If you’ve ever been in that situation, you know how frustrating, helpless, and even violated it can feel. Having a blog since I was a 9th grader, it was certainly one of the biggest fears that somebody might rob my work and name it there’s. I had a good time thinking about probable solutions to implement, including getting my poetries copyrighted by some digitial agency; only to later realise that such content is already covered under copyright. It was about credit yes, but also respect for your time, creativity, and effort.

I didn’t know better but now that I do, let’s address the elephant in the room: what can you do? How do you protect your content? Where do you report it? And most importantly: Will anyone even listen?

Let’s talk about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)—a powerful tool that might just be your best ally.

What is the DMCA?

The DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is a U.S. law passed in 1998 that gives creators a way to quickly remove copyright-infringing content from the internet—without needing to go through a full-blown legal battle.

Even though it’s a U.S. law, platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, WordPress, and major hosting providers worldwide follow DMCA protocols because they operate globally. So yes, even if you’re in India or anywhere else, you can still use the DMCA if your content is misused on a platform that complies with it. What matters is where the content is hosted, not where the copyright owner lives. Good news: most major platforms (even international ones) honour DMCA requests, even if they aren’t legally required to.

Interestingly, Indian courts have also echoed some of these protective measures. For instance, in Dept. of Electronics & IT vs Star India Pvt Ltd (2016), the Delhi High Court allowed blanket blocking of websites, not just specific URLs, to prevent piracy—something that aligns well with the DMCA’s broad takedown power. Similarly, in Kent Systems Ltd & Ors. v. Amit Kotak (2017), the court clarified that once notified, intermediaries like hosting platforms must act, reinforcing the idea of shared responsibility online.

What Does DMCA Cover?

The DMCA applies to most types of digital content, including:

• Text (blog posts, articles, eBooks, PDFs)
• Images (photos, illustrations, infographics)
• Videos (YouTube content, tutorials, reels)
• Audio and music files
• Software and code

It’s a straightforward takedown mechanism, allowing you to request the removal of stolen content from websites, search engines, or hosting servers.

Step-by-Step: What To Do If Your Content Is Stolen

1. Stay Calm and Gather Proof

Before rushing to react, take a moment. You’ll need:

• Screenshots of the stolen content
• URLs of both your original and the infringing post
• Dates showing when you published your content and when you found the infringement

This proof will be crucial if you end up filing a takedown request.

2. Look for Clear Signs of Infringement

Direct copying of text, images, or media without permission

Minor edits that don’t qualify as fair use under Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957

Removal of watermarks or attribution

Try Reaching Out First

You can politely message the infringing user or site, explaining:

• Who you are
• That you own the content
• A link to your original work
• A link to the copied version
• A deadline (like 7 days) to remove it
• That you want to resolve the issue amicably

Sometimes, this is enough. If not, move on to filing a DMCA takedown notice.

How To File a DMCA Takedown Notice

Step 1: Identify the Hosting Provider

Use tools like WhoIsHosting or HostingChecker to find where the website is hosted. If the site is behind Cloudflare, you can still submit your complaint through Cloudflare’s abuse form, and they’ll forward it.

Step 2: Draft Your Takedown Notice

There are a few basics to keep in mind while prepping your takedown notice. This includes your key information, which can be utilised if the recipient wants to contact you. Include the following:

• Your full name and contact information
• The link to your original content
• The link to the infringing content
• A Statement of Good Faith that you did not authorise this usage
• A Statement of Accuracy that confirms your claim is truthful under penalty of perjury

Step 3: Submit to the Platform

Once you’re done with all of this, it’s time to submit your complaint. Most major hosting providers and platforms have dedicated forms or email addresses specifically for this type of complaint.

• Cloudflare: Abuse Report Form
• Google Cloud Platform: Google Legal Troubleshooter
• DigitalOcean: Abuse Contact Form
• Linode: Contact Page
• Vultr: Abuse Contact

Step 4: Follow Up

Once you have submitted the complaint, wait for 3-5 business days, and if you do not receive any response, follow up. This also includes regularly checking to see if the infringing content has been removed. If the hosting provider doesn’t respond or takes too long, follow up with them or submit a complaint to search engines to have the content removed from search results.

Most takedown requests are resolved in 3–7 business days, though some platforms may take up to 30 days, especially in cases involving e-commerce. Follow up if you don’t receive a response. Even Indian courts have recognized that platforms can and should act when properly notified. In the recent X Corp v. Union of India (2023) case, the Karnataka High Court observed that entire user accounts may be blocked under Section 69a of the IT Act, similar in impact to DMCA’s wide takedown capabilities when there’s a clear violation.

Note: Keep all communications and records safely stored for future reference.

It’s also worth noting that in India, even if DMCA doesn’t directly apply, creators are not left unprotected. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, framed under the IT Act, 2000, require digital platforms (intermediaries) to act on content takedown requests within 36 hours once they receive a complaint backed by appropriate evidence.

You can also rely on the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, which grants you exclusive rights to your original work, whether it’s a photo, article, video, or design. If infringed, you’re entitled to seek civil remedies like injunctions and damages, and even criminal penalties in serious cases.

So even if you’re not using the DMCA route, Indian law offers strong protections—especially when combined with proper documentation and prompt reporting.

What If You Receive a DMCA Notice?

If you’ve been accused of infringement, don’t panic. You have three options:

Option A: Remove the Content

If you agree that it infringes someone else’s copyright, take it down.

Option B: Modify It

You can tweak the content to comply with copyright rules, like giving attribution or using less of the original.

Option C: File a Counter-Notice

If the takedown is mistaken or you believe you own the rights, submit a counter-notice.

This must include:

• Your contact details
• What was taken down and where was it
• A statement of good faith belief that it was a mistake
• Your consent to jurisdiction
• Your electronic or physical signature

Once filed, the original complainant has 10 business days to take legal action. If they don’t, your content may be restored.

