#government vs judiciary

[thoughtlessarse]

This article was originally published in Italian.

Italian judges overturned detention orders for seven migrants sent to Albania, blocking Italy's outsourcing plan for the second time. The ruling sparks further tensions between the judiciary and government. A court in Rome has suspended the approval of detention orders for seven migrants who were relocated last week to a repatriation centre in Albania established by Italy. Monday's ruling has blocked the Italian government's efforts for the second time to implement its plan to outsource the reception and repatriation of migrants, as part of an agreement signed with Tirana last year. The seven asylum seekers are from Egypt and Bangladesh, the two countries at the center of an ongoing dispute between the judiciary and the government. The conflict began when the government appealed a similar decision from last month to the Court of Cassation, which is expected to rule on the case in December. However, according to the law, European law takes precedence over national law in case of conflict. As a result, the seven migrants will be transferred back to Italy and released, similar to the first group of migrants who returned last month, while awaiting a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Meanwhile, the government introduced a new decree in late October, updating the list of "safe countries" to bypass legal obstacles posed by EU law.

continue reading

It's always the (far) right-wing parties that have problems with their judiciary applying the law. UK Tories did the same thing, i.e. attacking the judiciary.

[eugenedebs1920]

This is not normal! White supremacists didn’t have boat parades for Bush! They didn’t have racist parading for Reagan. They certainly didn’t have Nazis marching for McCain! As a nation this heavy lean towards fascism needs put down in its beginnings. What was taken from you rarely is easily retained. Steps in that direction have imprinted the treads of fascist workings in our republic.

1. Undermine the legitimacy of the core foundations of a government. Make elections out to be shams or rigged.

2. Remove, replace or discredit a free press.

3. Delegitimize, the judiciary. Install your own.

4. Find a collective enemy to focus the nations problems upon ie. Immigrants, religious factions, race

5. Make this enemy seem less than human, disgusting and a threat to your way of life.

6. Insert a leader who boasts that he will save the nation, that him and him alone can solve these problems.

7. Create an atmosphere of fear. That if this leader isn’t implanted the nation won’t survive.

8. Create an us vs them mentality with your followers, framing it as good vs evil, right vs wrong. Placate to religious beliefs if possible.

9. Create minoritarian rule through extreme gerrymandering and electoral processes that increase the influence of the minority party. One where the numbers of votes cast doesn’t reflect the representation given.

10. Install family members in your administration, supplanting experts and professionals.

[identitty-dickruption]

alright. let’s talk about the Australian constitution. caveat that I’m not a lawyer, I’m a political scientist, so all this is from a political science perspective and I may be wrong about the LEGAL parts

which of the following do you think is in the constitution:

the concept of the opposition leader

the concept of the cabinet

the concept of the prime minister

any individual rights and freedoms at all

the ACT and NT

New Zealand

for those playing along at home, the answer is number six! there was a point of time when Australia was trying to negotiate with NZ in such a way that they would be recognised as an Australian state, and that was just… never removed. that doesn’t mean they ARE one of our states — they never signed the constitution so it doesn’t really apply

the point is… the Australian constitution is hella bare bones. it’s sparse. we don’t have rights or freedoms and we’re not forced to have a prime minister. similar to under the UK system, Australia is mostly ruled by convention rather than constitution

what people fail to understand about the Australian constitution is that it was written primarily to organise separation of powers, with respects to:

state powers vs federal powers, and

within the federal government, legislature vs executive vs judiciary, and

Australian vs British governments

most of the other shit in there was put into the constitution in order to encourage various actors to sign onto it. famously, the race powers comes under this category. WA and Queensland had particular ideas about first nations people, and they wanted that protected. there are a couple other examples of this, but not many

fundamentally, my fellow Australians need to recognise that our constitution is about defining Australian institutions and powers. it’s not about individuals. it’s not about freedom. it’s not about rights. it’s about who gets to legislate on trade and who gets to legislate on public holidays. you cannot defer to the constitution if you want to argue about your rights, because you just won’t find them there <3

[greg-ellis-receipts]

Jane Doe files an Assault, Libel, and Slander suit against Johnny Rees / Greg Ellis / Jonathan Rees

src

Disclaimer: To view more detailed case files, you need to log in. On the account log in page it gave me this message about misuse outside of court proceedings. Therefore, I will post any court cases surrounding Greg as long as it is available for public access.

These screenshots are the public version that is available.

Transcription under the cut

Heading: Doe vs. Rees

Plaintiff: Jane Doe

Defendant: Jonathan Rees, Greg Ellis and Jonny Rees

Case Number: 3:2023cv01352

Filed: October 31st, 2023

Court: US District Court for the Northern District of New York

Presiding Judge: Miroslav Lovric

Referring Judge: Thomas J McAvoy

Nature of Suit: Assault Libel & Slander

Cause of Action: 28 United States Code Section 1391 Personal Injury

Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Table Heading: Date Filed & Document Text

November 1, 2023

TEXT NOTICE OF FILING DEFICIENCY as to Jane Doe regarding the #1 Complaint NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the following Filing Deficiency: ATTORNEY ALLISON MAHONEY - Attorney address contained in the documents does not match the NYND attorney admission records. Counsel is directed to update their information in PACER within 3 days from this notice. Notice of Filing Deficiency Deadline 11/6/2023 (hmr)

TEXT NOTICE: The Initial Conference set for 1/31/2024 at 2:30PM before Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric, via Microsoft Teams Teleconferencing. The Courtroom Deputy will send a teams link to the parties to participate. (jdc)

CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY re #1 Complaint: Clerk added "Filing fee $402 receipt number ANYNDC-6496757" to this docket entry. (hmr)

October 31st. 2023

Filing 4 G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED: Initial Conference set for 1/31/2024 at 02:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric. Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before 1/24/2024. (Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2, mandatory disclosures are to be exchanged among the parties but are NOT to be filed with the Court.) (hmr)

Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Jonathan Rees. (hmr)

Filing 2 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR ANONYMOUSLY filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Jane Doe, #2 Proposed Order) Motions referred to Miroslav Lovric. (hmr)

Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Jonathan Rees filed by Jane Doe. (Filing fee $402 receipt number ANYNDC-6496757)(Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(hmr) Modified on 11/1/2023 (hmr).

