Law of India

Law of India refers to the system of law in modern India. Some of contemporary Indian law shows substantial European and American influence. Various legislations first introduced by the British are still in effect in modified forms today. During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, laws from Ireland, the United States, Britain, and France were synthesized into a refined set of Indian laws. Indian laws also adhere to the United Nations guidelines on human rights law and the environmental law. Certain international trade laws, such as those on intellectual property, are also enforced in India.Indian family law is complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws. In most states, registering of marriages and divorces is not compulsory. Separate laws govern Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and followers of other religions. The exception to this rule is in the state of Goa, where a Portuguese uniform civil code is in place, in which all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces, and adoption.There are about 1221 laws as of May 2010 However, since there are Central laws as well as State laws, its difficult to ascertain their exact numbers as on a given date. The best way to find the about the Central Laws in India is from the official website

Criminal lawCriminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It is the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people. Criminal law also sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey these laws. Criminal law differs from civil law, whose emphasis is more on dispute resolution than in punishment

Selected criminal lawsMany laws are enforced by threat of criminal punishment, and their particulars may vary widely from place to place. The entire universe of criminal law is too vast to intelligently catalog. Nevertheless, the following are some of the more known aspects of the criminal law.ElementsThe criminal law generally prohibits undesirable acts. Thus, proof of a crime requires proof of some act. Scholars label this the requirement of an actus reus or guilty act. Some crimes particularly modern regulatory offenses require no more, and they are known as strict liability offenses (E.g. Under the Road traffic Act 1988 it is a strict liability offence to drive a vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit). Nevertheless, because of the potentially severe consequences of criminal conviction, judges at common law also sought proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the mens rea or guilty mind. As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea are requirements, judges have concluded that the elements must be present at precisely the same moment and it is not enough that they occurred sequentially at different times. Actus reusActus reus is Latin for "guilty act" and is the physical element of committing a crime. It may be accomplished by an action, by threat of action, or exceptionally, by an omission to act, which is a legal duty to act. For example, the act of A striking B might suffice, or a parent's failure to give food to a young child also may provide the actus reus for a crime.Where the actus reus is a failure to act, there must be a duty of care. A duty can arise through contract, a voluntary undertaking, a blood relation with whom one lives, and occasionally through one's official position. Duty also can arise from one's own creation of a dangerous situation. On the other hand, it was held in the U.K. that switching off the life support of someone in a persistent vegetative state is an omission to act and not criminal. Since discontinuation of power is not a voluntary act, not grossly negligent, and is in the patient's best interests, no crime takes place. In this case it was held that since a PVS patient could not give or withhold consent to medical treatment, it was for the doctors to decide whether treatment was in the patient's best interest. It was reasonable for them to conclude that treatment was not in the patient's best interest, and should therefore be stopped, when there was no prospect of improvement. It was never lawful to take active steps to cause or accelerate death, although in certain circumstances it was lawful to withhold life sustaining treatment, including feeding, without which the patient would die.An actus reus may be nullified by an absence of causation. For example, a crime involves harm to a person, the person's action must be the but for cause and proximate cause of the harm. If more than one cause exists (e.g. harm comes at the hands of more than one culprit) the act must have "more than a slight or trifling link" to the harm. Causation is not broken simply because a victim is particularly vulnerable. This is known as the thin skull rule. However, it may be broken by an intervening act (novus actus interveniens) of a third party, the victim's own conduct, or another unpredictable event. A mistake in medical treatment typically will not sever the chain, unless the mistakes are in themselves "so potent in causing death." Mens reaMens rea is another Latin phrase, meaning "guilty mind". This is the mental element of the crime. A guilty mind means an intention to commit some wrongful act. Intention under criminal law is separate from a person's motive (although motive does not exist in Scots law).[ A lower threshold of mens rea is satisfied when a defendant recognises an act is dangerous but decides to commit it anyway. This is recklessness. It is the mental state of mind of the person at the time the actus reus was committed. For instance, if C tears a gas meter from a wall to get the money inside, and knows this will let flammable gas escape into a neighbour's house, he could be liable for poisoning. Courts often consider whether the actor did recognize the danger, or alternatively ought to have recognised a risk. Of course, a requirement only that one ought to have recognized a danger (though he did not) is tantamount to erasing intent as a requirement. In this way, the importance of mens rea has been reduced in some areas of the criminal law but is obviously still an important part in the criminal system.Wrongfulness of intent also may vary the seriousness of an offense and possibly reduce the punishment but this is not always the case. A killing committed with specific intent to kill or with conscious recognition that death or serious bodily harm will result, would be murder, whereas a killing effected by reckless acts lacking such a consciousness could be manslaughter. On the other hand, it matters not who is actually harmed through a defendant's actions. The doctrine of transferred malice means, for instance, that if a man intends to strike a person with his belt, but the belt bounces off and hits another, mens rea is transferred from the intended target to the person who actually was struck.[Note: The notion of transferred intent does not exist within Scots' Law. In Scotland, one would not be charged with assault due to transferred intent, but instead assault due to recklessness.] Strict liabilityStrict liability can be described as criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the lack mens rea or intent by the defendant. Not all crimes require specific intent, and the threshold of culpability required may be reduced. For example, it might be sufficient to show that a defendant acted negligently, rather than intentionally or recklessly. In offenses of absolute liability, other than the prohibited act, it may not be necessary to show the act was intentional. Generally, crimes must include an intentional act, and "intent" is an element that must be proved in order to find a crime occurred. The idea of a "strict liability crime" is an oxymoron. The few exceptions are not truly crimes at all but are administrative regulations and civil penalties created by statute, such as crimes against the traffic or highway code.Personal offensesMany criminal codes protect the physical integrity of the body. The crime of battery is traditionally understood as an unlawful touching, although this does not include everyday knocks and jolts to which people silently consent as the result of presence in a crowd. Creating a fear of imminent battery is an assault, and also may give rise to criminal liability. Non-consensual intercourse, or rape, is a particularly egregious form of battery