In the landmark U.S. case Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015), the court ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice. This is crucial for creators using content for commentary, education, parody, or criticism.

It’s safest to wait the entire period before reinstating content, even if the takedown notice is false. However, you can still request your provider to do so depending on the details of your situation.

DMCA is not just a law, it’s a tool for creators. In a world where content spreads like wildfire, understanding your rights is more than a legal luxury, it’s a digital necessity. Whether you’re an influencer, a blogger, a designer, or a developer, don’t let content theft slide. Start small: Learn. Document. Act. And if it ever happens to you again, remember—you’re not powerless. You’re protected.

–

An amazing blogpost on this subject can also be found here, by WPMU DEV.

Credits for featured Image: clicked by aag_photos, found on openverse.

There has been an increasing norm of cruelty involving animals in the country. This societal rise in animal cruelty reflects a deeper issue, a lack of education, awareness, and empathy. Instances of pets being abandoned during the pandemic, severed heads of cows being found on the street to give a communal angle, strays being poisoned in residential areas, and dogs being beaten to death by some caretaker, have become alarmingly common. These are not isolated incidents but symptoms of a systemic & maybe a societal failure.

The report, State of Pet Homelessness Project, released by pet food company Mars Petcare India reveals that 69.3% of cats and dogs are homeless in India, which accounts for 19% of the global homeless pet population.  

Adding to the problem is the disconnect between legal provisions and their execution. Laws may mandate humane practices, but the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms renders them ineffective. For example, sterilization programs for stray animals are designed to control populations humanely, yet improper execution often leads to animals being relocated to unfamiliar areas or subjected to cruel treatment. Grievance redressal systems for animal cruelty cases are often either inaccessible or ineffective, leaving concerned citizens with few avenues for action. And even if, the law finds the guilty as charged, there is no robust system to deter them further. This blog post is not about accusing the system but calling for change because it’s beyond time. Rights, freedom, dignity are not just terms for humans but extend rightfully to these living beings too.

Judiciary‘s take towards compassion

The rights of animals in India have long been a subject of judicial interpretation, but the recent case from the Delhi High Court by the name of Dr Chablani v. Radha Mittal (further referred as the Chablani judgement), marked a monumental shift in the protection of animal welfare, especially stray animals.

The Chablani (2021) judgement aligns with past rulings that emphasize protecting the “life” of animals under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court not only endorsed the right to feed stray animals but also acknowledged that such acts should be carried out in a manner that does not infringe upon others’ rights or cause harm to society. This judgment extended the fundamental duty under Article 51A(g)—”to have compassion for living creatures”—to include the “right to feed stray animals.” And also directed the framing of various guidelines for feeding stray dogs, recognizing citizens’ right to feed community dogs.

EPW’s article calls it rather a part of compassion jurisprudence, this ruling indeed reflects the evolving legal recognition of animals as sentient beings entitled to compassion and protection.

Landmark judgments, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja (2014), have been instrumental in broadening the scope of animal rights in the country over time. Yet these rulings, while powerful, are of not much utility without a comprehensive legislative reform or effective enforcement. This ruling itself was sidelined by passing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017. So yes, when we say there has been a tussle between the executive & the judiciary over time, it is a fact. But right now what we focus on is to find a middle ground.

Legislature: The Struggle for Stronger Laws

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (further referred to as the PCA Act), remains the sole comprehensive legislation addressing animal welfare. However, its penalties, range from Rs. 10 to Rs. 50 for offences are outdated and insufficient to deter cruelty in modern times.

I used to take care of a stray, when one day the municipal corporation mini truck came and took it away. On protest, they told me they’d drop it back once the process of sterilization was complete. But to my dismay, it never returned. I went to the local office, spoke to multiple truck drivers, and called numerous places, but to no avail.

Under Section 11(1)(i) and 11(1)(j) of the PCA Act, it is illegal to relocate stray animals (also provided under ABC Rules 2023). As per various High Court Orders, all sterilized dogs must remain in their original areas. But how compatible is this on the ground?

“The police are disinterested in filing FIRs for animal cruelty because the penalty according to the PCA Act is still INR 50-100. Even if the matter reaches trial, the worst that the accused would need to do is pay Rs. 100, so they’d rather the accused pay the amount and walk out.,” as reported in the TOI.

Abandoning pet animals is a crime under Sections 3 & 11 of the PCA Act, as also reiterated by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the Alim v State of Uttarakhand (2017) case.

Another legislation that deals with the subject in discussion is the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which is poised to replace the Indian Penal Code. Section 325 of the BNS emphasizes stricter penalties and criminalizes specific acts of cruelty, including abandonment and neglect, viz.,

Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

It still falls short on the part of criminalising sexual offences against animals, which by the way, has become a norm- heinous yet unpunishable. The delay in passing critical legislation like the PCA Amendment Bill (2022) which has been in discussion for years now, highlights a troubling inertia in addressing animal rights comprehensively. The proposed amendments aim to introduce harsher punishments and align Indian laws with global standards, but the delay risks normalizing cruelty as an acceptable aspect of daily life.

Way Forward

India’s laws must evolve to reflect the changing realities of our society. Stronger penalties are only part of the solution. The government must also invest in training enforcement agencies, establishing more accessible grievance systems, and educating citizens about their responsibilities towards animals.

We as humans have a moral responsibility, apart from the legal one of course, where providing and respecting these beings is an integral part of coexisting. Each life matters. This complements the broader discourse on animal rights, highlighting how societal attitudes and laws must work hand in hand to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

Our country has long prided itself on its compassion and respect for all living beings as part of our culture. Stronger legislation, better enforcement, and greater societal awareness are not just idealistic goals—they are the bare minimum required to create a society where animals are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Personally, I see only two ways which can be sufficient if addressed rightly – by the society, it is to instil kindness & empathy in your children & develop a little more sensitivity in general; and by the state, it is to create deterrence by providing for stringent measures against those who’ve forgotten the lesson on humanity already.