Log In Notice

This is a restricted government website for official PACER use only. All activities of PACER subscribers or users of this system for any purpose, and all access attempts, may be recorded and monitored by persons authorized by the federal judiciary for improper use, protection of system security, performance of maintenance and for appropriate management by the judiciary of its systems. By subscribing to PACER, users expressly consent to system monitoring and to official access to data reviewed and created by them on the system. If evidence of unlawful activity is discovered, including unauthorized access attempts, it may be reported to law enforcement officials.

[prettyebonylux]

Mondays

On Mondays, we make goals and crush them.

With finals coming up, I have been prepping since it's in 1 week. I have Introduction to Microeconomics and Power&Politics and a presentation for my Entertainment & Media class on Wednesday.

Study Topics:

INTRO TO MICROECON (DEC 18)

CH 2 - PPF, Economic Growth/System, OPP. Cost, CA vs. AA

CH 5 - Elasticity 

CH 9 - Perfect Competition

CH 10 - Monopoly 

CH 11 - Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competitions 

CH 14 - Economic Efficiency 

CH 15 - Government Role in Economic Efficiency 

POWER & POLITICS (DEC 21)

WEEK 9 - Parties 

WEEK 10 - Representation & Power 

WEEK 11 - Congress 

WEEK 12 - The Presidency 

WEEK 13 - Bureaucracy 

WEEK 14 - Judiciary 

WEEK 15 - Inequality 

[beardedmrbean]

Ukraine on Wednesday announced searches of government buildings and the homes of high-profile ministers and oligarchs as part of a clampdown on corruption. The move comes ahead of a gathering of European leaders in Kyiv to discuss Ukraine’s path towards EU membership. 

Among those targeted by coordinated searches on Wednesday were residences linked to influential billionaire Igor Kolomoisky and former interior minister Arsen Avakov. Law enforcement also raided tax offices in the capital and senior customs officials were fired, said the head of Zelensky's party David Arakhamia. 

These are the latest in a string of high-profile efforts to tackle corruption in recent weeks.  

In the midst of war with Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has upped the ante in an internal fight against corruption, pledging to make as many personnel changes “as necessary” even at the highest levels of office. 

"People in the government who do not meet the basic requirements of the state and society should not occupy their seats," he said in a video address on Tuesday.  

Zelensky was elected in 2019 on an anti-establishment and anti-corruption platform. Yet efforts to ongoing efforts to stamp out misconduct have been overshadowed by the Russian invasion almost a year ago.

Ukraine currently ranks a low 116 out of the 180 countries listed for perceived corruption, according to anti-corruption group Transparency International.

Multi-million-dollar fraud 

Investigators from the Ukraine’s security service SBU released images of a search from the home of Kolomoisky, who was barred from entering the United States over allegations of corruption and undermining democracy. 

Prior to the Russian invasion, Kolomoisky was one of the country's richest men, with holdings in a slew of industries, including media, aviation and energy. 

The security service said the search had been launched over an investigation into the embezzlement of 40 billion hryvnia (about $1.1 billion) from energy holdings.

Last week Ukrainian authorities fired around a dozen senior figures, including defence officials and a top aide to the president's office. 

One such official was former deputy defence minister Vyacheslav Shapovalov, who worked on logistical support for the army. The ministry has been accused of signing food contracts at prices up to three times the market rates. 

The SBU also said it had uncovered a scheme by the head of the Kyiv tax office involving "multimillion-dollar" fraud schemes. They accuse the official of having abused a position of authority. 

Additionally, the government has also seized stakes in the energy companies – oil producer Ukrnafta and refiner Ukrtatnafta – as part of moves to consolidate the war effort. 

More dismissals are possible. The State Bureau of Investigation and the Prosecutor General's Office said Wednesday they had informed several senior officials they were under investigation for crimes including misappropriation of state funds and misuse of state property. 

"Every criminal who has the audacity to harm Ukraine, especially in the conditions of war, must clearly understand that we will put handcuffs on him,” said Vasyl Maliuk, the head of the SBU, on Wednesday. 

Speed vs integrity 

Renewed efforts to tacks corruption are thought to be aimed at appeasing EU leaders who arrived in Kyiv on Thursday for a summit to discuss Ukraine’s bid to join the EU. 

Ukraine currently has EU “candidate status", with Brussels saying strengthening the judiciary, fighting corruption and curbing the clout of powerful oligarchs are key conditions for joining. 

“Ukraine wants to show it can present a stable government that can deliver at the negotiating table, that can demonstrate the value systems and the commitment to transparency that are needed to be able to be part of the EU,” says Dr Melanie Garson, associate professor of international security and conflict resolution at University College London, UK. 

Yet, among EU member states, there are widely divergent views on how fast the process will go. Ukraine's strongest cheerleaders – including Poland and the Baltic states – insist Kyiv is making big strides against corruption and progress could come quicker than expected.  

But others insist that while making Ukraine a candidate sent the right symbolic message of support in light of the war, working through the nitty-gritty of the major reforms needed would be long and arduous. 

“The EU needs to strike a balance between speed and integrity,” says Joel Reland, research associate at UK in a Changing Europe. “It clearly wants Ukraine to be given fast-track membership but, at the same time, it can’t totally compromise on its principles of membership, which define the integrity of the EU.” 

Even so, French President Emmanuel Macron warned last May it could take "decades" before Ukraine meets the criteria and achieves full membership. 

The upper hand 

In the meantime, demonstrating values such as transparency is not just a question of values. 

In 2016, then US vice president Joe Biden withheld loan guarantees from Ukraine until the country’s prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin was dismissed as part of a push for anti-corruption reforms developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. 

In 2023, countries providing crucial military and financial aid to Ukraine still have “the upper hand to force their position”, says Garson, associate professor of international security and conflict resolution. “Zelensky is very aware of this and is trying to reiterate increased bipartisan support across the world.” 

Although the public dismissal of figures – including a high-level defence official – in the midst of war may seem like a risk, not tacking corruption during wartime can have even more serious long-term consequences.   

Funding for reconstruction and recovery efforts can be “drastically undermined by wrongdoers pocketing funds, both during the war and after”, said Transparency International in its 2023 report. 

“The visibility that the work has been done to make this a place where donors don't feel their funds are going into the pockets of oligarchs is really important,” adds Garson. “There needs to be confidence in government funds coming in and from external investors – it’s critical to long-term strategic rebuilding.” 

