cognizance of the offence on the date of filing itself without any delay and shall invariably register· the case. (As Summary Trial Cases – Negotiable Instruments (STC-NI) (vide Indian Banks Association Vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590.)

10) The summons shall be issued to the accused by registered post/approved courier agency. e-Mail and other approved digital/electronic mode in the prescribed format. (vide Indian Banks Association Vs. Union of India, (2014) SCC 590).

11) While issuing summons, the Courts shall see that the summons are properly addressed and sent by post and also to the e-mail address of the accused furnished by the complainant. The Court, shall also consider to take the assistance of the Police or the nearby Court to serve summons or warrants to the accused. For appearance of the accused, a short date shall be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken. The courts shall treat the service of summons in one complaint under Section 138 forming part of a translation, as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonor of cheques issued as part of the said transactions. (vide Directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Constitutional Bench decision, dated 16.04.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Case Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.)

12)The Courts shall direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial. Here the Court shall consider the request of the accused to grant time for production of such bail bonds.

13) On the date of first appearance of the accused or on the date to which the appearance of the accused is scheduled, the Magistrate Court shall furnish the copies of complaint and documents to the Accused, enquire about his capacity to engage counsel (or appoint a legal aid counsel for the accused having no capacity to engage counsel) and then shall inform him about the guidelines in Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain, (2014) 10 SCC 690. If the Court is satisfied that there is an element of settlement of the case, then it shall refer the case to Lok-Adalat or Mediation in accordance with the scheme prepared by NALSA.

14) In case of settlement of the case in any of these two modes, the award shall be drawn. In case of settlement before Lok Adalat, the parties shall be informed about the mode of execution of the award as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 by way of filing Execution Application, while treating that award as a decree (vide K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D. Shaji, (2012) 2 SCC 51).

15) In case of not settling the issue before the Lok Adalat or the Mediation, the case shall be posted for framing notice or the examination of the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. about the accusation levelled against him. In case of denial of the accusation, the accused shall be called upon to file a defence statement in writing with supporting reasons. Then the Court shall consider the scope of calling the complainant for further chief examination for making documents and for cross- examination on behalf of the accused.

16)Till this stage, the case shall be treated as Summary Trial Case, but not as a regular Summons or Calendar Case. After examining the above aspects the Court shall consider the scope of converting the case as a regular Summons/Calendar case. If the Court is of the view that the case requires a through and detailed trial or where the case warrants imposition of grave punishment or where multiple connected civil/criminal cases are pending, it shall record the reasons for converting the case into a regular Summons or Calendar Case (CC-NI). The recording of reasons at this stage shall always be mandatory in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Case Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

17) The Magistrates shall not entertain any miscellaneous application for discharge of the accused as there is no provision in Cr.P.C. for discharge of an accused in a Summary Trial Case or a Summons Case in view of the law as settled in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 titled In Re: Expeditious Trial of Case Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and Subramanium Sethuraman Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 4711. It shall be kept in mind that as held in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Case Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the judgment in Meters and Instruments Private Limited Vs. Kanchan Mehta, AIR 2017 SC 4594 is not approved to that extent.

18) The Magistrate Courts shall make every endeavour to complete the trial of these cases within the statutory prescribed time limit of six (6) months.

19) After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused shall be called upon to answer the incriminate material available in the case of the complainant against him under Section 313 Cr.P.C and his detailed answers for the said questions shall be recorded. The accused shall be permitted to file a defence statement in view of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

20) In case the accused chooses to adduce evidence, the accused shall not be permitted to file his chief examination evidence in the form of affidavit in view of the law in Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC 83. However, the accused can be permitted to enter into the witness box after obtaining necessary permission from the Court under Section 315 Cr.P.C. However, this permission from the Court is not mandatory when the accused intends to examine any other person as his witness.

21) After recording the evidence of both parties, the arguments shall be heard by the Court and the Court shall pronounce the judgment within three days (excluding the day of hearing the final arguments.).