Have more thoughts on this? Please feel free to mention in the comments below.

The Problem with Bulldozer Justice

Recently, in the case of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash (2024), the Supreme Court reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing a house under the pretext of “road widening” without issuing prior notice. The court found the government guilty of high-handedness, declared the act illegal and directed the state to pay ₹25 lakhs in interim compensation to the affected family. The ruling highlighted key constitutional and legal concerns surrounding the practice of bulldozer justice.

This judgment raises critical questions like,

Who bears the penalty? Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who pay for the state’s mistakes.

What is the accountability? Does it deter the authorities from resorting to such high-handed actions further?

Why bulldozer justice is not justified

Eroding Democratic Principles

Indian democracy is founded on principles like equality, the rule of law, and separation of powers. These pillars ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Bulldozer Justice undermines these principles by allowing the executive to take over the judiciary’s role, effectively bypassing due process.

This practice not only blurs the distinction between accused and guilty but also raises questions about the fairness of our justice system. The law follows the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Yet, these demolitions target, rather say, punish, not just the convicted but often those accused—without trial or evidence.

A Slippery Slope Towards Lawlessness

Is Bulldozer Justice any different from police encounters, mob justice or gunda raj? It rather represents a troubling normalization of lawlessness. Also, by punishing entire families who might co-own or live in the demolished properties—the authority, here, perpetuates collective punishment, a concept alien to any fair legal system.

This approach takes us back to colonial-era tactics, where oppressive measures dehumanized individuals under state control. As highlighted in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 753), such actions are relics of a time when dignity and justice were denied to marginalized groups.

Seeking Public Approval or Delivering Justice

There’s a saying in law that justice must not just be done, it must be seen as done. In my humble opinion, Bulldozer Justice is less about enforcing the law and more about garnering public support. It creates a spectacle that appeals to a section of the population for ‘they see justice happening,’ regardless of it bypassing constitutional safeguards.

In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, the Supreme Court stated that the executive cannot usurp the judiciary’s role. The bench of Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan noted that demolishing properties without due process is unconstitutional and violates the rule of law. And that a judicial body alone has the authority to declare someone guilty and impose penalties.

Firstly, because the executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/ies of such an accused without following due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law which is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/ies. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.

How justified is Judicial Justice

The greater the power to decide, the higher the responsibility to be just and fair. Every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by virtue of their position as a public officer or public servant, is accountable both to the State as well as the public. Hence, decisions must be guided by fairness, transparency, and due process.

A trial must be impartial, free from any external pressure or public clamour, and the legal order must be regularly maintained, ensuring the rights of all parties involved. An accused cannot be declared guilty or punished unless proven so beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law. And it is equally important that the consequences of alleged crimes do not unjustly affect those who are not involved.

But wait, we do gain morality points here but what about the practicality?

Verdict of the Court

In the Manoj Tibrewal case, the court strongly criticized the actions of the authorities, describing them as “high-handed.” Justice Pardiwala emphasized the unlawfulness of demolishing houses without giving the owners proper notice or time to vacate.

In consonance with the observation, the Court ordered compensation for the victims and directed an inquiry against the officials responsible for the demolitions. It also issued a set of guidelines to ensure that demolitions are conducted in compliance with due process, including giving the property owner 15 days to rectify the situation before any demolition takes place. If the demolition violates any court orders, the responsible officers will be held personally liable.

Further, to prevent the issue of backdating, the Court looped in the role of the Collector/DM and emphasized the use of technology to streamline the process. Once the show cause notice is served, it must be immediately communicated to the District Magistrate via email. An auto-generated reply confirming the receipt of the notice will also be issued from the office of the DM. This measure ensures transparency and accountability in the process.

These actions by the Supreme Court represent a laudable move towards upholding due process and ensuring that no person’s property is destroyed without just cause and appropriate legal procedures. But this is not it. I’d rather call it the surface-level resolution for the problem is bigger.

The bigger problem

The court’s judgment emphasizes the need to adhere to municipal laws—ensuring proper notice, fair hearings, and timely demolition orders. Yet, the question is— can the system deliver on this promise, the system, the timing, the procedure? The sad truth is that our system, though built on sound principles, often falls short when it comes to implementation, making it all a vicious cycle.

Consider property disputes, which can drag on for 5, 15, or even 30 years. Or the plight of undertrials: despite clear legal provisions limiting detention periods, Indian prisons remain overcrowded, with undertrials constituting 75% of the incarcerated population. Is this justifiable in a nation governed by the rule of law?

The courts, too, are overwhelmed. In Delhi alone, 266,000 new criminal cases were added in 2024, pushing the backlog to 1.2 million—second only to West Bengal. Across India, over 66 million cases are delayed, many due to a lack of advocates, judges, and functional courtrooms. As submitted in the Lok Sabha, there are 21 Judges per million population, that too in accordance with the 2011 census.

Even everyday matters get ensnared in bureaucracy. Something as basic as changing the name on an electricity bill can require countless phone calls, visits, and perhaps even something more. When accessing basic facilities becomes this arduous, how can citizens be expected to trust a system that seems indifferent to their struggles?

The concept of the rule of law—justice that is fair, seen, and reliable—becomes meaningless if people can’t see it in action. It’s time to confront a bitter truth: due process, a cornerstone of democracy, often exists more in theory than in practice. If citizens believe their grievances will be met with indifference or delay, how can we expect them to approach the system with faith? Ensuring justice isn’t just about enforcing the law; it’s about upholding the promise of fairness, transparency, and timely redress.

I personally condemn any authority’s overreach, like in the present case because these acts, no matter how “swift,” undermine the foundation of the rule of law and give way to exploitation. Yet, it’s crucial to address that a significant portion of our population praises such actions, viewing them as a form of “speedy justice.” As brevity puts it, when law isn’t accessible, lawlessness becomes the norm.