[hindustanmorning]

Yogi government approves Supreme Court ruling on bulldozer actions

The Yogi administration in UP has endorsed the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding bulldozer operations. During the proceedings of the case regarding Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and others, it stated that the executive should not assume the role of the judiciary to determine guilt. If the executive randomly tears down an individual’s house solely because he is accused,…

[thellawtoknow]

Understanding the Ripeness of a Legal Case: The Big Picture

Understanding the Ripeness of a Legal Case: What You Need to Know Ripeness in Legal Context: A Detailed ExplorationWhat Does Ripeness Mean? Why Courts Avoid Hypothetical Cases The Two-Pronged Test for Ripeness1. Fitness for Judicial Decision 2. Hardship to the Parties Ripeness in Practice Why Ripeness is Vital in Legal Strategy Ripeness vs. Mootness: What’s the Difference? Examples of Ripeness in Legal Cases Why Ripeness Matters in the Legal Process The Role of Ripeness in Constitutional Law How to Address Ripeness in Legal Strategy Conclusion

Understanding the Ripeness of a Legal Case: What You Need to Know

In the realm of legal disputes, one concept that frequently arises is the ripeness of a case. While not as commonly discussed outside the legal community as topics like standing or jurisdiction, ripeness plays a crucial role in determining whether a court will hear a case. It ensures that courts only decide disputes that are sufficiently developed to warrant judicial intervention.

In this article, we will delve into the meaning of ripeness in legal terms, why it matters, and how it affects the progression of cases through the judicial system.

