Laws of India

So, I was studying a while back (for exams, obviously) and I came across a couple of pretty interesting facts. Did you know Bhutan is still a protectorate of India? I never knew India had ever had a protectorate, let alone the fact that it still has one. In fact, Sikkim was once a protectorate of India as well. Heck, Sikkim was a separate country, became a protectorate, then an Associated State of India(meaning it could throw out Indian control over it at any time and declare itself free again), and finally it became a proper state. And now there's all this hullabaloo over it becoming free again, or a part of China, or whatever. Can't seem to make up their damn minds, the stupid gits.

Also, there actually still exists a free city, after the style of the Greek city-states of old and Danzig et all of the not-so-old. It’s called Trieste, and lies somewhere in Italy. How come Italy has these weird things inside it? Vatican City - the so-called Holy See - and now Trieste? Weird country.

Moving closer to home, did you know the richest law in India happens to be the IT Act of 2005? It’s the only law I've come across that actually has substantial fines, going upto Rs. 1 crore in some cases. Big money, that. You don't submit certain paperwork you're supposed to hand in, you get slapped with a 25,000 Rs fine. Don't keep records - 10,000 for every day you don't get your account books in order. Contrast this with the Trade Union Act, enacted in some year I forget. Failure to keep records means a fine of - hold your breath - Rs. 10 every day such failure continues. Incidentally, this is after revising the fines and charges for various Trade Union activities. I might be wrong here, but as far as I remember, it used to be 25 paise for joining a Trade Union. This has now been increased to the princely sum of Rs.2.

I understand the whole thing about Trade Union law meant for labourers and IT Act meant for the well-off and all that. I get the point that there's bound to be a difference in the amounts both these parties can pay. But, seriously, 10,000 versus 10 Rs. for the exact same offence? Our labourers aren't THAT poor.

The case of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nooh is another little ditty that springs to mind. I came across this while learning about the importance of fair hearing and the maxim Nemo Judex in re Sua - more or less meaning "nobody should be a judge in his own cause". It basically means you can't give any decision in any matter in which you personally are involved, because that would be.....well, silly, really. The whole notion of the impartial decision-maker or adjudicator rests on this maxim. Anyway, what happened was that a departmental enquiry was held against Mr. (or possibly Mrs.) Nooh. The guy who was supposed to be adjudicating on the matter also knew something about the matter and could have been a witness himself. So, well, he decided to go ahead and actually BE that witness. He got up from the enquiry committee, went and gave evidence against Nooh as a witness, then calmly sat back down with the committee and decided against Nooh. And apparently, the rest of the committee let it happen.

Cases like these occasionally (VERY occasionally, actually) make studying law worthwhile. They brighten up my day.

Of course, then I look at the rest of law and the clouds settle firmly back into place. Oh well, tidbits of interest here and there can be taken as a silver lining I suppose.

One should be an eternal optimist.