22) In all the cases where the accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court shall consider awarding the compensation to the complainant party in view of the provisions under 138, 143 of Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 357 Cr.P.C. The Court must exercise the power and discretion to compensate the injury suffered by the complainant (vide Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551). The Court shall also keep in mind the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard rendered in R. Vijayan Vs Baby, AIR 2012 SC 528 and Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan (2002) 2 SCC 420. The Court may consider granting of installments or time to pay such compensation amount. The Court may also consider to impose in default sentence on the accused in case of failure to pay the compensation. (vide K.A. Abbas Vs Sabu Joseph (2010) 6 SCC 230 and R. Mohan Vs. A.K. Vijaya Kumar, (2012) 8 SCC 721.).

23) Sec. 143-A: In all trials under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, when the accused is claiming for a regular trial, the Court may order to direct the accused to pay the interim compensation to the complainant which shall not exceed 20% of the amount of cheque (Section 143-A). Such interim compensation shall be paid within 60 days from the date of order and the Court is competent to extend that time for further 30 days. In case of acquittal, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay the interim compensation amount with the bank interest rate to the accused within 60 days from the date of judgment and this time can also be extended for further 30 days. Interim compensation may be recovered as if it were a fine under Sec. 421 Cr.P.C. This interim compensation amount shall be adjusted against the final compensation ordered by the Court under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. at the time of judgment.”

Going ahead, the Telangana High Court then further in its Annexure-A while referring to the directions of the Apex Court also mentions that,

“Annexure-A

Directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Banks Association Vs. Union of India. (2014) 5 SCC 590.

(1)Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons.

(2) MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post by e-mail address got from the complainant. Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice to the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow up action be taken.

(3) Court may indicate in the summon that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

(4) Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section I25 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for recalling a witness for cross examination.

(5) The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in Court. Witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court.”

It is then also further stated that, “ Therefore, all the Judicial Officers in the State are hereby directed to follow the above practice directions scrupulously, while dealing with cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The receipt of the circular may be acknowledged.”

In essence, all the Magistrates and Trial Courts in Telangana are bound to implement these landmark practice directions issued by the Telangana High Court having jurisdiction to try offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court which we have just discussed above pertaining to the trial of cheque bouncing cases and the request made by the Apex Court to the High Courts to issue practice directions to the Magistrates to record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the Act from summary trial to summons trial. It is good to note that according to the practice directions, it has been stated that the Magistrate Courts need not insist for personal presence of complainant for registration of the complaint. It is also a step in the right direction that the recording of complainant’s sworn statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in view of the provisions under Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All the High Courts must emulate the worthy example of Telangana High Court and issue practice directions on cheque bouncing cases similarly as has been commendably directed also by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court headed by the then CJI Sharad Arvind Bobde in its April 2021 order.

The write is an Advocate.

While demonstrating supreme concern on the innumerable sufferings faced by the migrant labourers, the Supreme Court as recently as on June 29, 2021 in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled In Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2020 with Writ Petition (C) No. 916 of 2020 in exercise of its civil original jurisdiction has minced absolutely just no words to make it pretty clear that the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution may be interpreted to include right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities. The top court has directed all the States to implement the “one nation, one ration card” scheme and to run community kitchens for migrants. It also very rightly postulated that, “The Right to Life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution gives right to every human being to live a life of dignity with access to at least bare necessities of life.”

To start with, this notable 80-page judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan for himself and Justice MR Shah sets the ball rolling right from the scratch by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “The Worldwide Pandemic COVID-19 engulfed this country in March, 2020 and continues till date changing its face from time to time. Different mutations in the virus have made it dangerous and fatal at times. The pandemic had affected each and every person in the world including all citizens of this country. The pandemic has adversely affected all businesses including the small scale businesses, industries, markets and smallest of the person.”

