Design a site like this with
Get started


Labour, a subject under the Concurrent list is witnessing several changes. Recently, the Parliament passed three bills, namely- 

1. Industrial Relations Code Bill, 

2. Social Security Code Bill,

3. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code Bill.

These Codes bring about several reforms and aim at consolidating various existing laws on the above subject matter.

The first bill combines three erstwhile legislations- The Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It brings notable changes and expands the definitions of several terms such as Industry, Industrial Dispute, Strike, Worker, Employer etc. The earlier threshold of 100 workers for the framing and applying of Standing Orders for matters listed in the Schedule to the Code has been increased to 300 workers. Matters relating to retrenchment, lay-offs and closure do not require permission of the government in establishments with more than 300 workers. The Code further prohibits strikes in all industrial establishments without prior notice of 14 days as opposed to the earlier legislations that limited this to public utilities. This provision has been vehemently criticized by Trade Unions across the country.

The second bill combines nine central legislations and empowers the Central Government to, by notification, apply the provisions of this Code to any establishment. The Code mandates registration and setting up of security funds for unorganized (home-based or self-employed or persons working in the unorganized sector), gig (delivery persons) and platform workers by Central and State Governments.

It makes provisions applicable in times of epidemics to reduce or defer employee/employer’s contributions under PF and ESI for up to three months. This bill too revises and expands certain definitions such as wages, inter-state migrant workers etc. Aadhaar ID has been made mandatory for availing the benefits provided under this Code.

With reference to the third bill, the earlier thresholds requiring a minimum number of workers have been changed in case of factories, contractors and hazardous activities. It fixes the maximum daily work hours at 8 hours per day. Further, it allows women to be employed in all establishments by following necessary safeguards as opposed to the earlier legislations that disallowed them from working in certain dangerous or hazardous operations. The code provides certain benefits for interstate migrant workers and mandates Central and State Governments to maintain databases and record their details on a portal.

The above-mentioned bills now await Presidential assent.


Two new bills relating to agriculture and farmers were introduced in June and were passed by Rajya Sabha on 23rd September 2019. Those agricultural bills are- 

  1. 1. The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation Ordinance, 2020)
  2. 2. The Farmer’s (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm. 

These bills will impact the farmers, the consumers, the state and the middlemen established in the APMC system. 

The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce bill aims to create an ecosystem where the farmers are free to sell their produce wherever and to whomever they want to, which directly paves way for the establishment of inter and intra state trade of farmers produce. The same is protected under the second bill as mentioned above which makes rules and regulations for empowering farmers to trade with various businesses and wholesalers. 

However, it doesn’t repeal or replace the previously established system which is under the Agriculture and Produce Marketing Committee Act. Hence, the bill is creating a choice for the farmers to carry out their trade on their will. 

In the previous APMC act, the farmer had to go through the “Mandis” as established in the act after which the commission agents would take their produce for traders to auction and purchase. The auction has to necessarily start at the Minimum Support Price which is decided by the Government of India. This price is decided for certain products only and this provision has not been repealed in the new ecosystem. The commission agents collect a market fee, cess and other taxes which are then collected by the State Governments which forms a huge part of their revenue. 

These bills address the issue of monopoly established by the traders through APMC. But the problem or difficulty with the bill is that it will be beneficial only if implemented effectively and if practiced by the farmers; given that they are aware of the same. Educating farmers about their rights and making them aware is an important part of the implementation process. 

Apart from that, the removal of middlemen will definitely benefit the consumers since the products will be comparatively cheaper. 

However, this bill will largely affect the State Revenue since they will not be receiving any taxes in the new ecosystem. Even though the bill aims to benefit the farmers, the view of the states was not considered appropriately and the states were not even given a fair participation in the Rajya Sabha where they protested against the bill.

A potential solution to that could be that the bills be introduced to a Select Committee which consisted of agricultural experts and the opposition being given a chance to be heard.

In that manner, the bill could have been speculated so as to benefit all and be compatible with the federal structure of the constitution and thereby upheld the democratic process of making a legislation.

Media Trial

Miss. Stuti Ladia, Mumbai University.

Media has been regarded as one of the four pillars of democracy. It has a crucial role in molding and shaping the opinion of the society. It has the ability to change the opinions and points of view of the masses.

Media Trials take place when the media takes cases into their own hands by declaring the accused as convicts even before the constitutional courts have given their decision. There have been cases where, due to the wrath of the media, the decision of the court has been affected.  A few examples if this being Jessica lal case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the Bijal Joshi rape case, etc. It is the widespread coverage of guilt of the accused and imposing a certain perception about him regardless of any verdict given by the court. Wherever there has been high publicity, the media has involved itself and used hysteria to create an undue importance among the viewers, making it difficult for the trial to be fair and just. There have however been reasons as to why the attention of the media around certain cases is sensationally high. The reasons are:

  1. Cases that involve children or they could be so horrific or gruesome that the media considers it necessary to sensationalize such cases. 
  2. The case could be of a leading celebrity; either as a victim or as an accused. Cases where celebrities are involved involuntarily attract media thereby influencing their fans.

The history of media trials goes back to the 20th Century. This term was coined recently; however, its meaning was derived from the case of Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, 1921. In this case the accused was acquitted by the court but he had lost his reputation and job after the media had declared him guilty. Another famous case of media trial is the Trial of O.J. Simpson, 1995. In this particular case, the media had promoted the case and influenced the mind of the viewers. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra also falls under the same umbrella. In this case as well, the media had played a crucial role in portraying its opinion and guiding people’s minds in a direction it sought fit. It is mostly the media’s coverage and its opinion of a case which  reflects the views of a commoner- people on the street. This is because the media acts as a bridge between the cases and the people.