The onus therefore falls on the rightful authorities to shift this narrative. By ensuring due process and demonstrating accountability, we can reaffirm the public’s trust in lawful, democratic processes.

No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do : and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task for Parliament … the courts must do this

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746

Conclusion

Due process is more than a principle—it is a promise. A promise that the law will serve the people, not just theoretically but in practice. When that promise is broken, the justice system loses its essence. What we need is not just rhetoric about fairness but a system that delivers justice consistently, transparently, and equitably. Without such evolution, the dream of a truly just society will remain just that—a dream.

As rightly observed, the Rule of law is integral to and necessary for democracy and good governance. Attempts to democratize without a robust legal system often lead to social disorder. In India, the principle of separation of powers serves as a crucial check-and-balance mechanism. It is supposed to ensure that no branch of government overreaches its jurisdiction, with the others holding it accountable. Each action of one arm of the government affects another, and therefore there is a crucial need to optimally utilise the check-and-balance system, as again, done in the present case.

For democracy to thrive, the legal system must uphold its promise to the people. Transparent processes, consistent accountability, and meaningful reforms are essential. The goal isn’t just to enforce the rule of law but to restore public faith in its ability to protect rights, uphold dignity, and deliver justice.

Only then can we build a system where justice is not just done but is seen to be done.

While this judgment eases the financial burden on new enrollees, it has created a disparity that impacts those who enrolled just before it came into effect.

Exorbitant Enrolment Fees: A Barrier to Entry

Admission on the roll of advocates is a pre-requisite for any individual intending to practice law in India. Until this decision, the Bar Councils had been collecting fees under various heads like application form fees, processing fees, administrative fees, etc. The Court has now clarified that all these miscellaneous fees collected during enrolment fall under the definition of “enrolment fee” as per Section 24(1)(f). Therefore, the total fee charged at the time of admission cannot exceed the enrolment fee prescribed in the Act.

The Court observed that the practice of charging excess fees by State Bar Councils violated Article 14, the right to Equality and Article 19(1)(g), the right to Profession under the Constitution of India.

No Retrospective Relief: A Case of Inequality

However, one key limitation of the Advocates’ enrolment fee judgment is that it applies only prospectively. Hereunder the Supreme Court clarified that the decision does not require the SBCs to refund the excess fees collected prior to the date of this judgment (para 109). This may have avoided the administrative complexities of a retrospective effect but has left recent enrollees at a distinct disadvantage.

Take, for instance, the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, which enrolled around 400 advocates on July 29, 2024—just one day before the judgment. Each of these enrollees was required to pay the inflated enrolment fee of ₹23,000 as per the norm in the state. This difference is stark and has imposed an unfair financial burden on Advocates who enrolled in the same year, or even the same month, as those benefiting from the new fee structure.

This discrepancy raises significant concerns about inequality. It seems more like those who enrolled earlier to start practising or maybe not lose eligibility for the All India Bar Examination paid the cost of being on time.

While the Court’s decision to avoid retrospective relief is understandable to prevent administrative chaos, it is crucial to consider the unfairness experienced by recent enrollees who, due to the timing of the judgment, had no choice but to pay an exorbitant fee. This sudden disparity impacts both their financial burden and their standing within a profession grounded in fairness and equal treatment.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the advocates’ enrolment fee is a commendable step toward making the legal profession more accessible. However, for advocates who enrolled just before the ruling, the disparity is a genuine concern. An alternative solution—such as a partial refund or equitable adjustment—would have honored the intent of the judgment while also ensuring fairness for those who narrowly missed the revised fee structure.

In a profession built on principles of justice & equity, this judgment undeniably paves the way for a fairer enrolment process in the future, but addressing the current disparity will further strengthen its positive impact and uphold the values central to the legal profession.

What is Lady Justice?

Lady Justice is a symbolic representation of a Justice system. Traditionally, she is depicted wearing a blindfold, dressed in Western attire, holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other (The Victoria model). This familiar image has roots in ancient Greek and Roman symbols, which made its way into the Indian judicial system during British colonial rule. Seen in courts & legal institutes around the world, Lady Justice represents the values of fairness and impartiality. However, India has given this symbol a fresh twist, and in my opinion, it’s about time!

So, what’s so special about this statue? Well, for starters, she’s dressed in a saree. And while this isn’t entirely new (Bangladesh did something similar a few years back but removed the statue due to severe backlash), seeing Lady Justice in a saree right here in our Supreme Court feels like such a powerful statement, as if we’re seeing Bharat Mata herself. It’s indeed a beautiful representation of our culture and identity.

But it’s not just the saree that’s different. Unlike the usual depiction where her eyes are covered by a blindfold, this statue has her eyes wide open. She’s also holding a book—symbolising the Constitution of India—instead of the typical sword. To me, like many others, this feels like a shift away from that old colonial image, towards something that reflects who we are today.

It is a popular saying in the field of law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen as done. The idea is to retain the hope & faith of millions of Indians out there in the judicial system, even though the current reality hits off-road. Symbolism plays an important role in imparting this idea. But we surely need to ask ourselves about the way forward in minimizing the stark reality between the existing judicial system & what we aim for.

The Traditional Symbol: Justice, Blindfolded and Armed

In law school, as I’ve seen, Lady Justice is depicted with a blindfold, symbolizing impartiality. She holds a sword in one hand, while her other hand balances a pair of scales. This image has long stood for the idea that justice should be swift and unbiased, unclouded by prejudice or external influence.

If you look closely at the traditional depiction, the intricacies tell an even deeper story. Lady Justice is often shown wearing a flowing gown, standing tall with her blindfold securely in place. Her right hand is raised high, holding the sword as a looming threat to wrongdoers, symbolizing the punishment awaiting those who are found guilty. In contrast, her left hand, slightly raised, holds the scales—measuring the arguments and evidence from the parties before the court (scroll to see the picture).

