This article is written by Vaishnavi Shukla, a student of Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies

The AIB (All India Bakchod) controversy is what the whole nation is discussing about. As we all know AIB is India’s edgiest comedy collective, featuring co-founders Tanmay Bhat and Gursimran Khamba along with fellow comedians Rohan Joshi and Ashish Shakya. The Roasting of stars which went viral is a comedic art form that originated in 1949 in New York and has been adapted across the world since.

An insight into the story

On December 20^th the AIB knockout roast of Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor was organized in south Mumbai and on 28^th January 2015 the video was uploaded on You Tube. On 2^nd February 2015, Akhilesh Tiwari the president of Brahman Ekta Sanstha in Mumbai filed a written complaint at Sakinaka police station for the usage of filthy and abusive language in the AIB Knockout. Police initiated an inquiry into the complaint against the participants who were from Bollywood, namely, film-maker Karan Johar, actor Arjun Kapoor and Ranveer Singh. An enquiry was also ordered against the event organizers and participants, by the Maharashtra Government.

Read on to know why the government has ordered a probe into the ‘roast’ that had the internet in splits. Along with it, we will discuss the two sides of the coin, being, opinions of people supporting it and people resenting against it. The legality of the whole AIB issue is a major concern i.e. whether they were right to organize a programme like that or not, will also be a part of the article.

Offensive or Comic? People’s take on it

People from Film fraternity, politics and the public have strongly come up with their personal opinion or say in this issue. Some consider it nasty, filthy and offensive and to some it is nothing but just a piece of joke which needs to be taken in a lighter sense. Politically, it has become a major issue because of the usage of filthy and offensive language, but the film industry has come out in full support for the AIB, and not to forget the public, specifically the younger audience, which has offered its support and considers it funny and non-offensive.

The Viral Fever (TVF), an internet parallel of the AIB, argued that

“If such moral policing continues, it would lead to the death of creativity”.

They insist that if the same continues, “there will be no freedom of speech on the internet medium and that would mean that they would have to think within the confines of what is permissible.”

Alia Bhatt, actress and an audience in the AIB show tweeted:

“Some “not taking life so seriously” lessons are needed. DESPERATELY!!!!”

Karan Johar, the host of the AIB knockout of Ranveer and Arjun also tweeted:

“Not your cup of tea…don’t drink it!!!”

Social networking sites are flooded with tweets terming the video to be a matter of national shame. On the other hand, there are also strong groups of people standing in support of it and defending everyone involved in it.

Both ‘AIB National shame’ and ‘we stand by AIB Knockout’ are trending on social networking sites.

Some tweets which came in protest to the AIB Knockout:

“AIB National Shame: Shame on those celebs too who praised this show on twitter, and they talk about women empowerment, pathetic #AIBRoast”

“#AIB National Shame is not freedom of expression or media! It is an expression of perverted depraved minds that endanger social norms!”

“A bunch of jerks having some shitting views on opening up society does not imply the whole nation having same views “AIB National Shame”

Well, to some it is a serious issue and some laugh it off. It is not surprising to find varied opinions because comic preferences vary from person to person.

Recent Developments

The latest report in this regard is that Bollywood stars have been named in a new police case in Pune, which involves Deepika Padukone, Ranveer Singh, Sonakshi Sinha, Arjun Kapoor and director Karan Johar. This FIR accuses them and comedy collective AIB of obscene behavior and content in a public place. YouTube is also named for distributing the offensive content according to the FIR filed by a police inspector. The FIR was registered in the wee hours of 6^th Feb under Sec 292 and Sec. 294 of IPC.

Vinod Tawde, the Cultural Affairs Minister was quoted saying:

“Officials of the department will examine videos of the show for content. If found vulgar, action will be initiated.”

