The sections of the society as enlisted under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act are entitled for free legal services, they are :
(a) A member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(b) A victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution;
(c) A woman or a child;
(d) A mentally ill or otherwise disabled person;
(e) A person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or
(f) An industrial workman; or
(g) In custody, including custody in a protective home within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956(104 of 1956); or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause(j) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (53 of 1986); or in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987(14 of 1987);or
(h) In receipt of annual income less than rupees nine thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the State Government, if the case is before a court other than the Supreme Court, and less than rupees twelve thousand or such other higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government, if the case is before the Supreme Court.
Free legal services entail the provision of free legal aid in civil and criminal matters for those poor and marginalized people who cannot afford the services of a lawyer for the conduct of a case or a legal proceeding in any court, tribunal or before an authority.
Provision of free legal aid may include:
a. Representation by an Advocate in legal proceedings.
b. Preparation of pleadings, memo of appeal, paper book including printing and translation of documents in legal proceedings;
c. Drafting of legal documents, special leave petition etc.
d. Rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any court or other Authority or tribunal and;
e. Giving of advice on any legal matter.
Free Legal Services also include provision of aid and advice to the beneficiaries to access the benefits under the welfare statutes and schemes framed by the Central Government or the State Government and to ensure access to justice in any other manner.
|01||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to capital punishment|
|02||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.|
|03||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to harassment, cruelty to woman for dowry, dowry death, eveteasing, domestic violence etc.|
|04||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to sexual harassment, kidnapping & abduction|
|05||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to Prevention of Corruption Act|
|06||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to Bank scams, cheating, forgery etc.|
|07||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to Essential Commodities Act|
|08||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to State Excise Law|
|09||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to bail/interim bail/anticipatory bail|
|10||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters in which sentence awarded is up to five years|
|11||Criminal Matters||Criminal T.P. Under Article 139(A)(1) of the Constitution of India|
|12||Criminal Matters||Criminal T.P. Under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.|
|13||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters arising out of Securities Act, 1992.|
|14||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to Drugs and Cosmetics, NDPS Act|
|15||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to Food Adulteration|
|16||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to preventive detention, TADA/POTA & national security-COFEPOSA-SAFEMA|
|17||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to SC & ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989; Untouchability (offences) Amendment & Misc. Provision Act, 1976.|
|19||Criminal Matters||Scam matters other than relating to Banks|
|20||Criminal Matters||Appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court enlargement of jurisdiction Act|
|21||Criminal Matters||Police atrocities matters|
|22||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to Foreign Exchange Regulation Act|
|23||Criminal Matters||Matters challenging sentence till rising of the court and/or fine only|
|24||Criminal Matters||Appeals u/s 10 of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences relating to transactions in Securities) Act, 1992.|
|25||Criminal Matters||Appeals u/s 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987|
|26||Criminal Matters||Matters filed by State against Acquittal|
|27||Criminal Matters||Matters filed by complainant against Acquittal|
|28||Criminal Matters||Matters under State Police Acts|
|29||Criminal Matters||Matters for/against quashing of criminal proceedings|
|30||Criminal Matters||Matters challenging prosecution under Income Tax Act|
|31||Criminal Matters||Matters challenging prosecution under Negotiable Instruments Act|
|32||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944|
|33||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to Customs Act, 1962|
|34||Criminal Matters||Matters relating to Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA)|
|35||Criminal Matters||Criminal appeals filed against the orders of various Tribunals|
|36||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to suspension of sentence|
|37||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters relating to cancellation to bail|
|38||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters in which sentence awarded is more than five years|
|39||Criminal Matters||Criminal matters in which sentence awarded is life imprisonment|
|01||Family Law Matters||Mutual consent divorce matters|
|02||Family Law Matters||Other divorce matters|
|03||Family Law Matters||Restitution of conjugal rights|
|04||Family Law Matters||Child custody matters|
|05||Family Law Matters||Adoption & Maintenance matters|
|06||Family Law Matters||Minority & guardianship matters|
|07||Family Law Matters||Matters under Hindu Marriage Act|
|08||Family Law Matters||Matters under Muslim Marriage Act|
|09||Family Law Matters||Matters under Christian Marriage Act|
|10||Family Law Matters||Alimony|
|11||Family Law Matters||Others|
|01||Service Matters||Retiral benefits|
|02||Service Matters||Regularisation of ad-hoc employees etc.|
|03||Service Matters||Removal/Dismissal/Termination from service or other major penalties|
|05||Service Matters||Compulsory retirement|
|06||Service Matters||Disciplinary proceedings|
|07||Service Matters||Condition of service|
|10||Service Matters||Pay scales|
|11||Service Matters||Reservation in service for SC/ST/OBC|
|12||Service Matters||Equal pay for equal work|
|14||Service Matters||Medical facilities|
|15||Service Matters||Recruitment/Transfer/Compassionate Appointment|
|16||Service Matters||Minor penalties|
|17||Service Matters||Back wages|
|18||Service Matters||Voluntary Retirement|
|19||Service Matters||Allotment of Accommodation|
|20||Service Matters||Probation & Confirmation|
|21||Service Matters||Temporary Appointment|
|22||Service Matters||Use of forged/false document(s) for securing employment|
ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan’s protracted and bitter fight for justice began on November 30, 1994 — the day the Kerala police arrested him on charges of having leaked secrets pertaining to the cryogenic rocket technology to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
Their case was that the ISI had used the services of two Maldivian women, Mariam Rasheeda and Fousiya Hassan, to entice Mr. Narayanan into revealing secrets to which he was privy as head of the cryogenic division of ISRO. Later, the police would name his deputy, D. Sasikumar, as an accused in the case, along with four others.
The case also triggered a political firestorm in the State that prompted the Congress leadership to replace then Chief Minister K. Karunakaran with his rival in the party, A. K. Antony. Though the police and intelligence bureau quizzed former Director General of Police (DGP) Raman Srivastava in the case, they stopped short of naming him an accused.
On December 3, 1994, the State government handed over the probe in the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) given its ramifications.
In 1996, the CBI filed a final report stating that the so-called ISRO spy scandal case was a fabricated one. However, in June the same year, the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government of Chief Minister E. K. Nayanar formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct its own investigation into the case.
Mr. Narayanan moved the Kerala High Court against the move, but the High Court deemed that the State government had the right to re-investigate the case. Mr. Narayanan then moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
HC order struck down
In 1998, the CBI submitted in the SC a secret report it had filed along with the final report in the case. The confidential report purportedly listed the alleged investigative flaws committed by the investigating officers, the then Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Siby Mathews, and Superintendents of Police K. K. Joshua and S. Vijayan. In 1998, the SC struck down the HC order and ordered a compensation of ₹1 lakh to all the accused.
Successive State governments failed to initiate punitive action against the officials faulted by the CBI. Instead the named officers were duly promoted and subsequently retired from service with full benefits.
In April 1999, Mr. Narayanan approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) claiming compensation from the State for the mental agony suffered by him. In March 2001, the NHRC awarded an interim compensation of ₹10 lakh and asked the State to pay damages.
In September 2012, the High Court directed the State to pay ₹10 lakh to Mr. Narayanan. In 2015, Mr. Siby Mathews moved the HC against this order. The HC upheld the State’s decision not to compensate the scientist.
The same year Mr Narayanan moved the SC demanding that it set aside the HC order. On July 10, 2018, a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra considered the case for the final time and reserved orders. In its order on Friday, the court awarded ₹50 lakh as compensation to Mr. Narayanan and constituted a judicial committee to investigate the officers responsible for the scientist’s ordeal.
The Amendments include:
Having considered the common demand by the students not to subject them to an additional licentiate exam for the purpose of getting license to practice, the Cabinet has approved that the final MBBS examination would be held as a common exam throughout the country and would serve as an exit test to be called the National Exit Test (NEXT). Thus, the students would not have to appear in a separate exam after MBBS to get license to practice. NEXT would also serve as the screening test for doctors with foreign medical qualifications in order to practice in India.
The provision dealing with bridge course for AYUSH practitioners to practice modern medicine to a limited extent has also been removed. It has been left to the State Governments to takenecessary measures for addressing and promoting primary health care in rural areas.
The maximum limit of 40% seats for which fee would be regulated in private medicalinstitutions and deemed universities has been increased to 50% seats. Further, it has been clarified that the fee would also include all other charges taken by the colleges.
Responding to the demands from States to increase their representation in the NMC, thenominees of States and UTs in the NMC have been increased from 3 to 6. The NMC willcomprise of 25 members of which at least 21 will be doctors.
Another major concern gathered during discussion with stakeholders was the wide range of monetary penalty, ranging from one half to ten times the annual fee recovered from a batch, to be imposed in a graded manner on a medical college non-compliant with the norms. The clause has been replaced with a provision which provides different options for warning, reasonable monetary penalty, reducing intake, stoppage of admission leading up to withdrawal of recognition.
The government is concerned about the quality and safety of health care being made available to the citizens and the need to act strictly against unqualified practitioners or quacks. The punishment for any unauthorized practice of medicine has been made severe by including a provision for imprisonment of up to one year along with a fine extending up to Rs. 5 lakhs.