While highlighting the plight and cause of plight of migrant labourers, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “One of the groups, which were severally affected by the pandemic, was the migrant labouers. When Nationwide Lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020, after few days, there was huge exodus of the migrant labourers from their place of work to their native places. Two primary reasons which resulted in the exodus were cessation of employment due to lockdown and fear of the pandemic. When large number of migrant labourers started walking on highways on foot, cycles and other modes of transports without food and facing several untold miseries, this Court suo motu took cognizance of the problems and miseries of the migrant labourers by its order dated 26.05.2020 on which date, this Suo Motu Writ Petition had been registered. We had issued the notice to the Union of India and all States / Union Territories and directed the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court and by the next date of hearing bring in the notice of the Court all measures and steps taken by the Government of India and to be taken in this regard.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “In pursuance of our order dated 26.05.2020 affidavits were filed. Apart from filing of affidavit by the Central Government, States/Union Territories, few persons also filed intervention application in this writ petition bringing into notice of this Court several facts, figures and suggested different measures for ameliorating the conditions of the migrant labourers. One of the major issues, which, at that time, was to be tackled by the States and Union Territories was the transportation of migrant labourers from their work place to their native places.”

While elaborating on the directions it had issued, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, “We had issued certain directions on 28.05.2020 and thereafter issued further directions on 09.06.2020, in paragraph 26 of which order, we noticed following:-

“26. As noted above, the State and Union Territories in their affidavits have referred to various measures, the orders and guidelines issued by the Central Government, the orders issued by the National Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, policies and decisions taken by the concerned States. The States and Union Territories claimed to be following all directions and policies and taking necessary steps for running the relief camps, shelter camps, attending the needs of food and water of the migrants, attending the requirement of transportation of migrant workers to their native places. There can be no exception to the policies and intentions of the State but what is important is that those on whom implementation of circulars, policies and schemes are entrusted are efficiently and correctly implementing those schemes. Lapses and short-comings in implementing the schemes and policies have been highlighted by various intervenors in their applications and affidavits. The responsibility of the States/Union Territories is not only to referring their policy, measures contemplated, funds allocated but there has to be strict vigilance and supervision as to whether those measures, schemes, benefits reaches to those to whom they are meant. We impress on States and Union Territories to streamline the vigilance and supervision of actions of their officers and staff and take appropriate action where required. We also have no doubt that most of the officers, staff of administration and police are discharging their duties with devotion and hard-work but the lapses have to be taken note of and remedial action be taken. We further notice from the materials on record that police officers of States, para-military forces wherever deployed are doing commendable job but some instances of excess with regard to migrant labourers are also there. The migrant labourers, who were forced to proceed to their native place, after cessation of their employment are already suffering. The Financial difficulty being with all the migrant labourers invariably they have to dealt by the police and other authorities in a humane manner. The concerned Director General of Police/Police Commissioner may issue necessary directions in this regard.””

In addition, the Bench then states in para 5 that, “Further eight directions were issued by this Court by Order dated 09.06.2020, which were to the following effect:-

“35. We, thus, in addition to directions already issued by our order dated 28.05.2020 and measures as directed above, issue following further directions to the Central Government, all States and Union Territories: (1) All the States/Union Territories shall take all necessary steps regarding identification of stranded migrant workers in their State which are willing to return to their native places and take steps for their return journey by train/bus which process may be completed within a period of 15 days from today.

(2) In event of any additional demand, in addition to demand of 171 Shramik trains, as noticed above, railway shall provide Shramik trains within a period of 24 hours as submitted by learned Solicitor General to facilitate the return journey of migrant workers.

(3) The Central Government may give details of all schemes which can be availed by migrant workers who have returned to their native places.

(4) All States and Union Territories shall also give details of all schemes which are current in the State, benefit of which can be taken by the migrant labourers including different schemes for providing employment.

(5) The State shall establish counselling centres, help desk at block and district level to provide all necessary information regarding schemes of the Government and to extend helping hand to migrant labourers to identify avenues of employment and benefits which can be availed by them under the different schemes.

(6) The details of all migrant labourers, who have reached their native places, shall be maintained with details of their skill, nature of employment, earlier place of employment. The list of migrant labourers shall be maintained village wise, block wise and district wise to facilitate the administration to extend benefit of different schemes which may be applicable to such migrant workers.