As per sources online, it was since the 16th century that Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold was originally a satirical addition intended to show Justice as blind to the injustice carried on before her, but it has been reinterpreted over time and is now understood to represent impartiality, the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status. 

Justice Fali Nariman, in his autobiography, Before Memory Fades (which, by the way, is an incredible read if you’re interested in law), mentions two types of Lady Justice. Firstly, it’s the Victorian ideal of justice. He mentions how it comes from the border design of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, which set up the Bombay High Court way back in 1862. But as he points out, there’s a flaw in this idea—how can Lady Justice fairly wield her sword or weigh the scales if her eyes are covered? Would it not give way to striking the innocent party instead? And would the delay involved in the process of arriving at a decision not freeze the arms of the Lady holding the sword & pair of scales? And honestly, that’s something too deep in symbolism I did not think about till then.

The Indian Take on Lady Justice

In India, we’ve had our own twist on this symbol. Take the Bombay High Court, for example, where there’s a statue of Lady Justice with her eyes open, no blindfold in sight (couldn’t find the specific picture). Here, the idea is that justice isn’t blind—it’s aware, it’s fair, and it takes its time to ensure the right person is held accountable. That makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, how can you serve justice if you can’t even see what’s happening in front of you?

Justice Nariman notes in his memoir, that standing in front of the Gothic building of the Bombay High Court, opposite the Oval Maidan (at Churchgate), one can see two tall conical towers above the porch. The northern tower depicts the Indian ideal of justice, while the southern tower depicts the figure of mercy, the handmaiden of justice. In this Indian ideal of justice, the lady is not blindfolded.

He says that our version of Lady Justice stands with her sword resting at her feet, so she’s ready to act but not rushing into things. This way the necessary delay involved in a trial doesn’t freeze her shoulders. She looks at the scales, weighs the evidence carefully, and only then makes her move. It’s a far more thoughtful approach, one that feels closer to the idea of real justice.

A Step Forward towards today’s Bharat

Coming back to the newly unveiled statue at the Supreme Court, it feels like we’re stepping into a new era. This isn’t just about changing a statue—it’s about changing how we see justice itself. We’re saying that justice in India is rooted in our Constitution, in fairness, and in transparency. The open eyes of Lady Justice symbolize that justice must be seen; its supposed to be thoughtful and aware of the world around us. And isn’t that exactly what we need in today’s world?

This new version of Lady Justice is a reflection of the India we’re becoming—a country that’s not only leaving behind its colonial past but also embracing its cultural roots and standing strong in its own identity. It’s about recognizing that our vision of justice is one that’s not just for today, but for the India we’re building for the future.

So, the next time you see Lady Justice, take a moment to think about what it really stands for. I hope that, over time, the gap between the ideal of justice we imagine and the reality we experience narrows. For me, Lady Justice now serves as a reminder that justice isn’t just about laws—it’s about the values we hold dear, the fairness we strive for, and the progress we continue to chase.

The UGC PoSH Regulation within higher education institutions (HEIs) and its alignment with the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (PoSHA) is a transformative legislation. Emphasizing the imperative for secure and respectful educational environments, it navigates through the intricacies of defining sexual harassment and its multifaceted impact.

Introduction:

The Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act in Educational Institutions, also known as PoSHA, came into existence in response to a distressing incident of sexual assault against a courageous social activist at her workplace. Enacted in 2013 after the Vishakha case and guidelines, PoSHA stands as a pillar of protection for women employed in a spectrum of domains, ranging from NGOs and corporate entities to sports organizations and higher education institutes. This legislative mandate extends its reach across all workplaces within the nation, enshrining a commitment to its principles.

The landscape of higher education institutions (HEIs) is one that demands a secure and respectful environment for its occupants. Recent developments have underscored the urgency of safeguarding the well-being of both students and employees within these educational realms (Abida Salim Tadvi v. Union of India). The UGC PoSH Regulation, a forward-looking framework introduced by the UGC, has already set the stage for comprehensive addressing of workplace harassment. Progressing from this groundwork, a significant stride forward emerges from a directive in June 2023, emphasizing the ongoing importance of education and enhancement. Through the establishment of frequent orientation programs, workshops, seminars, and awareness campaigns, this mandate reinforces the commitment to cultivate an environment where all stakeholders are equipped with knowledge, empowered, and actively involved in fostering workplace security. This article embarks on a journey into the dynamic realm of workplace safety within HEIs, with a dedicated lens on the evolving role of the UGC PoSH Regulation.

Defining Sexual Harassment and its Impact:

PoSHA defines sexual harassment as involving “sexual undertones or advances.” Importantly, it is not limited to interactions between individuals of different genders; instead, it encompasses any violation of personal rights, regardless of the genders involved. A recent interpretation clarified that definition of sexual harassment mentioned in section 2(n) of the act need not be confined to a specific gender dynamic, for the infringement of personal rights does not mention that individuals from same gender cannot infringe personal liberty. The Act extends its protection to female students in schools, categorizing them as “aggrieved women.” In 2015, the University Grants Commission (UGC) introduced the UGC PoSH Regulation, a powerful and comprehensive step towards addressing sexual harassment in higher educational institutions (HEIs).

The Gender-Neutral Approach: UGC PoSH Regulation 2015:

Unlike some other legislations that may focus on specific relationships, this regulation takes a gender-neutral approach, offering protection to individuals of all genders, including males and those identifying as the third gender. This gender-inclusive perspective ensures that all members of the educational community are safeguarded from sexual harassment.

The UGC PoSH Regulation advocates a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment, treating it as misconduct under service rules for employees and a disciplinary violation for students.[6] This approach emphasizes the seriousness with which the issue is treated, promoting a safe and respectful environment for everyone within the HEIs.