He further explained:

“Some people reported to me that the performance had vulgar language, and inquired if the performers had the censor certificate. I asked Cultural Affairs Director Ajay Ambekar to conduct an inquiry. There is no problem if they have a certificate. If they don’t, we need to find out how the stadium allowed such a performance without a censor certificate. It’s a crime then and we will have to register an FIR. In the state, our censor board is supposed to give permits.”

“If the AIB roast was vulgar and not in accordance with the law, then we will act,” said Devendra Fadnavis, Maharashtra CM.

In midst of all the controversies on 4^th Feb. 2015 the AIB team took down its video from YouTube and wrote an open letter to everyone explaining why they did so. Further explaining the work they do, the AIB team wrote:

 “People who’ve been following our work will know that we’ve always tried to experiment with content, be it on YouTube or a live comedy show, with the sole intent of making people laugh and/or think. AIB Knockout was another such attempt to try something new and bring the roast format to a country where celebrities aren’t often known to laugh at themselves.“

Legal Grounds

As we all know that an inquiry is being conducted into the AIB issue after Akhilesh Tiwari’s FIR at Sakinaka police station in Mumbai, coming to a conclusion whether the Knockout is legal or illegal, would be too early.

Alleging obscenity, two complaints have been filed in Mumbai. “The Christian community has given us a representation. We are looking into the legal aspects of it,” said senior police officer S Jayakumar.

Also, Mr. Ashok Pandit the lately added member of the Censor Board in a recent interview stated:

“All staged performances, plays or stand-up comedies in Mumbai have to get permission from the Maharashtra police. They also have to submit their request for permission to the cultural ministry. The AIB has done none of these. They got no bloody clearance to have the show”.
On the other hand, the organizers argue that they had permission. However, there are no proper reports which clearly mention that the knockout which was conducted in front of such a large audience had any kind of clearance.

Ratna Kapur in her book “The profanity of prudery: The moral face of obscenity law in India” wrote:

“Sexual speech has become a highly contentious terrain in India, with an increasing call by the state, progressive groups and women’s organizations to restrict or curtail such speech. This call is being made at a time when the public space available for the expression of previously repressed sexuality has been expanding. The discomfort around sexual expression is related to the discomfort around sex generally.”

“The prudery that surrounds sexual expression informs the legal regulation of sexual speech in India. The increasing call for censorship, by the religious right as well as women’s groups, reinforce a conservative position around sex generally, and women’s right to sexual expression more specifically. In the light of discriminatory impact of all the call for censorship, is it an appropriate or even an effective legal response? The legal regulation of sexual speech is based on conservative sexual morality that views sex as a bad and corrupting influence that ought to be contained”.

Whether conservative or not? This is a question whose answer varies from person to person; not everyone can be expected to freely exercise sexual expression of thoughts as some might want to keep it private.

However, our Indian Penal Code has a different story to say. The AIB allegedly did not act according to what the law permits; their acts are considered offensive and vulgar. One major reason behind this is the fact that the Roasting of stars format is new to India and this is one country where stars are not known for laughing at themselves. Well, the (#AIBNATIONALSHAME) consider that sexual expression, using offensive language for women publically and the participation of well-established stars for the same cannot be considered comic.

In order to decide whether it was lawful or not, we need to know what Sec.292 and Sec.294 of IPC talks about; these being the sections AIB team is charged with:

Sec. 292 of the Indian Penal Code:

• Sale, etc., or obscene books, etc.
  For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
• Whoever-
  (a) Sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or
  (b) Imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
  (c) Takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or
  (d) Advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

Sec. 294 of the Indian Penal Code:

Whoever, to the annoyance of others-
(a) Does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) Sings, recites or utters any obscene song, balled or words, in or near any public place,
Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

The charges under Sec. 292 and 294 of IPC if proved will land the AIB team into more trouble. Sec. 294(b) says that any person, who sings, recites or utters any obscene song, balled or words, in or near any public place shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to 3months or fine or both.

Concluding this, all we can hope is ‘May justice is served right’.

