Tag Archives: Articles on Law and Legal System


OBJECT OF THE ACT According to the preamble, the Act is to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer’s disputes and for connected therewith.

BASIC RIGHTS OF CONSUMERS [SECTION 6] The basic rights of consumers that are sought to be promoted and protected are;

a) The right to be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property:

b) The right to be informed about the quality, quantity, purity, standard and price of goods, or services so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;

c) The right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods and services at competitive prices;

d) The right to be heard and to be assured that consumers’ interest will receive due consideration at appropriate forums;

e) The right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

f) The right to consumer education.

Complainant means

(a) a consumer

(b) any voluntary consumer association registered under any law;

(c) the Central or any State Government

(d) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; or

(e) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative, Who or which makes a complaint.
An association of persons to have locus standi as consumer, it is necessary that all the individuals forming the association must be the consumer having purchased the same goods or hired the same services from the party.
In case the affected consumer is unable to file the complaint due to ignorance, illiteracy or poverty, any recognized consumer association may file the complaint as per the above clause (b). Thus, rule of ‘privity of contract’ or ‘locus standi’ , which permits only the aggrieved party to take action, has very rightly been set aside in the spirit of public interest.

Complaint [Sec.2(1)(c)]
Complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complaint that – (i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader; (ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him be suffer from one more defects; (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) the trader has charged a price in excess of the price;

(a) fixed under any law; (b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods; (c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him; or (d) agreed between the parties. (v) goods which will be hazardous to life and property when used are being offered for sale to the public; (vi) services which will be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider. With a view to obtain any relief provided by law under this Act.


The Chapekar Brothers and assassination of W.C Rand, The British plague Commissioner of Pune 1897

During late 1896 dreaded disease of plague had struck Pune and by early 1897, the disease had spread critically. In February 1897 alone, there were 657 deaths reportedly due to plague. About half of the city’s population had left it.The government set up a Special Plague Committee in March that year to handle the menace and control the spread of the disease. It was chaired by an Indian Civil Service (ICS) officer W. C. Rand.

The commission appointed more than 800 officers and soldiers on duty in Pune rather than employing doctors for the job of implementing the measures. The measures included entry into houses forcefully, examination of its occupants including women, taking them to segregation camps and preventing people affected with plague from leaving or entering Pune.People were denied permission to conduct the funerals of their loved ones unless the deaths were registered. If plague was the cause of death, the dead had to be cremated in special grounds designated by the government.

A medical camp for the plague, in Pune 1896, source of the image Google

The Chapekar brothers  Damodar Hari Chapekar, Balkrishna Hari Chapekar and Vasudeo Hari Chapekar and a friend of them Mahadev Ranade initially belonged to Chapa small hamlet near Chinchwad, then a village near Pune, in the state of Maharashtra, India

1.Balkrishna Hari Chapekar 2.Damodar Hari Chapekar 3. Basudev Hari chapekar 4. Mahadev Ranade. Source of image Google

Regular harassments of Rand commission had prompted the Chapekar brothers and other members of the revolutionary “Chapekar Club” to take action against the person who started it all—the commissioner. On 22 June 1897, brothers Damodar Hari Chapekar and Balkrishna Hari Chapekar assassinated a British official W. C. Rand and his military escort Lieutenant Ayerst at Pune, Maharashtra. This was the first case of militant nationalism in India after the 1857 Revolt.

Chapekar Brother statue at Chinchwad, source of the image Google

All three brothers were found guilty and hanged, an accomplice was dealt with similarly, another, then a schoolboy, was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Aren’t ‘Article 370 of the Constitution of India’ and the Presidential Orders purported to be dependent on it, just as relevant as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1938? – A succinct inspection.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma[1]


Even 67 years after India’s Independence, the country’s statute book has been still bearing the burden of a law which provides for punishment to those who dissuade people from taking part in a war in which the “British Empire” is involved. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1938, framed just before the World War-II that started a year later, is one of the 73 obsolete laws recommended by the Law Commission for repeal, in 2014. Article 370 of the Constitution of India has been universally agreed to violate fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution and proven itself to be ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The politicians of Jammu and Kashmir are credited with carrying this ‘Human Rights violative law’ 60 years after it was scheduled to be repealed. They cry foul to even a debate on its uses, due to the fact that it is the largest mechanism of perpetuating political fraud by allowing the executive to perform the functions of the legislative- a classic violation of the ‘Separation of Power’ doctrine. This research paper will inspect the same in reference to a recent controversial court judgement that has shaken the faith of the Indian people generally and Indians of Jammu and Kashmir in particular.

[1] Research Scholar on Constitutional Law. Editor of book entitled, ’Article 370: Evolving Clarity Beyond the Conundrum’.