(7) The counselling centres, established, as directed above, shall also provide necessary information by extending helping hand to those migrant workers who have returned to their native places and who want to return to their places of employment.

(8) All concerned States/UTs to consider withdrawal of prosecution/complaints under Section 51 of Disaster Management Act and other related offences lodged against the migrant labourers who alleged to have violated measures of Lockdown by moving on roads during the period of Lockdown enforced under Disaster Management Act, 2005.””

Briefly stated, the Bench then also reveals in para 6 that, “In pursuance of our directions dated 09.06.2020, all States/Union Territories took steps and within a short period, migrant labourers were transported to their native places. On 31.07.2020, the matter was again heard. We, in our order dated 09.06.2020, had referred to following three enactments:-

i) Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service)Act, 1979;

ii) Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996; and

iii) Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008.”

While elaborating further, the Bench then suavely adds in para 7 that, “We had directed all the States to file their response in respect to implementation of the aforesaid three enactments. On 31.07.2020, we further granted three weeks’ time to the States to file affidavit in compliance to order dated 09.06.2020. In pursuance of our orders dated 09.06.2020 and 31.07.2020, Central Government, States and Union Territories took various measures to implement the orders of this Court and to remedy the grievances of the migrant labourers. The measures taken by different Governments although could not fully ameliorate the conditions of the migrant labourers but brought some solace in the first wave of pandemic and willing migrant labourers reached their native places. It has also been submitted that after few months, large number of migrant labourers again proceeded to their work place in search of employment since at their native place, they were not able to get suitable employment to sustain themselves.”

Going ahead, the Bench then also while dwelling on the corona pandemic brought out in para 8 that, “The Covid-19, which was declared pandemic by World Health Organisation on 30th January, 2020 continues even today. The intensity of the pandemic varied from time to time, after March, 2021, the second wave of pandemic hit the country and the number of cases started increasing throughout the country. The different States including NCT Delhi took different measures including restrictions, night curfews and lockdown in April, 2021. There has been the migrant workers working at several places including NCT Delhi, State of Maharashtra, State of Gujarat, State of Karnataka, who again started proceeding to their native places fearing the same situation which occurred in first nationwide lockdown, which was imposed in March, 2020. An I.A. No.58769 of 2021 was filed in the writ petition seeking directions from the Court specifically praying for direction to distribute dry ration to migrant workers, facilitating their transport either by road or by train to their native places and with request to direct for running of community kitchen for migrant labourers so that they and their family members could get two meals a day.”

In hindsight, while recalling its own interim directions, the Bench then elucidated in para 9 stating that, “On 13.05.2021, we while entertaining the petition and asking the few States for reply, issued following interim directions:-

“[2.0] After having heard learned counsel for the parties we direct the Central Government as well as the Government of State of NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) to file a reply to the application suggesting means and measures by which they shall ameliorate miseries of stranded migrant labourers. We also issue notice on the application to State of Maharashtra, State of Gujarat and State of Bihar to file their reply giving the details of the measures which they propose to take to ameliorate the miseries of migrant workers regarding transportation of stranded migrant workers and providing dry ration as well as cooked meals to the stranded migrant workers. In the meantime, 7 we issue following interim directions:

(1) Dry ration to migrant workers in National Capital Region under Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme or any other scheme be provided by the Union of India, NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana utilising the Public Distribution System prevalent in each State with effect from May, 2021. While providing dry ration the authorities of the States shall not insist on an identity card for those migrant labourers who do not possess for the time being and on self-declaration made by the stranded migrant labourers dry ration be given to them.

(2) NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) shall ensure that adequate transport is provided to stranded migrant labourers (in the National Capital Region) who want to return to their home. The District Administration in coordination with Police Administration may identify such stranded migrant labourers and facilitate their transport either by road transport or train. The Union of India may also issue necessary instructions to Ministry of Railways to take necessary and adequate measures to cater the need of migrant labourers.

