Off-Topic: Call for Papers from the Journal of Telecommunication and Broadcasting Law

The Journal of Telecommunication and Broadcasting Law (JTBL) is an international peer-reviewed, student-edited journal of National University of Juridical Sciences, India. Dedicated to pioneer legal scholarship in the field of telecommunication and broadcasting laws and addressing a global scholarly community, JTBL strives to publish relevant research on said disciplines. The Journal encourages deliberations on subjects of interdisciplinary nature and would include review of laws and policies involved in the field. The journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis. Interested contributors are requested to send their submissions under the categories mentioned below. For general queries relating to your submissions, kindly write to us at  jtbl@nujs.edu. The last day to submit for consideration for Vol. II is March 18, 2013. 

Nature of Submissions

1. Articles (6000-10000 words, inclusive of footnotes) 
2. Notes including Policy Notes (4000-6000 words, inclusive of footnotes) 
3. Book Reviews (2000-3000 words, inclusive of footnotes) Please note: Book Review should specify all relevant information relating to the book reviewed such as the name(s) of the author(s) and editor(s), edition of the book reviewed, year of publication, name of publisher and place of publication. 
4. Case Notes (2500-4000 words, inclusive of footnotes) Submissions in this category would include a comprehensive analysis of any judicial pronouncement relevant to contemporary developments in relation with telecommunication and broadcasting industry. It should provide an analysis of the law prior to the ruling as well as subsequent to it. Any inconsistencies with the ruling should be highlighted. 
5. Legislative Comments (2000 – 3000 words, inclusive of footnotes) The legislation should be analyzed with a view to provide the background, objectives and main provisions of the legislation to the readers. The comments must be objective in reporting facts and provisions. A section may be devoted to list down possible problems with the legislation or inconsistencies with other laws for further debate. Government surveys, committee reports and data from national and international organisations should be sourced for facts and figures. 

Style Guidelines 

1. Format of Submission: Submissions must be in electronic form only. All submissions must be MS-Word-processed. Main text should be in Times New Roman, font size 12 with double line spacing. The footnotes should be in Times New Roman, font size 10 with line spacing 1.15. All pages must be numbered. Endnotes are not allowed. 
2. Abstract: All submissions must contain an abstract of about 250 to 500 words describing the relevant points of discussion attempted in the paper and the relevant conclusions drawn. 
3. Headings: The main title should be centred, typed in small capitals and emphasised in bold with font size 14. The sub-titles must be left indented, emphasized in bold with font size 12. 
4. Citation: The Rules of Citation as prescribed by Oxford University Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA), 4th edition are to be followed for references and citations. 

Submission Guidelines 

1. Co-authoring: is permitted. 
2. Cover Letter: The cover letter shall contain the name of the author, institutional affiliation, title and category of the submission. Submissions should be sent as attachments (.doc format only) with the title of the write-up as the file name. 
3. Contact Address: The Journal accepts only electronic form of submissions which must be mailed to . 
4. Identification Details: The body of the write-up must not contain any identification of the author(s) or their institutional affiliation. For further details, please see our website, www.jtbl.org

Read More

Off-topic: Lowering the Bar at the Delhi High Court

Image from here

Usually, I try to keep away ‘off-topic’ issues on the blog but some of the recent events at the Delhi High Court, involving the boycott of Justice Valmiki Mehta are simply too shocking to ignore and I felt compelled to discuss the issue on the blog.

Apparently, upset with the way in which Justice Valmiki Mehta was running his court room, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) resolved through its executive committee that “members of the Bar shall boycott the Court” for one day. According to unconfirmed reports, it appears that the boycott was enforced by physically barricading the doors to Justice Mehta’s courtroom, therefore preventing lawyers from entering the courtroom. The notice of the DHCBA and a news report on the same can be accessed over here on Legally India.  

According to the ‘Notice’ published by the DHCBA, calling for the one-day boycott, the DHCBA was upset with the fact that Justice Mehta was “excessively harsh in imposing costs on an unprecedented scale” and that his “lordship’s demeanour on the Bench has been wanting of this august office”. Without giving any specifics of the cases where costs were imposed, the notice which was written in terribly poor taste and calculated to intimidate, if not humiliate the judge, laments how “Conspicuously it looks like that the Bar as a whole can be subjected to the caprices of an ‘knight errand’ despite the fact that it always conducts its business as prudent officers of the Court”.

As if such denigrating language was not enough, the notice also states that its repeated complaints to successive Chief Justices have not resulted in any ‘carminative effects’. I had to look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary, it means and I quote “expelling gas from the stomach or intestines so as to relieve flatulence or abdominal pain or distension”. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Is this the language that the lawyers of the Delhi High Court have been reduced to, especially when they are the ones complaining of ‘brusque remarks’ from the judges of the Delhi High Courts? Is this the language that we expect to hear from ‘prudent officers of the court’?

One would expect a notice of this kind to actually educate its readers on the nature of the complaint instead of indulging in rhetoric, hyperbole and name-calling. Clearly, that is expecting too much because the notice gives absolutely no specifics of Justice Mehta’s conduct. Which case, how much costs, what were the circumstances involved? How can you condemn any man, more so a judge, without even explaining the specifics of his alleged crime?

The greater crime however is the ‘resolution’ that follows from the 2 paragraph charge-sheet: the first being the boycott and the second being the brazen demand that Justice Mehta, who currently is an additional judge, not be recommended “for a further extension of his tenure or for confirmation”.

Before being elevated to the Bench in April, 2009, Justice Mehta was a Senior Advocate, of considerable repute and who had a booming private practice before the Delhi High Court. Like most of his brethren, he could have presumably continued to mint money at the Bar. Yet, he opted for public service, a difficult choice for any successful lawyer. That Justice Mehta is hard-working is beyond doubt and that is evidenced by the fact that since he was elevated to the bench, in 2009, he has delivered, according to the website of the Delhi HC, a total of 1,203 judgements, which is more than double  the average of the Delhi High Court. Since lawyers in India today are the biggest and most inefficient cogs in the judicial machine, with their constant requests for unwarranted adjournments, it can only be assumed that Justice Mehta achieved this prodigious feat of delivering 1203 judgements, by running a strict courtroom with few adjournments and heavy costs on errant lawyers. Costs imposed by a single judge, can always be appealed and in a fit case, set aside.        

Given his stellar record on the bench and the ever-present option to appeal his erroneous orders, one would have expected the DHCBA to make out a case, which goes beyond name-calling and flatulent pejoratives. 

Instead such intimidation only serves to reduce the morale of judiciary and coerce judges to be lenient towards the coterie of lawyers who are powerful within bar associations. It is quite obvious that the notice seeks to make an example of Justice Mehta and send out a signal to the remaining judges in the High Court. 

As for the reports of lawyers physically barricading his courtroom, if true, this is a clear cut case of contempt of court since it results in interfering with the administration of justice, more so than the alleged misreporting by the media of Supreme Court proceedings. Unfortunately, contempt proceedings almost never work when it comes to bar associations or lawyers and the DHCBA is going to get away scot-free with its conduct.

Read More