ALL THE BEST AIB#.

This article is written by Somya Mishra, a student of Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies

Government and citizens both are interrelated to each other and since political parties are a link between them, they are always expected to be accountable to the public at large. It is essential to have comprehensive and transparent accounting methods and systems so that the true financial position of the parties could be revealed. A political party that agrees to take funds from a company but is reluctant to make full disclosure is disallowed to receive such funds.

Amongst the various sources of funding to the political parties, company is one of them.

Relevant provisions for political parties’ donations and contributions in India

According to Sec 29B of the Representation of People’s Act, every political party is entitled to accept contribution offered to it by any person or company voluntarily, other than a Government company. No political party is allowed to accept any contribution from any foreign source as defined under Sec 2 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.

According to Sec 29C of the Representation of People’s Act, the political parties are required to declare the details of contributions of more than Rs. 20,000 and prepare a report for the same in each financial year. Here, contribution includes contributions from both private persons as well as companies.

It is made mandatory for the political parties to submit to the Election Commission of India a list of donations they receive of over Rs. 20,000, giving names and addresses of the donors (Sec 29-C, RPA). If they fail to do so, then such political parties are disentitled from getting any tax relief under that Act.

Sec 182 of Companies Act, 2013 states that the companies donating contributions to the political parties must be in existence for a minimum period of three years. Also, the companies can donate only up to 7.5% of its profit in a year and is bound to disclose the amount in its profit and loss account. This exercise of the power of the companies can take place only with the approval of the board of directors through a resolution. If a company violates any of the provisions of this section, the company shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five times the amount so contributed; and every officer of the company who were involved in such violation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and shall also be liable to fine of 5 times the amount contributed.

The government enacted the ‘Electoral Trusts Scheme, 2013’ in order to streamline the process of funding and to ensure the transparency of corporate funding to the political parties’ poll expenses. According to this scheme, Electoral Trust companies were set up and were promised tax benefits in proportion to the funds they provided to various political outfits.

The Corporate Affairs Ministry amended its ‘Name Availability Guidelines’ for the companies to enable registration of non-profit companies. The companies were required to have the phrase ‘Electoral Trust’ before their names and get registered, so as to differentiate them from other companies, as allowed under Sec 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 under the Electoral Trusts Scheme, 2013. The companies were supposed to have an affidavit to the effect that they would be limited only for the purpose of registration of companies under the Electoral Trust Scheme of Central Board of Direct Taxes.

The companies were allowed tax benefits on one condition, i.e. only if they distribute 95% of total contributions received by them in any financial year to the registered political parties within that year itself. The Electoral Trust companies were not allowed to accept contributions from foreign citizens or companies. They need to take the PAN number of all contributors who were resident Indians and passport number of NRI citizens at the time of receiving the contribution.

Current Status of Political Funding

Under the current legal requirements, political parties are generally not completely transparent in their finances and thus a huge proportion of their income remains unaccounted for. There are unknown sources of funding reported by political parties in their annual disclosure report such as ‘sale of coupons’, ‘Aajiwan Sahayog Nidhi’, ‘relief fund’, ‘miscellaneous income’, ‘voluntary contributions’, ‘contribution from meetings/morchas’ etc. for which there is no information available in the public domain.

BSP has been an excellent example of such lack of transparency in the political parties’ disclosure. Since last 8 years, it has not disclosed even a single name of the donor who has contributed above Rs. 20,000 to them, though every year its total income has been in crores.

This egregious level of opacity in the financial disclosure of political parties certainly creates a suspicion towards the dubious sources of income which ultimately effects our electoral process.

DETAILS NEEDED TO ENSURE WHETHER A COMPANY IS GENUINE OR NOT?

1. Registration data of the company website: This may provide information relating to the name of the person who created the website, which may help to further gather information about the company. The information as to the period since when the website is in existence and when will it expire, is necessary. If a website is created only for a short span of time, it may indicate some scam.