Ripeness in Legal Context: A Detailed Exploration

The legal doctrine of ripeness is essential for maintaining the efficiency and purpose of the judicial system. Its primary function is to prevent courts from becoming involved in theoretical, speculative, or abstract disputes. Instead, ripeness ensures that courts are reserved for controversies that require immediate judicial resolution, thereby upholding judicial economy and the principles of fairness. What Does Ripeness Mean? At its core, ripeness refers to whether a case is sufficiently mature for court adjudication. In essence, courts avoid entertaining cases where the legal dispute has not yet fully materialized or where the outcome hinges on uncertain or hypothetical future events. For a case to be ripe, it must meet the threshold of being a concrete, present dispute. The facts surrounding the case need to be fully developed, and there must be an identifiable injury or harm. Courts are reluctant to intervene when the issues remain unclear, speculative, or contingent upon events that may or may not occur. The doctrine is especially important in cases where plaintiffs seek to challenge governmental actions, administrative regulations, or future contractual breaches. If a law or regulation has not yet been enforced, or a party has not yet breached a contract, the dispute may lack the immediacy required for a legal remedy. Why Courts Avoid Hypothetical Cases The principle of ripeness stems from the broader judicial philosophy that courts should not issue advisory opinions. In many legal systems, particularly under the U.S. Constitution, courts are limited to hearing actual "cases or controversies," which means they can only rule on real, live disputes where parties have a vested interest in the outcome. Courts avoid becoming entangled in abstract or premature matters for several reasons: - Judicial Economy: Courts are already burdened with an overwhelming number of cases, and focusing on unresolved or hypothetical issues wastes valuable time and resources. Ripeness ensures that judicial attention is directed to disputes that are ready for resolution. - Separation of Powers: In many legal systems, the judiciary is one of three branches of government, and ripeness helps maintain boundaries between the judiciary and other branches, particularly the executive and legislative branches. By ensuring that courts only intervene in actual disputes, ripeness prevents them from interfering with ongoing governmental or administrative processes prematurely. - Fairness to Parties: Ripeness also protects litigants from unnecessary litigation and uncertainty. If a dispute is not yet fully developed, parties may be dragged into court over matters that may never come to pass. This safeguards individuals and entities from the burden of litigation over hypothetical injuries. The Two-Pronged Test for Ripeness Courts employ a two-pronged test to determine whether a case is ripe for judicial review. This test consists of two essential elements: fitness for judicial decision and hardship to the parties. Both prongs must generally be satisfied for a case to move forward in the judicial process. 1. Fitness for Judicial Decision The first prong of the ripeness test—fitness for judicial decision—examines whether the legal issues are sufficiently developed and appropriate for court adjudication. Courts will assess whether the facts of the case are clear, well-established, and whether the legal question is framed in a way that enables a court to render a meaningful decision. Here’s how courts approach this prong: - Clear Factual Basis: The case should be grounded in concrete facts, not speculative scenarios. Courts avoid deciding cases based on hypothetical or uncertain events. For example, if a business is challenging a law that hasn’t been enforced yet, the court may determine that the case isn’t ripe because the actual impact of the law remains speculative. - Finality of Action: Courts will consider whether the action being challenged is final and definitive. In administrative law, for instance, the ripeness doctrine often requires that a government agency has completed its decision-making process before a case can be heard. If a party is challenging an incomplete or provisional decision, the case may be dismissed as unripe. - Legal Certainty: The legal question should not hinge on future events. If the issue at hand requires further factual development or depends on conditions that have not yet occurred, the case may be considered unripe. Example: In Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court found that a regulation allowing government inspectors to suspend certification of manufacturers was unripe for judicial review because no suspension had yet occurred. The dispute lacked the factual context necessary to evaluate the consequences of the regulation. 2. Hardship to the Parties The second prong—hardship to the parties—assesses whether the parties involved in the case would face significant harm or hardship if the court declines to hear the case immediately. If postponing a ruling would cause tangible, real-world harm, the court is more likely to find the case ripe. Courts evaluate hardship based on several factors: - Immediacy of Harm: The potential harm must be immediate and not speculative. If delaying the case will cause significant financial losses, harm to reputation, or other material damage, this weighs in favor of the case being ripe. - Burden of Uncertainty: Courts consider whether the parties are suffering from ongoing uncertainty due to the unresolved issue. For example, businesses facing uncertain regulatory environments may find themselves unable to plan or operate effectively if a law is being applied inconsistently or vaguely. This uncertainty can constitute a form of hardship, compelling the court to act. - Irreparable Harm: In cases where the harm cannot be undone (e.g., loss of constitutional rights, environmental damage), courts are more likely to find the issue ripe. If waiting to adjudicate would result in irreversible consequences, this can tilt the balance toward judicial intervention. Example: In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), the Supreme Court held that a case challenging FDA regulations was ripe, even though the regulations had not yet been enforced. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs faced significant economic hardship because they would need to comply with costly labeling requirements immediately, or risk severe penalties if they didn’t. Ripeness in Practice In practice, ripeness often arises in cases involving challenges to governmental regulations, contractual disputes, and constitutional rights. Courts will scrutinize the factual development of the case, and even if a claim involves substantial legal questions, it will be dismissed if it is not yet ripe for resolution. Consider regulatory cases: if a business or individual is challenging a new regulation, the court must evaluate whether the regulation has been enforced or whether the impact is still theoretical. Similarly, in contract law, a party must usually wait until a breach has occurred or is imminent before bringing the issue to court. Why Ripeness is Vital in Legal Strategy Understanding ripeness is key for both litigants and attorneys. A case brought prematurely risks being dismissed, which not only delays the resolution of the issue but may also lead to unnecessary legal expenses and efforts. Conversely, a well-timed case ensures that the court is able to provide a meaningful remedy based on fully developed facts. Before bringing a case to court, it’s important to assess whether the dispute meets the two-pronged test for ripeness. By ensuring that the case is both fit for judicial decision and involves significant hardship to the parties, litigants can maximize their chances of obtaining a favorable outcome in court. By focusing on these core principles and the two-pronged test, this expanded discussion provides a more thorough understanding of the doctrine of ripeness and its critical importance in legal proceedings. Ripeness vs. Mootness: What’s the Difference? It is easy to confuse ripeness with mootness, as both doctrines concern the timing of legal disputes. However, while ripeness deals with cases that are brought too early, mootness addresses those that are brought too late. A case becomes moot if the underlying issue has already been resolved or if changes in circumstances make a judicial ruling unnecessary. For example, if the government rescinds a regulation that a plaintiff is challenging, the case may be considered moot. On the other hand, ripeness focuses on ensuring that a dispute is sufficiently mature and fully formed before a court can address it. Examples of Ripeness in Legal Cases To better understand the concept of ripeness, let's look at some examples: - Regulatory Challenges: Suppose a company is challenging a newly passed environmental regulation, but the law has not yet been enforced or applied to the company’s operations. In this case, the court may find the challenge unripe because the regulatory impact is speculative and not yet concrete. - Contract Disputes: In a breach of contract case, if one party threatens to breach the agreement but has not yet done so, the court might find that the dispute is unripe. The threat alone may not be sufficient to constitute a fully developed legal issue. - Zoning Laws: A homeowner may wish to challenge a zoning ordinance that could potentially affect their property in the future. However, unless the ordinance has been enforced in a way that causes a direct and immediate injury, the court may dismiss the case as unripe. Why Ripeness Matters in the Legal Process The ripeness doctrine serves several important purposes in the legal system: - Prevents Premature Litigation: By dismissing cases that are brought too early, courts avoid entangling themselves in hypothetical disputes that may never materialize. - Conserves Judicial Resources: Courts are inundated with cases, and the ripeness requirement helps prioritize disputes that are ready for resolution over those that are speculative or still developing. - Protects Against Unnecessary Judicial Interference: Ripeness ensures that courts do not overstep their bounds by ruling on issues that have not yet fully materialized, thereby avoiding advisory opinions or unnecessary interference in governmental or private affairs. The Role of Ripeness in Constitutional Law Ripeness plays a particularly important role in constitutional law, especially in cases where plaintiffs challenge the validity of government actions. For instance, if a person seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a law that has not yet been enforced against them, the court may find the case unripe. One notable case is Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), in which the U.S. Supreme Court set out the standard for ripeness in administrative law. In this case, the court determined that pharmaceutical companies could challenge FDA regulations before they were enforced because waiting for enforcement would cause significant hardship to the companies. How to Address Ripeness in Legal Strategy When planning a legal strategy, it’s critical for attorneys to assess the ripeness of their case. Bringing a case before it is ripe risks dismissal and may also delay the resolution of the underlying issue. Here are a few tips for ensuring that your case is ripe for judicial consideration: - Gather Evidence: Make sure the dispute is based on concrete facts and not hypothetical future events. - Assess Immediate Harm: Ensure that the parties face immediate and tangible harm from the dispute to satisfy the hardship prong of the ripeness test. - Monitor Developments: In regulatory cases, consider waiting until the law has been enforced or a final agency action has been taken to avoid issues of ripeness. Conclusion The ripeness doctrine is a critical component of the legal system, ensuring that courts only hear disputes that are fully developed and ready for resolution. By preventing premature cases from clogging the judicial pipeline, ripeness safeguards the efficiency of the legal process and protects courts from issuing advisory opinions. Understanding the ripeness of a legal case is essential for attorneys and litigants alike. Whether challenging a law, a contract, or an administrative action, evaluating ripeness can be the key to successfully bringing a case before the courts. Read the full article

[dankusner]

Confidence in courts is flagging; Texas isn’t helping

We need reforms to ensure judges are ethical and nonpartisan

Nations, like people, are tested by their times.

Ours has proved remarkably durable.

What brought this country through invasion, Civil War and Depression was a well-considered structure of government that allowed the participants in these struggles to turn to at least one trusted institution to hear their complaints and forge a solution.

None was perfect, of course, but always a solution came, and came in a form that even the losers accepted as fairly grounded in something beyond the passions of the moment.

That shared confidence in the process is being tested in ways that have brought empires down.

They fell, much like Hemingway’s observation on bankruptcy: gradually, then suddenly.

As I see it, the judiciary in this country is the last leg of a shaking stool and the glue of public confidence in its pronouncements is gradually starting to crack.

As confidence in the executive and legislative branches has waned, the acrimony has spilled onto the streets and into our courts, often coming with a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” quality for the judiciary.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s entry into the Bush vs. Gore election recount predictably infuriated the left, for instance.

Just as predictably, some courts’ invocation of standing and other merits-avoiding exit ramps in 2020 infuriated the right.

Meanwhile, attacks on the judges have come hot and heavy.

Senators standing on the Supreme Court steps and threatening the justices or hinting at court packing appear to have been met by that court, quite properly, with a quiet resolve to do the work.

Complaints over justices’ (or their family members’) personal relations — though, and this is the critical part, with little or no apparent bearing on any actual controversy before them — were hardly surprising and sensibly handled by the court with rules reforms.

But the problem at this point is far more acute in the state courts and far more urgent.