Promoting a Safe Environment in HEIs:

The UGC PoSH Regulation recognizes that sexual harassment can occur in various scenarios and involves a wide range of perpetrators. It acknowledges that sexual harassment is not limited to a one-way dynamic, such as male-to-female harassment. Instead, it considers that sexual harassment can occur between students, teachers, or even involve individuals from outside the HEI, such as peers from other institutions participating in inter-college events. This comprehensive view ensures that no form of sexual harassment goes unnoticed or unaddressed, fostering a culture of respect and safety within the HEIs.

One of the significant strengths of the UGC PoSH Regulation is its emphasis on the constitution of inclusive Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). These committees consist of student representatives, faculty members, non-teaching employees, and an independent member from an NGO working for women’s rights.[8] By including diverse perspectives and voices, the ICCs ensure fair and unbiased handling of sexual harassment complaints, creating an environment where survivors feel empowered to come forward. To effectively combat sexual harassment, the prompt establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) within organizations is essential. [9] Failure to do so may result in penalties, as also reiterated in a recent judgement by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The key requisites of an ICC, as mentioned in the regulation, include maintaining a neutral stance, conducting regular mandatory awareness sessions, and being approachable while providing information about its members to the public at large. These practices promote a safe and supportive environment for addressing sexual harassment cases effectively.

The UGC PoSH Regulation also stands against any form of gender discrimination. It explicitly states that concern for the safety of women students should not be used to impose discriminatory rules for women in hostels or restrict their freedom of movement.[11] HEIs are encouraged to take decisive actions[12] against all forms of gender-based violence and discrimination, reinforcing their commitment to ensuring a safe and supportive campus environment.

To further promote safety, the regulation recommends specific measures such as prioritizing the construction of women’s hostels, providing reliable transportation, offering gender-sensitive healthcare, ensuring adequate lighting, and conducting sensitization programs.[13] These initiatives contribute to creating an environment where everyone feels respected, protected, and free from the fear of sexual harassment.

Addressing False Complaints and Reporting:

The UGC PoSH Regulation acknowledges the importance of preventing false and malicious complaints to safeguard the integrity of the process. To address this concern, the regulation includes provisions to deal with such complaints, ensuring that they are not misused to harm innocent individual and publicize the same within all HEIs.[14] This step is crucial in striking a balance between protecting survivors and preventing any misuse of the system.

To maintain transparency and accountability, the UGC PoSH Regulation mandates a consolidated status report on sexual harassment cases annually. However, there have been instances of delayed resolutions, indicating a need for more efficient handling of cases. Recent judgments have emphasized the significance of proper inquiry by Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and adherence to POSHA provisions before any termination or punitive actions are taken. These judgments reinforce the need for a fair and impartial investigation process.

Ensuring Compliance and Implementation:

To promote awareness and accountability, institutions are required to publicize their zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment. This disclosure informs potential employees and students about the institution’s commitment to ensuring a safe environment for all.

The UGC PoSH Regulation enforces compliance with strict penalties for non-compliance. Institutions found not adhering to the regulations risk facing severe consequences, such as withdrawal of grants and affiliations.[17] However, despite the clear provisions, there are challenges in executing the regulations effectively.[18] Some organizations have failed to establish active ICCs, which compromises the intended protection of the regulation. To overcome this, focused efforts are necessary to ensure full adherence and appropriate action against instances of non-compliance.

Conclusion:

The combined efforts of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act and the UGC PoSH Regulation are commendable steps towards strengthening workplace safety in educational institutions. The gender-neutral approach and comprehensive provisions ensure that no individual is left unprotected, and all forms of harassment are addressed. The emphasis on forming Internal Complaints Committees and promoting a safe campus environment further reinforces the commitment to creating a respectful and secure atmosphere for everyone.

Despite these positive strides, the challenges lie in effectively implementing these measures. Instances of delayed resolutions and non-compliance are issues that demand our attention for continuous improvement. Awareness campaigns and proactive measures are essential to ensure that institutions take the necessary steps to enforce the regulations fully. Scrutiny by the UGC on the institutions to mandatorily form an active ICC, and regular checkups, remain the need of the hour.

Overall, these legislations provide a strong foundation for combating sexual harassment in higher education, but their success ultimately depends on the collective efforts of educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and the public. Institutes must understand that forming an Internal Complaints Committee is not just about financial investment. It’s about ensuring a safer environment for everyone within the institution. Sexual harassment is a serious issue, and nobody should have to endure it. It is the institute’s responsibility to uphold the trust placed in them by their students and employees, providing a secure and respectful atmosphere. By following the regulations and providing a fair process, the institute not only helps individuals seek justice but also elevates its own standing as an institution committed to protecting the rights and well-being of its members.

Previously published on LinkedIn here.

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of internet revolution, the Indian legal system incorporated technology into its proceedings through the Amendment Act of 2000 to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The amendment was introduced to add Section 65A & 65B to the act, keeping the concerns regarding the authenticity of electronic records intact and to ensure their adaptability in courtrooms. The admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian courts, since then have been a topic of extensive discussion, one of the reasons for which is the prevailing ambiguity in provisions incorporated thereunder.

The classification of electronic evidence as a secondary category of acceptable evidence in court has sparked several important questions surrounding its admissibility. One significant query is whether Section 65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and at what stage the production of the certificate should ideally take place. Should the certificate be presented after the evidence is submitted in court or when it is referred to during legal proceedings? Moreover, the validity of the evidence and the applicability of different methods in civil and criminal cases have remained uncertain.

THE EVOLUTION OF ADMISSIBILITY

Legislatively, Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides a special provision for electronic records to be considered as evidence, while Section 65B governs their admissibility through a deeming fiction. Accordingly, when electronic records are submitted as evidence in the court, they are treated as “documents” under the Evidence Act, subject to the conditions specified in Section 65B (4). Like the contents of a memory card, in relation to a crime, are considered a “document” rather than a “material object”, as observed in the case of Dileep v. State of Kerala.