Media Trials – Constitutional rights: 

Freedom of press and independence of judiciary are essential in a democracy. The question of how constitutional a media trial is depends on the effect it has on the society and public at large. 

Freedom of Speech and Expression.

As per Article 19 of the Constitution of India we have a right to freedom. Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1). It gives people the right to have their opinion however it also has a set of restrictions and boundaries.

Even though the Supreme Court of India has covered and given the status of freedom under Article 19 there have been cases where the Supreme court has restricted them of the same if the rights have been misused or it has hampered the public at large and has gone against the Rule of Law.

These are a few landmark cases on trial by Media.

  1. In the case of In re P.C. Sen v. Unknown, 1968 an appeal had been filed against the order of the High Court of Calcutta declaring that a speech broadcast on the night of November 25, 1965, on the Calcutta Station of the All India Radio by Mr. P. C. Sen- the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, was calculated to obstruct the course of justice and on that account amounted to contempt of court and the conduct of Mr. Sen merited disapproval. It was then concluded by Justice Shah that any act that is done to bring down the authority of court or any other act which is committed to bring down the proceeding of law would be termed as contempt of court.
  1. In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration and Ors.) there was hardly any evidence against the accused for murdering his partner; even then the media took the case in its hands and even before the court could pass any judgment, it portrayed the accused guilty; changing the opinion of the public. It was then declared by the High Court of Delhi that the person who had been accused, his fate would solely depend on the evidence and facts presented before the court and not due to the influence of the media and its portrayal of the accused.

Restrictions imposed on Media.

Restrictions on media is a dicey concept as the restriction should not be rigid which would curtail the powers of the media in a significant amount nor should it be lenient that it can be misused conveniently. In accordance with the Constitution of India, where Article 19 provides freedom on the other hand in Article 19(2) the Constitution also has reasonable restrictions. Thus, it is the constitutional responsibility of the courts to ensure that such restrictions do not go beyond the ambit of the reasonable restrictions as mentioned in the Constitution of India.     

To regulate the powers of the press, the Press Council of India was established. It has had an effective role in regulating the powers of the press to prevent it from publishing defamatory and  prejudiced content. Through this way when the content is presented in front of the viewers it does not go against the law and does not influence the society negatively.   


From the article above, it can be concluded that media trial has more of a negative impact than positive. The content published by them needs to be strictly monitored and the courts need to regulate media in a way that democracy and freedom are neither hampered, nor misused. It should be kept in consideration that the media is a voice which is the fourth pillar for the sole purpose that it can benefit the society and not hamper an innocent’s reputation and misguide the public.  

Maratha Community’s Plea under SEBC placed before a Constitutional Bench.

Recently, the Supreme Court passed a stay order against operation of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, passed by the State of Maharashtra in 2018. The Act provides a 16% quota to the Maratha community in both- education and government employment. Subsequently, this increased the aggregate quota of all reservations allowed in Maharashtra; hence crossing the 50% limit. This is in contravention to the landmark judgement of the SC in Indira Sawhney v. UOI in 1993 that had put a 50% ceiling on reservation by individual states and stated that the same could be exceeded only in “exceptional and extraordinary circumstances”.

Subsequently, a plea was filed against this in the Bombay High Court. A three judge bench upheld the validity of the reservation to the Maratha community but capped the same at 12% for education and 13% for employment. This too exceeded the 50% cap. The same was challenged in the Apex Court through an appeal in case of Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court along with passing of the stay order and referring the issue to a Constitution Bench of five or more judges for final adjudication observed the following:

1.  There is a need for reconsideration of the Judgement of the Court in Indira Sawhney v. UOI and whether exceeding the 50% cap is constitutionally valid.

2. The said issue required an interpretation of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 as this helps determine the competence of the State Legislature to declare a particular caste to be socially and educationally backward.

3. The court clarified that the said stay order was not to affect those that had already availed the benefits of the SEBC Act. 

The case is to be placed before CJI SA Bobde, who shall decide on the constitution of the larger bench.

Writ petition can’t be filed against a judicial order of hc-supreme court

The Apex Court in a recent judgement-  “Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar (D) Thr LRs” reinstated a crucial point of law. 

It held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is not maintainable to challenge a judicial order or any order which has been passed by the High Court in exercise of its judicial powers. 

The decision was laid by a two judge bench consisting Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice KM Joseph in exercise of power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases under Article 139A.

The petitioner in the present case filed a writ petition under Article 226 in order to challenge a judgment dated 31 July 2018 delivered by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court under its criminal revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner prayed through the petition that the said judgement may be declared void/disabled/recalled and a fresh hearing be instituted before a higher/full bench. 

The petitioner based her submissions on the grounds that the order had not been written by the Judge of the HC and that while disposing the criminal revision the court had exercised its jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Further, she challenged the findings of the court; deeming them to be erroneous. 

The respondent claimed that the litigant is not without any remedies since she can approach the court through Letters Patent Appeal or by way of a review or through article 136.

The court ruled in favour of the Respondent and disallowed the Writ Petition on grounds of maintainability. 

But SC left open the rights and remedies available to the petitioner by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution to assail the judgment of the Single Judge bench.