2. Reviews of the company on the internet: Reviews from the public often help to believe on the genuineness of a company. The more the positive reviews, the more faith is built on the company.

3. Proper certification and licenses: It is important to ensure that the company has complied with the regulations of the Companies Act and has the proper certificates and licenses proving the authenticity of the company.

4. Company’s credit report: All the credit report related to the company must be taken down. In order to ensure the legitimacy of a company, the company’s credit score, their contact details, financial performance as to the profit and loss accounts of the company, number of directors- their personal & professional information, everything needs to be recorded.

5. KYC of the corporate entity: KYC (Know Your Customer) is very important as it provides a detailed information about the company. It seeks copy of the PAN card, copy of Certificate of incorporation, Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Board resolution, Photo identity proofs of authorised person and registered address. This totally secures against any fraud from the company.

6. Contact on the given registered address and phone number: The company must be rechecked as to whether they have given a genuine contact number and address by calling on that number and confirming it.

7. Discrepancies and lack of professionalism: One should thoroughly go through the website and see to it that no such discrepancy is found. The kind of information which it shares shows how coordinated the business is. They must be original and not copied from elsewhere.

The AAP Controversy

Just 4 days before the Delhi elections, AAP has been engulfed into a big controversy, a controversy over political funding. AAP has been charged with the allegation of money laundering from AVAM (AAP Voluntary Action Manch) for 4 companies which have funded the party with 50 lakh each, namely Goldmine Buildcon, Skyline metal, Infolance software & Sunvision agencies, are believed to be bogus companies. ‘HAWALA AT MIDNIGHT’ has been the breaking news these days. These companies are found to have fake addresses and no profits or loss accounts since 3 years. The directors of these companies are directors of more than 1 company. One Hem Prakash Sharma is a director of 56 companies and Dharmendra Upadhyaya of 18 companies, which indicates a suspicion.

Though the companies are registered with ROC, it is not enough to prove the genuineness of the company as it provides information only regarding its registered address, its existence and its paid-up capital. Whether the company is doing business currently or not is not provided under ROC.

AAP rules say that all donation up to Rs 10Lakh are vetted by the Advisory Committee and for donations above that, it is scanned by the Political Advisory Committee.

BJP has also alleged that AAP has flouted foreign exchange law as it routed money from a foreign company which is not supposed to donate money to an Indian Company. However, a recent disclosure from Mrs. Mann, who made this donation along with her husband, threw some light on this issue. AVAM had alleged against AAP that the money was paid to them by cheque and a dubious transaction has taken place. Mrs. Mann stated that the basic facts offered by AVAM are incorrect and they paid through credit card and not through cheque. Since she claims to be an Indian citizen, it is not even the violation of Sec 3(1) of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 which restricts political parties to accept contributions from foreign companies.

Although AAP has tried clearing its hands from this allegation, the controversy is still on.

Need for strict implementation

There is a grave need for a strict mechanism for ensuring that there is final transparency and accountability on the part of the political parties. In order to put forward a true picture of the financial position of the political parties, there must be a standardized procedure and framework of reports. Institute of Chartered Accounts of India (ICAI) has taken a step towards this direction on the request of the Election Commission of India (ECI). ADR considers it the top most priority.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:  

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

This article is written by Vaishnavi Shukla, a student of Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies. Here, she explains about the activities allowed in residential basement in Delhi, Noida and Gurgaon.

How can Indian Lawyers practice in US (United States)? What do the US rules state? This post discusses how an India-qualified lawyer (with a 3-year or 5-year LLB degree) can practice in the United States, without having to pursue the undergrad law degree, that is, the Juris Doctor or J.D. in a US college.

As per § 520.6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law, lawyers who have qualified from a common law jurisdiction and pursued law for more than 2 years) can submit their law degrees for ‘review and analysis’ – if this process is successful they will not be required to take the New York Bar exam.