Recently, some state judges and prosecutors have appeared to shed the role of neutral. Some prosecutors have publicly liberated themselves from their oath to uphold criminal laws.

Others have campaigned for the office on the promise to find some reason, any reason, to bring a prosecution against the leading candidate for the “other side” — and, worse, after taking office, contorted themselves to file novel charges in favorable venues.

In these and other settings, the state courts themselves stand mute, or worse, join in the nakedly partisan absurdity while the credibility of the judiciary slides onto an ever steeper gradient.

Critically, all of this embarrassing own-goaling is happening in state courts across the country where judges and prosecutors, all too often, are running for office while directly soliciting funds from party bosses and the litigants who are or will be appearing before them — bosses who are likewise funding campaigns for the other two branches.

It’s hardly surprising, then, that some (evidently too many) judges and prosecutors see themselves as participants in the escalating political skirmishes that eventually come before them.

If the public continues to lose confidence that the judges (from either political party) are playing it nice, straight and true, because one side has written a check the night before the hearing or because the judge sees himself as a participant in the political battles that the judiciary is meant to resolve, there will be nowhere else to go to settle our differences and ultimately nothing left worth defending.

For two decades now, the U.S. Supreme Court has called on state courts to reform themselves.

Some have.

Most, including Texas, have not.

It’s well past time for the state courts, including those in Texas, to clean up their act, to compel prosecutors to act as neutrals, to stop judges from asking people appearing before them for contributions and from otherwise becoming deeply entangled in the money politics that have animated the decline of the other two branches.

I and others have long called for rules to limit law firm contributions, to prohibit judges from directly soliciting funds from those actively appearing before them, and to require direct disclosure to the other side when money changes hands in the midst of a pending case so they might consider a motion to recuse that, depending on the amount, should be mandatory.

Still, no such rules exist. Meanwhile, in the absence of any such rules, our State Commission on Judicial Conduct (a body I once chaired), is wholly incapable of taking any meaningful action to instill structural confidence.

That body lacks both the funding and the practical authority to address the money problem, much less assure Texans that the judge they stand before will be reasonably competent, attentive to the task, and come to the case under circumstances that appear fair.

I’m certain that in most cases, we provide our people a judge who is competent and free of the appearance of a quid pro quo taint.

But, most isn’t good enough.

And, just as troubling is the question of how often, given the salaries and other challenges in attracting motivated talent, we provide our people with a judge who is not just impartial but high functioning and willing to actually do the work on something like a timely basis.

Plutarch commented on the decline of the Roman Republic:

“The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”

He didn’t say whether the early parts came gradually at first, but I’d guess the move to the army and the emperors came on quite suddenly — and could again.

David Schenck formerly served on the Texas 5th District Court of Appeals. He is currently running for election as presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

[thoughtlessarse]

Languages: Français | Deutsch

The Italian government is pressing ahead with the transfer of migrants to Albania using the navy's Libra ship despite court rulings against the outsourcing scheme and mounting costs. Despite the risk of further legal setbacks, the government will deploy the Libra and is awaiting further instructions from the Interior Ministry. Transfers are expected to resume this week, 20 days after the first mission was stopped when 2 migrants were returned as they were found to be under 18, and the other 12 followed after a Rome court ruling. On 18 October, the Immigration Court in Rome refused to validate the detention of the migrants in Albania, while the Bologna Court referred a decree on 'safe countries' to the European Court of Justice. These decisions have triggered a major clash between the government and the judiciary. As tensions escalate, increased security has been put in place for Judge Silvia Albano, one of six judges in Rome who refused to validate the Albanian detentions after she received death threats. Security patrols have been stationed near her home and place of work. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she had also received death threats.

continue reading

So much for the rule of law.

[newsource21]

It turns out that Republicans' concerns about the Biden administration's efforts to censor the news and information Americans see are well-founded.

In a stunning letter to the House Judiciary Committee, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the Biden-Harris administration pressured Facebook to censor content and then pushed harder after the company initially resisted the government's coercion.

In the letter released Monday, Zuckerberg said that "senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree."

Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook made changes to COVID-related content and that his team is responsible for the decision to do so. He also expressed regret for succumbing to government pressure to censor content.

"I believe the government pressure was wrong," Zuckerberg wrote, "and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today."

He said the company would react differently if it received similar pressure again: "I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction − and we're ready to push back if something like this happens again."

It's sad but not shocking that Joe Biden's White House pressured a major social media company to block Americans' access to information deemed by government censors as inappropriate. Stories about government interference with Facebook and Twitter, now known as X, have been swirling for some time.

But the fact that Zuckerberg has acknowledged years after the fact that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured the company to censor content, even jokes, during the pandemic is quite damning. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech for all Americans. The Biden administration trampled on that right by using the power of government to pressure a news and information platform to block or alter what Americans were permitted to see and read.

Zuckerberg's revelation also exposes an odd double standard about the relationship the White House has with tech companies. The Biden administration has sued Apple over its supposed monopoly on cellphones, filed a lawsuit against Amazon and launched antitrust investigations into Google, Meta and Microsoft. It seems hypocritical for Biden to sue Big Tech for alleged violations and then pressure Facebook to do his bidding.

What else are Republicans right about?

When something like Zuckerberg's letter becomes public, and an idea that Democrats have long claimed is petty and false turns out to be true, I wonder if the same thing could be happening about other important issues.

How many supposedly "baseless" Republican ideas are actually rooted in truth?

Trump vs. Trump:The former president is losing a winnable election. He has no one to blame but himself.

In fact, Zuckerberg pointed to one such issue in his letter Monday.

He said the FBI warned Meta about a “potential Russian disinformation operation” before the 2020 election involving the Biden family and Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company with ties to Hunter Biden, the president's son. After the warning, Facebook demoted, or suppressed, a New York Post news article about Hunter Biden's business entanglements.

“We sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply,” Zuckerberg wrote. “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.”

Zuckerberg said that Meta no longer demotes posts in the United States while waiting for fact-checkers to complete their work. Now that Vice President Kamala Harris has replaced Biden on the Democratic presidential ticket, the White House's record of censorship is her record. Will she pressure social media companies in the future to remove content that makes her look bad? Will Big Tech stand up against new censorship efforts, as Zuckerberg now promises to do?

Americans have a right to know.