Common lawCommon law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. (See below here and here for contrasting systems.)In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Particularly common law is in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in countries that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including India, the United States, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada, with the exception of Qubec where a mix of civil law (on the provincial level) and common law (mostly on the federal level) is used, Malaysia, Ghana, Australia, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Myanmar, Ireland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Botswana, Guyana and Israel.DifferenceBetweenCivil Law vs Criminal LawFor any country, the courts have been a place where people are able to seek justice for themselves and their families. Oftentimes, victims are given the option by their lawyers to have their case heard as a civil law matter or as a criminal law matter. While many of the cases can be tried in both courts, there are a number of differences between the two, and it is here where the differences between civil and criminal law can be most visibly seen.Parties InvolvedOne of the main differences between civil law and criminal law are the parties that are involved when cases are heard. In the case of civil law cases, the parties involved are private individuals. This means that the case can be between two people or between a company and a person. On the other hand, criminal law cases involve the government as one of the parties in the case. This is the reason why these cases are tried by a district attorney and a public defender instead of the parties hiring their personal lawyers to do the job.

Decisions to be MadeAnother difference between civil law and criminal law court hearings is the decisions that need to be reached by the court hearing the case. In a civil law case, the issue to be decided upon is whether or not the defendant had indeed caused any form of harm to the complainant based on the evidence supporting the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, criminal law court hearings need to decide as to whether the defendant indeed violated a statute that has been instigated by the local government for the protection of the entire society as a whole. As a result, the evidence that is presented is done in order to help determine whether the defendant is indeed guilty of the charges without a reasonable doubt.1.Criminal and civil law covers the different aspects of society in order to ensure that the rights of all citizens are respected and honored.2. Civil law deals with court cases that are between two private parties. Criminal law deals with court cases that are between the government and the defendant.3. The purpose in criminal law cases is to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and imposing imprisonment and punishment as a result of this. Civil law mandates that the accuser must prove that substantial harm has been inflicted on him or her by the defendant in order to be awarded some form of monetary compensation.Public lawPublic law is a theory of law governing the relationship between individuals (citizens, companies) and the state. Under this theory, constitutional law, administrative law and criminal law are sub-divisions of public law. This theory is at odds with the concept of constitutional law, which requires all laws to be specifically enabled, and thereby sub-divisions, of a constitution.Generally speaking, private law is the area of law in a society that affects the relationships between individuals or groups without the intervention of the state or government. In many cases the public/private law distinction is confounded by laws that regulate private relations while having been passed by legislative enactment. In some cases these public statutes are known as laws of public order, as private individuals do not have the right to break them and any attempt to circumvent such laws is void as against public policy.Private lawPrivate law is that part of a civil law legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that effects the public order. In general terms, private law involves interactions between private citizens, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population.

DifferenceBetweenPublic vs Private LawLegal terms may appear complicated to common individuals, which is why confusion usually occurs during legal procedures. To have a deeper understanding of the basics regarding legal procedures, let us take a look at the difference between two terms: Private law and public law. When is law considered public or private? Read on to find out.Public law is a theory of law that governs the relationship between the state and the individual, who is considered to be either a company or a citizen. Public law covers three sub-divisions: Constitutional, administrative and criminal law.- Constitutional law covers the different branches of the state: Executive, legislative and judiciary.- Administrative law regulates international trade, manufacturing, pollution, taxation, and the like.- Criminal law involves state imposed sanctions for individuals or companies in order to achieve justice and social order.Private law is also known as civil law. It involves relationships between individuals, or private relationships between citizens and companies. It covers the law of obligations and the law of torts, which is defined as follows: Firstly, the Law of Obligation organizes and regulates legal relations between individuals under contract. Secondly, the Law of Torts addresses and remedies issues for civil wrongs, not arising from any contractual obligation.1. Public law governs the individual, citizen or corporation, and the state, while private law applies to individuals.2. Public law deals with a greater scope, while private law deals with a more specific scope.3. Public law deals more with issues that affect the general public or the state itself, whereas, private law focuses more on issues affecting private individuals, or corporations.

Substantive lawSubstantive law is the statutory or written law that defines rights and duties, such as crimes and punishments (in the criminal law), civil rights and responsibilities in civil law. It is codified in legislated statutes or can be enacted through the initiative process.Substantive law stands in contrast to procedural law, which is the "machinery" for enforcing those rights and duties. Procedural law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings, as well as the method and means by which substantive law is made and administered.However, the way to this clear differentiation between substantive law and, serving the substantive law, procedural law has been long, since in the Roman civil procedure the actio included both substantive and procedural elements Procedural lawProcedural law or adjective law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings. The rules are designed to ensure a fair and consistent application of due process (in the U.S.) or fundamental justice (in other common law countries) to all cases that come before a court. Substantive law, which refers to the actual claims and defenses whose validity is tested through the procedures of procedural law, is different from procedural law.In context of procedural law; procedural rights may also refer not exhaustively to rights to Information, rights to justice, rights to participation which those rights encompassing, general Civil and Political rights. In environmental law, these procedural Rights have been reflected within the UNECE Convention on "Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters" known as the Aarhus Convention (1998).DifferenceBetweenSubstantive vs Procedural LawEven if youre not in a profession where you will be dealing directly with legal terms, it still helps to learn about the basics of the different branches of law. Here, we will have a quick comparison of two terms which not everyone may necessarily be familiar with: Substantive and procedural law.First, heres a brief definition of the two terms. When you say substantive law, it actually refers to the written or statutory law which governs the relationship between people, or between people and the state. Procedural law, on the other hand, is the set of rules followed when a court is hearing a case so it basically dictates what will happen during a civil or criminal proceeding.Next, heres a deeper look at the differences between the terms. When there is an ongoing trial, substantive law is the branch of the legal industry which will define the crimes and punishments to which the accused will be subjected. Its also the branch of law which defines the rights and responsibilities of a civilian.Compare this with procedural law, which provides a government with the machinery to enforce the rights and duties as defined in substantive law. In laymans terms, substantive law defines how the facts in a case will be handled, as well as how a particular case is to be charged. As the name implies, its the substance of the case that is being handled.Meanwhile, procedural law is the step-by-step process that the case will go through. For example, procedural law will dictate whether a case will go into trial or not. Other distinct differences between the two is that procedural law cannot function independently, while substantive laws can. Procedural law does not necessarily decide the fate of a case, while substantive law does. Substantive law is also the branch of law which decides who wins the case, and the compensation to be received.Procedural laws can be applied to non-legal contexts, but substantive law cannot. Finally, procedural law is more about how the law will be executed, while substantive law provides the legal solution to a case.

1. Substantive law is about the definition of peoples rights, duties and power, while procedural law is about prescribing the form and order by which the law will be enforced.2. Substantive law defines how the facts in a case will be handled, while procedural law defines the step-by-step process that the case will go through.3. Substantive law cannot be applied to non-legal contexts, while procedural law can be applied to non-legal contexts.4. Substantive law defines how the case is handled, and how a crime is to be charged, while procedural law describes the manner in which a case will proceed.

International lawInternational law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations. It serves as the indispensable framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. International law differs from national legal systems in that it primarily concerns nations rather than private citizens. National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform.International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by international law unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct. This is an issue of state sovereignty.The term "international law" can refer to three distinct legal disciplines: Public international law, which governs the relationship between provinces and international entities. It includes these legal fields: treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law, the laws of war or international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Private international law, or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of (1) which jurisdiction may hear a case, and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction applies to the issues in the case. Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns regional agreements where the laws of nation states may be held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system when that nation has a treaty obligation to a supranational collective.The two traditional branches of the field are: jus gentium law of nations jus inter gentes agreements between nationsJus gentiumThe ius gentium or jus gentium (Latin, "law of nations") is a concept of international law within the ancient Roman legal system and Western law traditions based on or influenced by it. The ius gentium is not a body of statute law or a legal code, but rather customary law thought to be held in common by all gentes ("peoples" or "nations") in "reasoned compliance with standards of international conduct." Following the Christianization of the Roman Empire, canon law also contributed to the European ius gentium. By the 16th century, the shared concept of the ius gentium disintegrated as individual European nations developed distinct bodies of law, the authority of the Pope declined, and colonialism created subject nations outside the West. Jus inter gentesJus inter gentes, is the body of treaties, U.N. conventions, and other international agreements. Originally a Roman law concept, it later became a major part of public international law. The other major part is jus gentium, the Law of Nations referred to in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. Jus inter gentes, literally, means "law between the peoples".This is not the same as jus gentium, argues Francisco Martin and his co-authors in "International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law" (2006), because jus inter gentes includes internationally recognized human rights

Municipal lawMunicipal law is the national, domestic, or internal law of a sovereign state defined in opposition to international law. Municipal law includes not only law at the national level, but law at the state, provincial, territorial, regional or local levels. While, as far as the law of the state is concerned, these may be distinct categories of law, international law is largely uninterested in this distinction and treats them all as one. Similarly, international law makes no distinction between the ordinary law of the state and its constitutional law.Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, where a treaty conflicts with a state's municipal law (including the state's constitution), the state is still obliged to meet its obligations under the treaty. The only exception to this rule is provided by Article 46 of the Vienna Convention, where a state's expression of consent to be bound by a treaty was a manifest violation of a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance".