Speaker:
Mr. Kunal Ambasta, Assistant Professor of Law, NLSIU
Abstract:
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was one of the first attempts at reducing the law of evidence to a set of clear and comprehensive provisions, which could be easily employed, and prove equal to the demands of administration of justice in a region far removed from the circumstances of the United Kingdom. At the same time, it also represented a significant moment for the experiment of codification to be carried forward, after the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This paper argues that in his attempt to craft a code of evidence for India, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen also brought into effect his conceptions of the fundamental principles of the law of evidence, which were at variance with how the common law on the subject had developed, and was arranged. This resulted in a novel method of looking at the subject, and shows forth in his code as well as in his writings on the subject. His principal aim was to arrive at a better system of evidence law for the UK itself, one which would solve the persistent confusions around subjects such as hearsay.
The present paper argues that the Indian Evidence Act was, however, neither interpreted nor understood in the manner that Stephen had intended for it, and instead, common law rules of evidence law were reintroduced into the Act through judicial application, and scholarly evaluation of its schema. The result was that a potentially astute method of trying to solve some of the most persistent problems of the law of proof was completely lost, and remains hidden to this day. Twentieth century codification efforts across the USA and the UK have similarly not considered the Indian Evidence Act as a plausible model for law reform. This is unfortunate, since most of these “modern” statutes could have been designed better with the principled clarity that we find in the Indian Act. This paper argues that Stephen’s work may still serve as a guide to the reform of evidence law, if it is appreciated in its own light, and without the common law tinted glasses that we have always looked at it through.
This faculty seminar is being held on May 11, 2022 at 4.30 PM.
Speaker
Dr. Nanda Kishore, Visiting Faculty, NLSIU
Abstract
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is often commended as a piece of legislation that is the embodiment of everything that is good and great. The Code is said to enshrine a rigorous system of procedural techniques that ensure fair play, the right to be heard, transparency, the search for the Truth, the balancing of economic interests, adversarial due process and other goals that the civil justice system supposedly serves. However, given the huge backlog of cases and the inexcusable delays of the civil justice system over the decades, law-makers and judges have frequently explored other ways of resolving civil disputes – ways that might be shorter, simpler, faster and more effective. In this paper I try to study how successful these alternative methods have been- by looking in particular at one area of law: the evolution of the legal regime relating to consumer disputes in India. I argue that in spite of the rhetoric about alternative procedural techniques, a great deal of work is yet to be done if we are to really move away from the detailed procedures contained in the good old CPC, 1908.
This faculty seminar is being held on April 27, 2022 at 4.30 PM.
Speaker:
Ms. Rashmi Venkatesan, Assistant Professor of Law, NLSIU
Abstract:
Property Rights are contentious in any jurisdiction. But the right to property in India, adopted as a fundamental right in Article 31 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 (“Article”), has had a particularly tumultuous legal and political history. It holds the distinction of being the second most debated Article in the Constituent Assembly, the most amended provision of the Constitution and the only fundamental right to ever be deleted. The history of the Article is commonly understood as arising from an ideological institutional conflict between a Parliament in pursuit of socialism and a judiciary safeguarding individual freedoms. However, looking at the Article and its initial amendments from a “law and development” perspective provides a critique of the current narrative of “conflict” and offers an alternative interpretation of the history of Article 31. The paper argues that rather than arising from the pursuit of either authoritarian socialist planning or an egalitarian social revolution, the travails of the Article came in the context of India’s quest for economic modernity through a process of “passive revolution”. The powers of eminent domain reinforced in the Article empowered the state to modernise economic relations in industry and agriculture by restructuring a semi-feudal pre-capitalist property rights regime established during colonialism along productive capitalist lines. In this process, the Article helped to consolidate the powers of the developmental state in the domain of economic policy; forged the relationship between state, market and the individual; and helped shape the regime of private property rights in India. Understanding the evolution of the fundamental right to property in India therefore, not only tells a key part of India’s development story but also contributes to the “law and development” literature by assimilating diverse historical experiences within its framework, which, as critics have long argued, tends to have a strong Eurocentric bias.
NLSIU invites you to the Public Lecture on “The Indian Jail Committee 1919-20 and International Penology: Too advanced, too American, too expensive?” on Thursday, April 28, 2022.
Speaker:
Radhika Singha,
Professor (Retired), Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Her research interests focus on the social history of crime and criminal law, identification practices, especially in relation to colonial governmentality, borders and border–crossing in South Asia. The mobilisation of human, fiscal and material resources from India for World War one became an intersecting research theme. She is now working on ‘foreign’ as a category of governmentality in colonial India and the emergence of an archive of ‘foreignness’. On another research track she she is also exploring the engagement between the colonial penal regime and international penology.
Abstract:
The Indian Jail Committee report of 1919-20 is often cast as the turning point when reform and rehabilitation were added to deterrence in penal policy. This tribute is followed by the admission that very little changed on the ground. Why after all did a cash-strapped, politically- besieged regime sponsor a globe-trotting study- tour of jails and reformatories ? Why did this committee return to enthuse about ‘flexible or indeterminate sentencing’, a penal principle embraced in the USA, but faltering in Britain. One argument is that to push through its post-war constitutional package the colonial regime had to show it was responsive to criticism about the harsh treatment of ‘seditionist’ prisoners. But references to political prisoners are very minimal in its report. Instead there was an effort to change the conversation. The committee’s proposals centred on the idea that criminal and vagrant populations made productive at sites of confinement , such as jails, reformatories and ‘criminal tribe settlements’ were ready for re-integration to society. Far from undermining private enterprise, this design for raising productivity, would check recidivism and benefit a nation on the verge of industrialisation and the tax payer. The report became a reference point for assessing India’s advance towards a ‘scientific penology’ because restrictions on liberty seemed to serve agendas of national economic and social reconstruction. Yet its proposals were also constantly brushed aside for being ‘too advanced’, ‘too American’ and above all too expensive.