[lawforeverything]

Judicial review in India

Judicial review refers to the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India to declare laws and executive actions as unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as the apex court, is the final interpreter of the Constitution.

The concept of judicial review was incorporated into the Constitution of India, giving the judiciary the power to strike down laws and executive actions that violate fundamental rights or any other provisions under the Constitution. The Supreme Court can review the constitutional validity of any law enacted by the Parliament or state legislatures. It can also review executive actions by the central government or state governments.

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is very wide and includes:

Reviewing the constitutional validity of legislative enactments by Parliament and state legislatures. The court can strike down or invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.

Reviewing executive actions of the central government and state governments such as orders, notifications, rules, etc. The court can declare executive actions as unconstitutional and void.

Protecting and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The court can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and determining the scope and ambit of constitutional provisions. The court’s interpretations are binding.

Maintaining the balance of power between the three organs of the state – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Deciding disputes between the center and states or between states in a federal structure.

In exercising judicial review, the Supreme Court has the power to uphold or strike down laws and executive actions. Its decisions have implications for the protection of citizens’ rights and governance of the nation. The power of judicial review makes the judiciary a very influential branch in India’s democratic system of government.

Origins and Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

The power of judicial review in India is derived from the constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution of India prohibits the Parliament and state legislatures from making laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court of India has the power to declare any law made by Parliament or a state legislature as unconstitutional and void if it infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature.

This power is known as the judicial review power of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review was upheld in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) and has since been invoked in many cases. The court has used it to uphold civil liberties and human rights, as well as to address issues like environmental protection.

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to act as an independent check on the exercise of legislative and executive power. It helps ensure that laws and executive actions conform to the constitution. The power is intended to prevent tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of minorities.

However, the court’s power of judicial review has been controversial and criticized at times. Some argue that unelected judges should not have the power to overturn laws and policies made by elected representatives. There is also a concern that the court may at times be overreaching. Regardless of the controversy, judicial review remains an integral part of India’s constitutional framework.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review finds its origins and Constitutional basis in:

Article 13 which prohibits the making of laws that infringe on fundamental rights.

The power of the court to declare unconstitutional laws void.

Key cases like A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) which upheld this power.

The role of the court as an independent check on the legislature and executive.

The aim to protect rights and prevent tyranny, though it remains controversial.

Read Full Blog 👇 :

[adypy-00]

Which law degree wins BA LLB Vs BBA LLB 

Are you interested in making a career in law? It is crucial to select the educational path that aligns with your interests in the field of law. The two prominent integrated law courses in India are the BA LLB and the BBA LLB. Both of these programs offer distinct benefits and serve different professional goals. Understanding their differences can help aspiring lawyers make informed decisions and prepare themselves for a successful legal career. Let’s also check for the best law colleges in Pune

Understanding BA LLB

The BA LLB is a 5-year integrated program combining legal education with the arts. This program covers political science, sociology, history, economics, and law subjects. The BA LLB syllabus is designed to offer a strong foundation in arts and law. At the start, students discover various art subjects and then transition to specialized law subjects like constitutional law, criminal law, and corporate law. This approach provides students with a comprehensive understanding of societal problems, strengthening their legal perspective. 

The BA LLB course provides individual critical thinking and analytical skills, important for legal practice. The arts subjects develop a fine understanding of social, political, and economic contexts crucial for legal analysis and argumentation. BA LLB graduates have diverse career opportunities to work as legal advisors, join the judiciary, or enter academics. Additionally, the arts background enables them to work in public service, NGOs, and areas where societal issues are beneficial. This makes BA LLB graduates well-suited for roles needing legal expertise and a vast perspective on social issues. 

Understanding BBA LLB

The BBA LLB is another 5-year program that integrates legal education with business administration. This course is especially appealing to students interested in corporate law and business-related legal practices. 

The Bachelor of Business LLB syllabus combines business management subjects like accounting, finance, marketing, and organizational behavior with law subjects. This combination prepares students to handle legal issues in a business context, making them a valuable asset in the professional world. 

The students in the BBA LLB program develop expertise in legal as well as business fields. They generate skills to deal with corporate legal issues, mergers and acquisitions, business negotiations, and compliance issues. This duality of legal knowledge and business acumen makes BBA LLB students adept at navigating the complicated landscape of corporate law. 

BBA LLB graduates find opportunities in corporate law firms, MNCs, legal consultancies, and corporate governance. The business background enables them to take roles that need both legal expertise and an understanding of business operations. These roles involve corporate counsel, compliance officer, legal guide, and positions in regulatory bodies. 

Key Difference between BA LLB and BBA LLB

While both BA LLB and BBA LLB are law programs, they cater to different career goals. Here are some of them: 

BA LLB emphasizes the crossroads of law and humanities, offering a bigger understanding of social, political, and economic issues. In addition, BBA LLB pays attention to a broader understanding of corporate law. 

BA LLB students study subjects like political science, sociology, and history along with law. The students study business-related subjects like accounting, finance, and marketing. They develop an approach of critical thinking and analytical skills with a strong understanding of societal issues. The graduates generate business acumen and legal expertise, making them suited for corporate roles. They develop critical thinking with an understanding of societal issues. A BBA LLB graduate generates strong business acumen and legal expertise, making them ready for corporate roles. They have diverse career options in the litigation industry, public service, and NGOs. Additionally, they typically pursue careers in corporate law, legal consultancy, and roles within MNCs. 

To decide between a BA LLB and a BBA LLB depends on your interests, career goals, and the type of work environment you create for yourself. If you have a keen interest in issues like social, and political, with a vast understanding of society then, a BA LLB might be the right choice for you. This program will prepare you for roles that require a deep perspective on legal and societal matters. 

On the other hand, if you are moving towards business, management, and corporate law, then a BBA LLB would be a better choice. This program will provide you with all the skills needed to navigate the corporate world and handle business legal issues.  

Both these programs provide excellent career opportunities, making a significant impact in the legal field. Lastly, the right choice is to decide on strengths, and by carefully considering factors, you need to choose the integrated best law colleges in Pune course that fits with your goals and keeps you on the path of a successful legal career. 

In case you are looking for the best law colleges in Pune, Here at Ajeenkya DY Patil University, Pune we meet BCI’s high standards for academic excellence, infrastructure, and faculty, ensuring our graduates are eligible to practice law in India.

[urbtnews]

Trump Gets Broad Immunity: A Historic and Controversial Decision from US Supreme Court

Trump gets Broad Immunity. In a historic, consequential, and highly controversial decision on Monday, the Supreme Court granted substantial immunity from prosecution to former President Donald Trump on election subversion charges. The ruling, expected to delay his trial until after the November election, if it occurs at all. The decision has ignited a fierce national debate over the boundaries of presidential power and accountability. Download the URBT News App from your App store. Apple / Andriod The court's decision, which passed with a 6-to-3 vote, saw the Republican appointees in the majority and the Democratic appointees in staunch opposition. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion, establishing a broad new precedent for presidential immunity. This ruling not only affects Trump but extends to past and future presidents. It effectively shielding them from prosecution for actions deemed within their "core" constitutional powers. Biden Lashes Out as Trump gets Broad Immunity Chief Justice Roberts' opinion emphasized the need to protect the executive branch from undue interference by the judiciary. "The separation of powers, as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, necessitates that the President be able to perform his duties without the constant threat of litigation," Roberts wrote. "This immunity is essential to ensure that the President can effectively lead the nation." Roberts further argued that prosecuting a former president for actions taken while in office could set a dangerous precedent. This could lead to potential political retribution and instability. The opinion asserts that even after leaving office, presidents should receive presumptive immunity from prosecution for official actions, unless clear evidence of criminal intent and personal gain emerges. The opinion suggests that even after leaving office, presidents should be granted presumptive immunity from prosecution for official actions, unless clear evidence of criminal intent and personal gain is presente U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in SEC v. Jarkesy: Implications for SEC vs Punch TV Studios This is a must read article SEC vs Punchtvstudios Dissenting Voices Are Screaming Loudly The court's three Democratic appointees issued a fierce dissent. They gave a warning that the decision undermines the rule of law and sets a troubling precedent for presidential accountability. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, argued that no individual, including the President, should be above the law. "This decision creates a dangerous precedent that could allow future presidents to engage in unlawful activities with impunity, knowing they are shielded from prosecution," she wrote. Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling weakens the judiciary's power to act as a check on executive overreach. "The judiciary's role is to ensure that no branch of government exceeds its constitutional limits. By granting such broad immunity, the court is abdicating its responsibility to uphold the rule of law." Implications and Reactions The decision has elicited strong reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters argue that it is a necessary step to protect the executive branch from partisan attacks and ensure stable governance. "This ruling reaffirms the President's ability to govern without constant fear of legal repercussions," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "It is a victory for the principles of separation of powers and executive privilege." Critics, however, view the ruling as a dangerous expansion of presidential power that could lead to abuse. "This decision effectively places the President above the law, creating a precedent for unchecked executive authority," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It undermines our democratic principles and the accountability mechanisms that are fundamental to our system of government." Legal scholars disagree on the ruling's long-term impact. Some argue that it will provide necessary protections for future presidents, while others believe it could embolden misconduct. "The court's decision grants a level of immunity that could be exploited by future presidents to evade accountability," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University. "It is a significant shift in the balance of power between the branches of government." The Nation grapples with the implications of this landmark decision As the nation grapples with the implications of this landmark decision, questions remain about how it will affect the upcoming election and the broader landscape of American politics. Trump's legal team will likely use the ruling to delay or dismiss charges related to election subversion, potentially impacting his political fortunes. The decision sets a precedent shaping the legal landscape for future presidents, raising concerns about potential power abuses. As the debate continues, the country must navigate the delicate balance between protecting the executive branch and ensuring accountability. The Supreme Court's decision to grant broad immunity to former President Trump represents a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The ruling's far-reaching implications will undoubtedly influence national governance and the relationship between government branches for years. Trump gets Broad Immunity Read the full article

[legalhub16]

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

MINERVA MILLS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA 1980 2 SCC 625

I. Facts

Minerva Mills was a textile manufacturer in Karnataka. In 1970, the Central Government appointed a committee under Section 15 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (hence referred to as the "Industries Act") to conduct an investigation into the Company after it experienced a major decrease in production. Section 18A of the Industries Act demanded that the National Textile Corporation Ltd. take over the management of the company due to mismanagement of the company's activities, and this was cited by passing an order under the aforementioned section. This move enabled the business's nationalisation, and the Central Government took over the company in accordance with the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hence referred to as the Sick Textile Act). The takeover was then challenged in the High Court, but the suit was dismissed. This was later challenged in the Supreme Court of India through a Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.

II. Issues Raised

The primary question raised in this landmark case was whether the amendments introduced by Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act destroy the fundamental structure of the Indian Constitution, despite the fact that several issues were raised in the Apex Court. Furthermore, the constitutionality of the Six Textile Act and the question of whether the Directive Principles of State Policy (hereinafter referred to as "DPSP") supplant the Fundamental Rights were also contested.

III. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioner's learned attorney, Mr. Nani Palkhiwala, vehemently maintained that sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment, in particular, directly attacked the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution and thereby violated it. Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act introduced clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, giving the Parliament the unchallenged authority to modify the constitution and limit the Judiciary's Judicial Review power. Moreover, Article 31 C, which served as a safeguard against DPSP, was contested in court on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 19. The petitioner's learned counsel steadfastly maintained that the 42nd Amendment Act allowed DPSP to supersede fundamental rights. This will ultimately destroy the fundamental framework that the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharti case mentioned. The Learned Counsel believed that the Indian Constitution's Part III and Part IV provisions could not be violated or destroyed by the coexistence of DPSP and Fundamental Rights. The Preamble's guarantees of justice, liberty, and equality were further emphasised by the Learned Counsel.

IV. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

The Learned Attorney General persistently argued about the importance of the State to take steps for promoting welfare. The Learned Attorney General along with the Learned Solicitor General argued that Article 31 C must be read down.  The Learned Attorney General contended that the laws made in the interest of the public, were far from destroying the basis structure of the Constitution. In order to substantiate this argument, the learned Attorney General emphasized on Article 38 of the Indian Constitution and further argued that a law in compliance with Article 38 could not be said to have abrogated the Fundamental Rights or destroying the basic structure, as the structure is founded on justice, social, political and economic principles and Article 38 enumerates upon the same.

V. Judgement

The court denounced the recently appended provisions to Article 368. According to the Supreme Court, the laws were deemed unconstitutional as they granted the Parliament an unlimited right to make amendments. This would constitute a blatant assault on the principles and functioning of democracy. The Supreme Court believes that the Parliament should avoid extending its authority to change the Indian Constitution to the extent that it would ultimately abolish or undermine its fundamental characteristics. The court strongly criticised clause 4 and clause 5 of Article 368. One of the articles interfered with the Parliament's ability to amend, while the other restricted the authority of judicial review. These clauses aimed to grant unlimited power to the Parliament while also limiting the authority and influence of Judicial Review, which, if allowed, would lead to serious abuse of power and ultimately undermine the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. The court unequivocally denounced clause (4) and (5) of Article 368 and deemed them to be in violation of the constitution.

Moreover, the Supreme Court successfully rejected section 55 and section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act. The Supreme Court declared section 4 and section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act to be unconstitutional due to their significant risk to the fundamental framework of the Indian Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance and essentiality of the Golden Triangle, consisting of Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21, and criticised Article 31 C for undermining the principles enshrined in these three articles.

VI. Conclusion Drawn

The Doctrine of Basic Structure was effectively reiterated in Minerva Mills Case. This case helped in setting a precedent for future cases involving similar constitutional issues. The points of law raised could be regarded as extremely important in taking the Constitution where it is today. The Supreme Court emerged victorious in this indirect battle against the Parliament and helped safeguard the basic features of the Indian Constitution. This case helped in preventing any future attacks on the Fundamental Rights. The judgement of the Court in Minerva Mills Case truly helped in restoring the Golden Triangle. The case immensely helped in emphasizing the importance of striking a balance between Part III and Part IV that include Fundamental Rights and DPSP respectively. Although this was not the only case where basic structure of the Constitution was given predominance, but it would certainly be regarded as one of the first cases that truly helped in interpreting and protecting the Doctrine of Basic Structure as propounded in Kesavananda Bharti’s Case.

[skyfair-india]

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Fantasy Sports in India

Introduction

Fantasy sports have emerged as a dynamic and engaging form of entertainment, allowing sports enthusiasts to transform into team managers and test their strategic acumen. In the Indian context, the popularity of fantasy sports has soared, giving rise to a burgeoning industry. However, the legal landscape surrounding fantasy sports betting in India is nuanced, with regulatory considerations and legal frameworks shaping the industry's trajectory. This article delves into the legal aspects of fantasy sports in India, exploring the existing regulations, the skill vs. chance debate, and the implications for both operators and participants.

Legal Recognition of Skill-Based Games:

Fantasy sports are predominantly skill-based games that involve participants creating virtual teams composed of real-world athletes. The outcome of these games depends on the performance of chosen players in actual sporting events. Legal recognition of skill-based games is crucial for the fantasy sports industry in India. The judiciary has consistently emphasized the skill element in fantasy sports, distinguishing them from games of chance like gambling.

Skill vs. Chance Debate:

The distinction between games of skill and games of chance is central to the legal standing of fantasy sports in India. The landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu established that games requiring a predominant skill element are exempt from anti-gambling laws. Fantasy sports, characterized by strategic team selection, knowledge of player statistics, and analytical decision-making, align with the criteria set forth for skill-based games.

The Public Gambling Act, 1867:

The Public Gambling Act of 1867 is a colonial-era legislation that governs gambling in India. While the Act prohibits certain forms of gambling, its applicability to fantasy sports remains a subject of debate. Fantasy sports operators argue that their platforms involve skill and do not fall under the definition of "gambling" as per the Act. The judiciary's recognition of skill as a determining factor supports the legal standing of fantasy sports.

Skill Dominance Criteria:

The legal recognition of fantasy sports as skill-based hinges on the dominance of skill over chance in determining the outcome. The skill dominance criteria were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana. Courts have consistently held that if the success of a participant depends on their skill, knowledge, and judgment, the activity is a game of skill.

State-Specific Regulations:

While fantasy sports have found legal recognition at the national level, individual states in India may have varying perspectives and regulations. Some states have embraced fantasy sports, acknowledging them as skill-based activities, while others may have reservations or lack specific regulations. This diversity in state-level perspectives adds a layer of complexity to the legal landscape, prompting fantasy sports operators to navigate regulations on a state-by-state basis.

Self-Regulation by Fantasy Sports Platforms:

In response to the evolving legal landscape, fantasy sports platforms in India have embraced self-regulation. Industry bodies like the Fantasy Sports Skills Association (FSSA) have been established to promote fair play, responsible gaming practices, and adherence to legal guidelines. Self-regulation is seen as a proactive approach by operators to foster a transparent and trustworthy ecosystem.

Taxation Considerations:

Taxation is another dimension of the legal framework affecting fantasy sports in India. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is applicable to entry fees charged by fantasy sports platforms. The categorization of fantasy sports under the definition of "gambling or betting" for tax purposes has implications for both operators and players. Clarity on tax regulations is essential for the sustainable growth of the fantasy sports industry.

Challenges and Controversies:

Despite legal recognition, fantasy sports in India have faced challenges and controversies. Some critics argue that the element of chance cannot be entirely eliminated, especially when unforeseen events in actual sports impact the outcome. Additionally, concerns about the potential for addiction and underage participation have prompted calls for stricter regulations and responsible gaming measures.

Future Outlook and Regulatory Clarity:

The future outlook for fantasy sports in India is closely tied to regulatory clarity and a consistent legal framework across states. As the industry continues to grow, collaboration between fantasy sports operators, regulatory authorities, and industry bodies becomes crucial to address emerging challenges and establish clear guidelines. Regulatory frameworks that strike a balance between consumer protection and industry growth are likely to contribute to the sustained success of fantasy sports in India.

Conclusion:

Fantasy sports in India have emerged as a vibrant and skill-driven form of entertainment, attracting millions of participants. The legal recognition of skill as a predominant factor has laid a foundation for the industry's growth. However, the evolving regulatory landscape, state-specific considerations, and taxation nuances present ongoing challenges.

Collaborative efforts between industry stakeholders and regulatory authorities are imperative to provide a robust legal framework that fosters responsible gaming practices, protects consumers, and ensures the sustainable development of fantasy sports in India. As the industry navigates these legal considerations, it holds the potential to become a transformative force in the broader landscape of sports and gaming entertainment in the country.