This judgement reinforced the probative value of digital records under the IT Act 2000 when proper evidentiary procedures are followed.

The purpose of these provisions is to facilitate the use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings. They also serve as an exception to the best evidence rule, which generally requires the production of the original document as primary evidence. However, Section 65B (4) does not explicitly state the evidentiary value of the certificate or whether it is mandatory to satisfy the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) or at which stage it should be presented. Through various judgments, the Supreme Court has endeavored to clarify the legislative intent behind these provisions. It has been established as a history of considering a certificate following any of the three conditions mentioned in Section 65B (4) to hold more weight than oral or documentary evidence.

In 2005, the court ruled that printouts of phone records could be considered admissible evidence even without a certificate under Section 65B (4). However, this judgment was later overruled in Anvar. In the latter case, the Hon’ble Court held that Section 65B is a complete code, and evidence from any other source would not be permissible. It emphasized that the Indian Evidence Act does not allow proof of an electronic record through oral evidence and stated that a certificate under Section 65B (4) is mandatory.

In 2017, the court reevaluated the requirement of a certificate and concluded that certificates under Section 65B (4) are only a “mode of proof.” Therefore, the non-production of a certificate on an earlier occasion could be considered a curable defect. This viewpoint was further supported by another judgment in 2018, which stated that the requirement of a certificate is procedural and not mandatory. It can be relaxed in certain circumstances, such as when a party does not have control over the original device. Consequently, Section 65B is not considered a complete code.

Upon analyzing these judgments and the associated contradictions, it becomes evident that there is a gap in the interpretation of the law. The case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao addressed and resolved these contradictions comprehensively. The court emphasized that Section 65B operates independently of the rest of the Indian Evidence Act.

THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Over the years, various cases such as Navjot Sandhu, P. Anvar, and Shafhi Mohammad have attempted to address the ambiguity surrounding these provisions. However, due to the differing circumstances and related factors in each case, there was no unified stance on these issues. As a result, the legal landscape remained unclear, and doubts persisted. In a significant development, the three-judge bench of the Honorable Supreme Court recently in the case of Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kishanrao has provided a definitive and comprehensive clarification. This landmark judgment stands as the latest interpretation of the relevant provisions, offering a consistent approach in line with the legislative intent.

In a civil appeal, a defeated candidate and an elector accused a successful candidate of improperly filing nomination papers after the deadline. The respondents presented video-camera recordings (VCDs) from the RO’s office as evidence, but the RO refused to provide a Section 65B (4) certificate. The Supreme Court clarified two issues: (1) A certificate is necessary when presenting electronic evidence as secondary evidence, not when the original record is available. (2) Compliance with Section 65B (4) is mandatory, even if obtaining a certificate is not possible. The High Court held that the oral testimony of an employee at the RO’s office regarding the regular collection of VCDs, their inclusion in their own records, and the absence of recent complaints about the working of the office, is not barred by Section 65B, complying with the requirements u/s Section 65B (4).

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court for its reliance on the other evidences than the VCD. It noted that section 65A and 65B govern the admissibility of electronic evidence as a complete code, and the production of a certificate is not needed if the original record is presented. Acknowledging the conflict between the judgments in Anvar and Shafhi, the Court upheld the decision in P. Anvar, emphasizing the requirement of a written and signed certificate. Therefore, in the said case, the absence of such a certificate, lead the VCDs to not be admitted as evidence.

INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 65B (4)

In distinguishing between primary and secondary evidence, the court highlighted that the original information contained within a computer is considered as primary evidence. Copies derived from it, on the other hand, are inherently secondary evidence. The court also clarified that the phrase “any of the conditions” in Section 65B (4) should be interpreted as “all.” Therefore, since an electronic record, as mentioned in subsection (1), is considered secondary evidence, the requirement of a certificate in accordance is mandatory.

In cases such as Shafhi Mohammad, where the parties involved do not have first-hand possession of the data and are unable to obtain a certificate, the said court provided some relaxation. It stated that an application must be presented to the judge to seek relaxation of the mandatory requirement under Section 65B (4). However, the subsequent judgment in Arjun Panditrao overruled this decision. It held that the portion of Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) stating “…who are not in possession of an electronic device” is entirely incorrect. The court clarified that an application can always be made to a judge for the production of such a certificate from the relevant person under Section 65B (4), even if the person refuses to provide it at the first instance.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

These judgments highlight crucial questions regarding the use of Section 65B, the timing of certificate submission (immediately or later in court), the methods of proving it in a court of law, and the contents of the certificate itself.

Indeed, the case of Arjun Panditrao Kotkar provides answers to these questions. It clarifies that a certificate is necessary only when presenting electronic evidence as secondary evidence. If the original electronic record, which serves as primary evidence, is produced, then the submission of a certificate is not required. The owner of the computer, tablet, or mobile phone can directly introduce the original electronic record as evidence by testifying that they own or operate the device where the information is initially stored.

DIFFERENTIATING THE CIVIL & CRIMINAL CASES

In its interpretation of Section 65B, the court also distinguishes the use of certificates in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, if defective or no certificates are provided despite a demand made to the concerned authority, the judge conducting the trial should summon the person(s) mentioned and require them to provide the necessary certificate. This applies when the electronic record is presented as evidence without the required certificate. In such cases, the authority lies with the trial judge.

As per the provisions of Section 65B (4) read with Sections 207, 91, and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), electronic evidence must be furnished no later than before the trial commences. Although it is within the discretion of the court to permit the filing of electronic evidence at a later stage before the trial concludes.

However, in the case of CDs, VCDs, chips, and similar storage media, they must be accompanied by a certificate obtained at the time of taking the document, following the provisions of Section 65B. Without such a certificate, the secondary evidence related to that electronic record becomes inadmissible.

THE CERTIFICATE

In terms of proving a certificate in court, the judgment provides guidance based on reasoning. Section 65B (4) specifies that a certificate should include certain elements to establish its authenticity and authority. It should identify the electronic record containing the statement, describe the manner in which it was produced, and provide particulars of the device involved in the production of the electronic record. These provisions aid in the identification and lend authority to the presented evidence.

To demonstrate that the electronic record was produced by a computer, the certificate should be issued either by a person holding a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities.

The judgment in the case of Anvar established guidelines on the required content of a certificate, which include:

1. Identifying the electronic record containing the statement.
2. Describing the manner in which the electronic record was produced.
3. Furnishing the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record.
4. Addressing the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B (2) of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Being signed by a person holding a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

As for the content of the certificate, Section 65B (4) states that it should be made “to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.” The court noted that the conjunction “And” between knowledge and belief should be interpreted as “or” since knowledge and belief are contradictory to each other.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the landmark judgment of Arjun Panditrao Kotkar v. Kailash Kishanrao Kotkar has ushered in a new era of clarity and understanding regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian courts. This judgment stands as a shining example of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the intent of the legislature and its role as a pillar of support for the legal system and society at large.

As the realm of technology continues to evolve, the Indian legal system must remain adaptive and responsive, incorporating electronic evidence while upholding principles of fairness and justice in its courtrooms. This judgment serves as a beacon for the future, setting a precedent that will continue to guide and shape the admissibility of electronic evidence in Indian courts for years to come.

–

This article was first published on Manupatra.

From dissecting the elusive definition of violence to unravelling its far-reaching impacts, the article navigates through the grim realities and hopeful prospects of rehabilitation. It sheds light on the intricate intersections of human rights jurisprudence and the recognition of domestic violence as a violation, outlining international frameworks and the pressing need for victim-centred approaches.

The piece delves into India’s legislative landscape, examining the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the existing challenges in providing comprehensive support to victims. It emphasizes the necessity for a shift in focus, advocating for specialized authorities dedicated to victim rehabilitation and increased awareness of support systems and protective laws.

Rehabilitation, as highlighted, extends far beyond physical healing; it’s a holistic journey to restore shattered lives and rebuild self-esteem. By championing a victim-centred approach, we aspire to foster a society where justice commences with the empowerment and well-being of those who have endured the trauma of domestic violence.

To delve deeper into this critical discourse and explore avenues for change, read the full article here.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her wellbeing and dignity. It’s a decision she must make for herself”

There has been a lot of debate, not only in India but in the world at large, on the legality of the termination of pregnancy & the right of women over their bodies, and the choices related to the same. According to the ICCPR, the right of a woman or a girl to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive functions is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. Although on an international front, no clarity could be achieved uniformly when it comes to enforcement, the latest judgement by the Honorable Supreme Court of India has cleared some air between the debate of her having a right over her body and the duty of the state to guard the life of the unborn.

The US Supreme Court made abortion a constitutional right up in the year 1973, after which in the year 1992, while upholding the constitutionality of abortion, it allowed the states to impose related regulations, only be invalid if imposed an “undue burden” upon the women. But to despair, the enjoyment of this right was short-lived. In the year 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States through the case of Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Dept. of Health v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., declared the right to abortion to not be a constitutional right, henceforth overruling the judgement of 1973 & 1992. 

In India, the termination of pregnancy has been made legal under various circumstances since the introduction of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, of 1971. Although the Indian Penal Code 1860 under Section 312, criminalizes the act of “voluntarily causing a woman with child to miscarry”, the MTP Act acts as an exception to the same, “carried out in good faith to save the life of the woman”. And with the latest amendment of 2021, the ambit was widened as to the tenure termination could be sought, along with the eligible crowd, under section 3 & rule 3B of the MTP Act, 1971 & MTP rules 2003 respectively. It now includes termination extended from 12 to 20 weeks, providing an upper limit from 20 to 24 weeks, for women including rape survivors and women with disabilities. But the point in the issue is, what about single pregnant women? Is it not a hindrance to their constitutional and fundamental right to equality, and dignity, apart from deprivation of their bodily autonomy?

According to the 2017 case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. the Union of India And Others, the bench held privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, covers personal autonomy related to the body, mind, and making choices, as well as informational privacy. It reiterated the decision of the 2009 judgement, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which held that reproductive rights include a women’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy, give birth and subsequently raise children. These constitute her right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. But despite laying a robust jurisprudence on reproductive rights & privacy of a woman, what is the use if that choice is not accessible, or say, there is no social inclusion in sight?

Finally, in the year 2022, the Supreme Court of India, went ahead to provide a benchmark for the international forum to witness, not just that but to take a progressive step towards its subject. The Court noted that a narrow interpretation of Rule 3B in MTP rules, limited only to married women is discriminatory towards unmarried women, therefore is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution also falling foul of the spirit guiding Article 140. It held that the decision to carry the pregnancy or terminate it is firmly rooted in a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy and to choose the course of her own life where the artificial distinction between married and unmarried women cannot be sustained. And therefore, the benefits of the law extend to both single and married women.

Although it excludes a sizeable population of the LGBTQ+ community from the scope of the act, this ultimate revolutionary ruling underlines the fact that “patriarchal principles about what constitutes permissible sex” cannot be the basis of any law, while providing the first official recognition of a long longed yet debated a concept, marital rape in India.

To the world, wherein one opines terminating a pregnancy is the choice of the pregnant woman and a part of her reproductive rights, and the other being it is the state’s obligation to protect life, here, the protection of the foetus. Through this judgement, India’s Highest Court of Justice is set to be the trendsetter. India would now, go on to contribute towards ending preventable and maternal mortality to help meet the sustainable development goal and provide universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The amendments should increase the ambit and access of women to safe abortion services and will ensure dignity, autonomy, confidentiality and justice for women in India, who need to terminate their pregnancies.

Also published on the LinkedIn here.