(3) NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) shall open community kitchen at well advertised places (in the National Capital Region) for stranded migrant labourers so that they and their family members who are stranded could get two meals a day.””

In retrospect, the Bench then again recalled in para 10 that, “Subsequent to the order dated 13.05.2021, the matter was again heard by this Court on 24.05.2021 and in paragraphs 14 and 15, we had made following directions:-

“14. The Union of India in its letter dated 26.04.2020, which has been brought on record as Annexure R-14 has also stated that efforts should be made by States/Union Territories to encourage migrant NFSA beneficiaries to use the facility of portability under One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) to those migrants.

15. We, thus, direct that migrant workers wherever stranded throughout the country should be provided the dry ration under the Atma Nirbhar Scheme or any other scheme is found suitable by the States/Centre.””

To say the least, the Bench then stated in para 11 that, “The writ petition again came for hearing before this Court on 11.06.2021, on which day, after hearing learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the intervenors, we closed the hearing.”

Most significantly, the Bench then observes in para 32 which forms the cornerstone of this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment that, “There has been worldwide awareness regarding right to food to human being. Our country is no exception. Lately, all Governments have been taking steps and taking measures to ensure that no human being should be affected by hunger and no one dies out of hunger. The basic concept of food security globally is to ensure that all people, at all times, should get access to the basic food for their active and healthy life. The Constitution of India does not have any explicit provision regarding right to food. The fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution may be interpreted to include right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities.”

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 80 that, “In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusions, we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:-

(i) It is directed that the Central Government to develop the Portal in consultation with National Informatics Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers. We also impress upon and direct that the Central Government as well as the respective States and the Union Territories to complete the process of Portal for registration under National Data Base for Unorganised Workers (NDUW Project) as well as implement the same, which by all means may commence not later than 31.07.2021. We also impress upon and direct that the process of registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers is completed at the earliest, but not later than 31.12.2021. All the concerned States/Union Territories and the Licence Holders/Contractors and others to cooperate with the Central Government to complete the process of registration of migrant workers and unorganized labourers so that the benefits of the welfare schemes declared by the Central Government/State Governments/ Union Territories be available to migrant workers and unorganized labourers for whose benefits the welfare schemes are declared.

(ii) The Central Government having undertaken to distribute additional quantity of foodgrains as demanded by the States/Union Territories for distribution to migrant labourers under some Scheme framed by the States, we direct the Central Government, Department of Food and Public Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution) to allocate and distribute foodgrains as per demand of additional food-grains from the States for disbursement of dry foodgrains to migrant labourers.

(iii) We direct the States to bring in place an appropriate scheme for distribution of dry ration to migrant labourers for which it shall be open for States to ask for allocation of additional foodgrains from the Central Government, which, as directed above, shall provide the additional foodgrains to the State. The State shall consider and bring an appropriate Scheme, which may be implemented on or before 31.07.2021. Such scheme may be continued and operated till the current pandemic (Covid-19) continues.

(iv) The States, who have not yet implemented “One Nation One Ration Card” scheme are directed to implement the same by not later than 31.07.2021.

(v) The Central Government may undertake exercise under Section 9 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to re-determine the total number of persons to be covered under the Rural and Urban areas of the State.

(vi) We direct all the States/Union Territories to register all establishments and license all contractors under the Act, 1979 and ensure that statutory duty imposed on the contractors to give particulars of migrant workers is fully complied with.

(vii) The State/Union Territories are directed to run community kitchens at prominent places where large number of migrant labourers are found for feeding those migrant labourers who does not have sufficient means to procure two meals a day. The running of the community kitchen should be continued at-least till pandemic (Covid-19) continues.”

In essence, all the States and the Central Government must comply with what has been explicitly, elegantly and effectively directed by the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah as stated hereinabove. Centre as also all the States must take this commendable, cogent and courageous yet composed judgment in the right spirit and take all necessary steps to comply with what has been laid down in this noteworthy judgment. The Apex Court has rightly underscored that right to life under Article 21 includes right to food and other basic necessities.