Speaker
Prof. Dev Gangjee, University of Oxford
Abstract
Data is increasingly recognised as one of the most valuable resources of the 21st century. Its value derives from its use in machine learning algorithms, a form of artificial intelligence that finds useful patterns within data and learns from experience. This ever-increasing value has led to data being characterised as an asset. Property rights are a tried and tested legal response when it comes to regulating valuable assets. Do we therefore need a new intellectual property right for data?
This chapter argues that we do not. It charts the rapid rise and recent demise of the EU data producer’s right (DPR). The DPR was proposed in 2017, to incentivise the creation, dissemination, and commercial utilisation of machine-generated data. Today it leaves a fading policy footprint in the EU, having succumbed to the compelling arguments ranged against it. However, a right of this nature continues to be debated in international policy discussions. After introducing data as a valuable resource (Section 2), the first contribution of this chapter is to analyse why the proposed DPR was unsuccessful, as a cautionary tale for others contemplating a similar model (Section 3). This obituary emphasises why data remains such a challenging res for intellectually property (IP) law. Its second contribution is to suggest that the EU is developing an alternative framework to private property, as a resource management model for data (Section 4). While the emerging approach prioritises data access rights, this emphasis does not go far enough. There are valuable lessons to be learned from constructed commons models, as an alternative regulatory approach to private property.
This faculty seminar is on April 06, 2022 at 4.30 PM.
Speaker
Ms. Rashmi Venkatesan, Assistant Professor of Law, NLSIU
Abstract
Property Rights are contentious in any jurisdiction. But the right to property in India, adopted as a fundamental right in Article 31 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 (“Article”), has had a particularly tumultuous legal and political history. It holds the distinction of being the second most debated Article in the Constituent Assembly, the most amended provision of the Constitution and the only fundamental right to ever be deleted. The history of the Article is commonly understood as arising from an ideological institutional conflict between a Parliament in pursuit of socialism and a judiciary safeguarding individual freedoms. However, looking at the Article and its initial amendments from a “law and development” perspective provides a critique of the current narrative of “conflict” and offers an alternative interpretation of the history of Article 31. The paper argues that rather than arising from the pursuit of either authoritarian socialist planning or an egalitarian social revolution, the travails of the Article came in the context of India’s quest for economic modernity through a process of “passive revolution”. The powers of eminent domain reinforced in the Article empowered the state to modernise economic relations in industry and agriculture by restructuring a semi-feudal pre-capitalist property rights regime established during colonialism along productive capitalist lines. In this process, the Article helped to consolidate the powers of the developmental state in the domain of economic policy; forged the relationship between state, market and the individual; and helped shape the regime of private property rights in India. Understanding the evolution of the fundamental right to property in India therefore, not only tells a key part of India’s development story but also contributes to the “law and development” literature by assimilating diverse historical experiences within its framework, which, as critics have long argued, tends to have a strong Eurocentric bias.
The National Law School of India University is organising a guest lecture on ‘The Constitutional Responsibility of Judges Today’ by Prof Timothy Endicott, the Vinerian Professor of English Law, Faculty of Law, Oxford University on March 31, 2022.
About the Speaker
Prof Endicott has worked extensively on general jurisprudence, with particular interests in legal interpretation and the relation between adjudication and the law. His other research interests are the doctrine and theory of constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights law.
He is the author of Administrative Law (OUP 2021, 5th ed) and Vagueness in Law (OUP 2000). After completing his AB in Classics and English from Harvard, he completed his MPhil in Comparative Philology in Oxford, studied Law at the University of Toronto, and practised as a litigation lawyer in Toronto. He completed his DPhil in Law at Oxford in 1998. He was appointed as the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Oxford University from 2007-15, and was a Distinguished Visitor in the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, in 2017. He has been General Editor of the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies since 2015.
The event has limited seating. Kindly register for the event here.
This faculty seminar is being held on March 30, 2022 at 4.30 PM.
Speakers:
- Renuka Sane, Associate Professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
- S. Vivek, Research Fellow, Regulatory Governance Project, NLSIU
Abstract:
We study SEBI disgorgement from three perspectives. First, we study the theory of disgorgement, and find that it is a ‘gain based remedy’ that is different from compensation and restitution and that it is used for the purpose of deterrence. Second, we study the evolution of disgorgement at SEBI and find that justifications for the use of disgorgement are similar to the traditional restitutionary remedies in private law, and are not consistent with the theoretical understanding of disgorgement. Third, we study SEBI orders and evaluate if they adhere to the principles of restitutionary remedies that are the basis of SEBI’s justification for the use of disgorgement. We find that this is not the case. We argue that the justification for disgorgement and the manner in which it is applied by SEBI requires reconsideration.
This Public Lecture is on the topic “Swami Vivekananda’s Defense of Religion as a Science.” The event will be held in Room 202 of the Old Academic Block at the NLSIU campus. Those who are unable to attend the event in person can view the live stream of the public lecture on NLSIU’s official YouTube channel.
Speaker:
Swami Medhananda, Senior Research Fellow, Ramakrishna Institute of Moral and Spiritual Education
The lecture will be delivered on March 23, 2022 on the topic ‘Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War.’
Speaker:
Prof. Samuel Moyn, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence and Professor of History at Yale University. He has written several books in his fields of European intellectual history and human rights history, including The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History (2010), and edited or coedited a number of others. His most recent books are Christian Human Rights (2015), based on Mellon Distinguished Lectures at the University of Pennsylvania in fall 2014, and Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World (2018). His newest book is Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2021). Over the years he has written in venues such as Boston Review, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dissent, The Nation, The New Republic, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