This rule will be applicable to Indian students. However, this is easier said than done, and the review process by the American Bar Association (ABA) can take quite long, as much as or longer than one year. There is also no guarantee that the degree will be approved.

What is the alternative? The rules state that those who did not pursue a 2-year law degree or who qualified from a non-common law jurisdiction need to pursue an LLM in the US, before being eligible to take the exam. This option is typically the one used by Indian lawyers who want to obtain US-qualification as well.

Which bar exams are necessary to qualify for practice in New York?

Under the US system, the bar exam of any state has two components:

• Multi-State Bar Exam – This is based on federal laws. Recall that US has a very clear distinction between federal law and state law system. This exam tests you on constitutional law, evidence, contracts, torts, criminal and real estate and trusts.
• State Bar Exam of the relevant state where one seeks to practice.

Is an online LLM sufficient for being eligible to take the New York bar exam?

The cost of an LLM degree in the US can be quite significant, and can easily be anywhere between INR 30 – 60 lakhs for a one-year program. Tuition in the US is already very expensive, but a substantive component of this is the high living cost there.

Many US universities such as New York University, Boston University and Northwestern University offer online LLMs. An online LLM offers few advantages over a classroom LLM – it can be taken by lawyers who can continue to work in India, while pursuing the degree, they do not need to incur living costs in US (this is the biggest cost advantage) and in some cases tuition fees may also be lower. The next question is – does an online LLM qualify one to sit for the New York Bar Exam?

The New York rules are very clear about how the LLM degree must be acquired, in order to qualify you to take the New York Bar Exam:

[LLM instruction] shall be in classroom courses at the law school in substantive and procedural law and professional skills.

x        –        x        –        x

[A]ll coursework for the program shall be completed at the campus of an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States.

x        –        x        –        x

No credit shall be allowed for correspondence courses, on-line courses, courses offered on DVD or other media, or other distance learning courses. 

The above excerpts categorically explain that pursuing an online LLM will not qualify you for practice in New York.

Did you find this useful? Are you looking to practice in another state in the US or in another country? Let us know by commenting below. In case you have already given a US state bar exam, we would love to hear about your experience. 

For reference, Rule 520.6 is reproduced below.

Rule 520.6 of the NY Bar exam -Study of Law in Foreign Country; Required Legal Education

(a) General. An applicant who has studied in a foreign country may qualify to take the New York State bar examination by submitting to the New York State Board of Law Examiners satisfactory proof of the legal education required by this section.

(b) Legal education. The applicant must satisfy the educational requirements of either paragraph (1) or (2) of this subdivision.

(1) The applicant shall show fulfillment of the educational requirements for admission to the practice of law in a country other than the United States by successful completion of a period of law study in a law school or schools each of which, throughout the period of the applicant’s study therein, was approved by the government or an authorized accrediting body in such country, or of a political subdivision thereof, to award a first degree in law, and satisfaction of the following requirements:

(i)(a) Durational requirements. The program and course of law study successfully completed by the applicant was substantially equivalent in duration to the legal education provided by an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States, and in substantial compliance with the instructional and academic calendar requirements of section 520.3(c)(1)(i) and (ii) and (d)(1) of this Part; and

(b) Substantive requirements. Such other country is one whose jurisprudence is based upon the principles of English Common Law, and that the program and course of law study successfully completed by the applicant were the substantial equivalent of the legal education provided by an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States.

(ii) Cure provision. An applicant who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (i)(a) or (i)(b) may cure either the durational or substantive deficiency, but not both, under the following circumstances:

(a) Durational deficiency. If the applicant does not meet the durational requirements of subparagraph (i)(a), the applicant may cure the deficiency by providing satisfactory proof that the applicant has at least two years of foreign legal education that meets the substantive requirements of subparagraph (i)(b) and that the applicant has graduated from an LL.M. degree program at an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States meeting the requirements of subdivision (b)(3) of this section.

(b) Substantive deficiency. If the applicant does not meet the substantive requirements of subparagraph (i)(b), the applicant may cure the deficiency by providing satisfactory proof that the applicant meets the durational requirements of subparagraph (i)(a) and that the applicant has graduated from an LL.M. degree program at an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States meeting the requirements of subdivision (b)(3) of this section.

(2) The applicant shall show admission to practice law in a country other than the United States whose jurisprudence is based upon principles of English Common Law, where admission was based upon a program of study in a law school and/or law office approved by the government or an authorized accrediting body in such country, or of a political subdivision thereof, and which satisfies the durational requirements of subparagraph (1)(i)(a) but does not satisfy the substantive requirements of subparagraph (1)(i)(b) of this subdivision, and that such applicant has successfully completed an LL.M. degree program at an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States meeting the requirements of subdivision (b)(3) of this section.

(3) An LL.M. degree shall be satisfactory to qualify an applicant otherwise meeting the requirements of subsections (b)(1)(ii) or (b)(2) to take the New York State bar examination provided the following requirements are met:

(i) the program shall consist of a minimum of 24 credit hours (or the equivalent thereof, if the law school is on an academic schedule other than a conventional semester system) which, except as otherwise permitted herein, shall be in classroom courses at the law school in substantive and procedural law and professional skills;

(ii) a minimum of 700 minutes of instruction time, exclusive of examination time, must be required for the granting of one credit hour;

(iii) the program shall include a period of instruction consisting of no fewer than two semesters of at least 13 calendar weeks each, or the equivalent thereof, exclusive of reading periods, examinations and breaks, and shall not be completed exclusively during summer semesters, but a maximum of four credit hours may be earned in courses completed during summer semesters;

(iv) the program shall be completed within 24 months of matriculation;

(v) all coursework for the program shall be completed at the campus of an American Bar Association approved law school in the United States, except as otherwise expressly permitted by subdivision (b)(3)(vii);

(vi) the program completed by the applicant shall include:

(a) a minimum of two credit hours in a course or courses in professional responsibility;

(b) a minimum of two credit hours in legal research, writing and analysis, which may not be satisfied by a research and writing requirement in a substantive law course;

(c) a minimum of two credit hours in American legal studies, the American legal system or a similar course designed to introduce students to distinctive aspects and/or fundamental principles of United States law, which may be satisfied by a course in United States constitutional law or United States or state civil procedure; credit earned in such course in excess of the required two credit hours may be applied in satisfaction of the requirement of subdivision (b)(3)(vi)(d); and

(d) a minimum of six credit hours in other courses that principally focus on subject matter tested on the New York State bar examination.

(vii) The program completed by the applicant may include:

(a) a maximum of four credit hours in clinical courses, provided (1) the clinical course includes a classroom instructional component in order to ensure contemporaneous discussion, review and evaluation of the clinical experience; (2) the clinical work is done under the direct supervision of a member of the law school faculty; and (3) the time and effort required and anticipated educational benefit are commensurate with the credit awarded; and

(b) a maximum of six credit hours in other courses related to legal training taught by members of the faculty of the law school or of the university with which the law school is affiliated, or taught by members of the faculty of any university or college with which the law school offers a joint degree program, provided such courses must be completed at the campus of such university or college in the United States.

(viii) No credit shall be allowed for correspondence courses, on-line courses, courses offered on DVD or other media, or other distance learning courses.

(c) Proof required. The applicant shall submit to the State Board of Law Examiners such proof of compliance with the provisions of this section as the Board may require.

(d) Effective date for implementation. Except for the requirements of subdivisions (b)(3)(iii), (v) and (viii), which are effective May 18, 2011, the provisions of Rule 520.6(b)(3) shall first apply to LL.M. programs commencing during the 2012-13 academic year and to applicants applying to take the July 2013 bar examination, subject to the saving clause of Rule 520.1(b).

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA