In a noteworthy decision of the Supreme Court of India (‘SC’) in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India [1], while interpreting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘The Act’), The Apex Court without giving comprehensive reasoning, adopted an unusual approach towards recognition of dissenting opinions by setting aside a majority decision.

Recapitulating the Basic Rules Governing a Tribunal’s Decision
While adjudicating arbitration disputes, the Arbitral Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) can face a dilemma that majority cannot be attained to a unanimous decision, but nevertheless, the Tribunal is beholden to the established provisions of the Act, which oversee its conduct and stand in need of a ‘majority’ in all cases. One such consequence is always expected that the majority be never attained, giving rise to a state of hibernation where one of the arbitrators has already dissented from the award. However, the Act coupled with the UNCITRAL Rules, makes it quite clear where more than one arbitrator is appointed, the majority’s opinion will be validated and subsequently, upheld. Section 31(2), thus enunciates:
“For the purposes of subsection (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signature is stated”.
At the outset, it is quite evident from a kind perusal to the Act and the UNCITRAL Rules, that even if an opinion by the minority sounds more captivating and legally sound, an enforceable award would be the one, which has undergone the rule of majority voting and signature.

Supreme Court’s Finding on ‘Minority Opinions’
In Ssangyong, the SC while adjudicating the arbitral award under challenge, set aside the judgments of the single judge and the division bench of the Delhi High Court. Moreover, in the exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and by-passing the statutory restrictions, the Apex Court without much deliberation upheld the minority decision of the arbitral tribunal while setting aside the majority view.
It is pertinent to note that the ‘inherent power’ conferred to the Apex Court under Article 142 is ‘significantly restrictive’ in the sense that even if SC is left with uncatalogued powers, it cannot inordinately interfere with statutory provisions with an endeavor to do ‘complete justice’. Therefore, the Court must strike a balance between both.
The Court’s decision on upholding the minority findings raises peculiar issues. As propounded by the Court, usually in such circumstances and in consonance with the scheme of the Act, the majority findings are referred afresh to another arbitration. Moreover, initiating fresh arbitral proceedings would cause a substantial delay and contradict the very purpose of the 1996 Act, which is to expeditiously resolve the disputes by way of an arbitral process.
Previous decisions also indicate a similar approach adopted by the Courts where minority decisions have been upheld while adjudicating on a request for setting aside arbitral awards under challenge. In Modi Entertainment v. Prasar Bharati [4] and ONGC Ltd v. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. [5], Courts while setting aside the majority award, tried to place both, the minority as well as the majority award on equal footing. However, this circumvention was possible only because the arbitral tribunals overstepped the statutory limitations as envisaged under Section 34 of the Act.

Scope of Remedy available to Parties in Consideration to the Ethos of Section 34
The position of law as delivered by the Apex Court in Ssangyong is so that an award which is set aside by the Tribunal, has to be ‘referred afresh’ to another arbitration. In other words, the award set aside must be relocated to a newly constituted Tribunal for fresh consideration.
However, the contours of a Section 34 application does not permit the correction of an arbitral award. The grounds mentioned, restrict judicial intervention to a good extent as upheld by the SC in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standards CO. Ltd. [6] which deliberated on the fact that a Tribunal cannot modify and only annul the award to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the supervisory role of the court is limited to setting aside or quashing the award and by no means, the Court can substitute its opinion over that of the majority in order to uphold the opinion of minority members. This approach also stands erratic with the Apex Court’s decision in Ssangyong.

The Ssangyong decision, although prevents the erosion of ‘party autonomy’, and recognizes the factually and legally sound opinions of the minority members of the arbitral tribunal, in doing so, it has failed to throw light on the ambit of an ‘award’ and whether an enforceable award actually constitutes the minority opinions of the Tribunal. It follows from the above decision that as per Section 31(2) of the Act, only a signed majority award can be treated as an award is capable of enforcement. This decision raises more ambiguity while contradicting the established provisions of the Act where there is no tussle.
Moreover, the Apex Court has crossed the wide language of Article 142 while exercising its plenary power since the directions of the Court appear to be inconsistent with specific provisions of the Act. This would further lead the parties to approach the SC anytime when minority opinions are left in the case file.
Hence, it is of crucial importance, that certain amendments be brought to the Act in order to fill this empty vacuum.

[1] Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2019 SCC SC 677.
[2] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010).
[3] The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
[4] Modi Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Prasar Bharati, 2017 SCC Del 7509.
[5] ONGC Ltd. v. Interocean Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Petition 549/2013, decided on March 17, 2017.
[6] McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standards Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 222.
[7] A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602.

“Just because something isn't a lie does not mean that it isn't deceptive. A liar knows that he is a liar, but one who speaks mere portions of truth in order to deceive is a craftsman of destruction.” 
― Criss Jami

India proudly upholds the lofty title of being ‘the largest democracy in the world’. It’s a well-recognized fact that the four mighty pillars which enable democracy to exist in these modern times are – the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Media. The Legislature is a deliberative assembly with the authority to enact laws for a country, the Executive is responsible for carrying out or administering or implementing laws enacted by the legislature, the Judiciary is tasked with upholding the law by applying the law to settle disputes and punish the lawbreakers and hence administering justice. In the present times, the fourth pillar of democracy – the Media, has assumed a much more vital role in the proper and unhindered functioning of a democracy. The reason for its rapid & unprecedented rise is the country’s growing reliance on all sorts of mediums for obtaining knowledge. It is the media that forms a link between the general public of a country and the elected officials of the government. Since the citizens of a country are informed of the day to day happenings in the government by the media, there is always a sense of dependence by the people on the media. It wields immense power in shaping the popular sentiment of a country. It has the ability to sway the public’s opinion whichever way it desires by gently and cautiously prodding it along. 
The social, political and economic sectors are constantly under the scrutiny of the media, any suspicion of foul play is brought to the forefront and laid out for everyone to see. In a way, the media is the backbone of democracy for without it, the clandestine meetings, the hushed orders, the discreet passing of bills would never be exposed for what they really are. It is only fear of detection by the media and the subsequent broadcasting of their misdemeanors which makes our politicians, government officials, and companies work ethically. Over time, the media has evolved from a passive spectator which only reported the facts, to an omnipresent entity that is relevant in every sphere of life. The general public is reminded of a politician’s unfulfilled promises, the glaring gaps in the fabric of our democracy are revealed and the scams are outed so that the people can make informed opinions based on the harsh reality and not a false projection of the country that glosses over the cold hard truth. An active and responsible media can change the fate of the country by making the system more accountable, responsive, less likely to exploit the marginalized sections of society and more citizen-friendly. He who commands and controls the media literally has the power to control an entire body of the population who listen to that media channel religiously.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton 

Essentially, the media should:
  • tell the truth according to the facts provided
  • be unbiased in its reporting and 
  • not spread propaganda

The reason that the Indian media is losing its credibility in the eyes of the people of the nation is that our media has been doing exactly this. We would be existing in a utopian country had the media been doing its duty unscrupulously without any hidden agenda behind its workings. People in power would be held responsible for mistakes committed by them, no amount of influence or power or political clout would have made it possible for crime or deceit to go unnoticed and unpunished had the media been on its toes. The balance of power always tilts in the favor of those who can shape the way the news is reported, because of this the media is in constant danger of being put under pressure by the wealthy and the powerful. Sting operations have brought to our notice the phenomenon of ‘paid media’, which basically broadcasts news for which it gets paid. So the balance tilts in the favor of the rich as they now have the ability to control what is projected to the rest of the world by virtue of them being plutocrats. Nothing is worse than when media channels pander to the viewers instead of presenting news with accuracy and impartiality. The public always has a sort of mob mentality that can easily be angered and unnecessarily sensationalizing news with a view to achieving just that is the saddest level to which any media channel of a democratic country can stoop. 
The authenticity of the media is in question because of the half-truth and lies that it has been trying to pass off as news. The entire debacle that was the JNU row in which videos were shown of the student leader, Kanhaiya Kumar, chanting slogans was one such example where doctored videos were plastered all over the media channels. The public sentiment after watching the videos naturally became highly opposed to Kanhaiya. There are innumerable cases like this in which the media has maliciously tried to frame a person, this behavior is largely influenced by the political overlords who are scared of dissenting voices and want to curb them by any means available. The people of the country should learn to treat every piece of news that they come across with a pinch of caution and wariness, they should not rely solely on the television channels for their daily news updates. Almost every media house has its own political and ideological preference to which it caters and panders to. In the garb of moral policing, opinions and heavily biased talk shows as news tidbits are served to the common man. The dumbing down of the continent is heavily evident in the inevitable decay of important content being shown in the highly influential media. The people are bombarded with irrelevant information from every direction, their sensory experience is always on overload while viewing news, this acts as a substitute for thinking. On 20th Jan 2017, The World Economic Forum released a report that labeled the Indian media as the “Most Untrusted Institution” after Australia in the whole world. The survey was conducted by Edelman trust Barometer, who is in the media business for over 20 years now and has business in over 38 countries.  The survey gave the result that the trust of people of media, NGOs and business were at an all-time low and the credibility and the motive of these institutions had a big question mark hovering above it. 20 countries were a part of the survey in total out of which a staggering 17 of them expressed their distrust with the media. Social media has been broadly defined to refer to 'the many relatively inexpensive and widely accessible electronic tools that enable anyone to publish and access information, collaborate on a common effort, or build relationships.' Just as television turned a nation of people who listened to media content into watchers of media content, the emergence of social media has created a nation of media content creators. A simple google these days search will throw hundreds of such cases where news or information was intentionally twisted for someone political mileage or due to personal bias. Misreporting on the front page and then publishing an apology in some corners of the last pages was ruthlessly exposed by social media. TV anchors who use Twitter hashtags to build audiences for their programs quickly realize how sharp this double-edged sword is when negative hashtags start trending.
Media has the requisite strength and ability to change both the social and the government's attitudes towards a myriad of key problems. We harbor an unwavering hope in our hearts that, as the fourth pillar of the state, it will act as a solid pillar of democracy for as long as the present political, economic and social structures are moving in the right direction. There is absolutely no doubt that in the absence of this crucial pillar, democracy will be at threat. 

Each state in the world has its own government, laws, and rules which govern the citizens and bring about order and systematic approaches towards the working of the state. Similarly, the state provides certain privileges to the people so that they can enjoy certain liberties and freedoms as citizens of that state. These privileges are nothing but rights. However, on an international level, the United Nations provides the common people with International Human Rights under the United Nations Charter (UNC) where certain specific rights of the people are mentioned. The procedures to follow if the rights are violated are also explained in the same.

Historical Background Of Human Rights
Earlier, in the 19th century, certain theories based on the concept of the state were formed. International Law was based on these theories which were concerned with the formation and working of state. According to International Law, a sovereign state is a political entity that has a certain amount of population, a definite territory with secure boundary lines, one government and the ability to establish relations with other sovereign states. This led to several theories that stated that states are the sole entities that can create the rules of International Law and that the rules are valid only to them alone. Individuals were related to the state as the population by means of nationality and citizenship. However, the relationship between a citizen of one state and another state altogether was alien. The other state was not responsible for the actions and injuries of a foreigner. But the state can claim damages under International Law if the person has caused any injury to the state. To avoid such a state to state action against such injuries, there was a need to establish an internationally accepted law.

Meaning Of Human Rights
By virtue of being human, individuals possess certain basic and inalienable rights which are known as human rights. Human beings are rational in nature, and hence, they are aware of these rights which are conferred upon them. Thus, we can say that human rights are those rights that every individual is entitled by virtue of being
human. Human rights become operative in society right from an individual’s birth. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their religion, race, caste, creed, gender, and nationality. These rights form an important part of any constitution’s rigid structure because they cannot be amended or removed by any legislative or judicial
action. The government should accept these rights as a fundamental part of the constitution of that particular state. That is why they are called fundamental freedoms in International Law.

International Human Rights
• Liberty, Equality, freedom of speech and expression, right to information, etc.
• Basic rights: constitutional rights and basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, etc.
• Right to human dignity, the right to practice one’s own religion, right to the profession, etc.

Human rights, on the other hand, are categorized into 3 generations, according to the time period in which they were introduced. This system of categorization helps us to get a better understanding of human rights and how they came into existence.

First Generation Second Generation Third Generation
1. 17th Century to Mid 18th Century 1. 18th Century to 19th Century 1. 20th Century
2. Civil and Political Rights 2. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 2. Individual and Collective Rights
3. Also called Blue Rights 3. Also called Red Rights 3. Also called green Rights
4. Includes Part III of the Indian Constitution 4. Includes Part IV of the Indian Constitution

Civil And Political Rights
Civil and Political Rights are regarded as rights belonging to the first generation of Human Rights. They came into being primarily from the 17th century to sometime during the 18th century. They are termed as Blue Rights As the name suggests, these sets of rights provide privileges to the people regarding their conduct as politically
aware and civilized citizens of a state. These rights are centered around Right to Life and Personal Liberty. These rights are crucial for a human being as the Right to Live a Dignified Life is the heart of all the other rights. These sets of rights also include the Right to Life, Security, and Liberty of a person, Right to Privacy, Home and Correspondence, the Right to own a Property, the Right to practice one’s own Religion and the Freedom of Movement. Political Rights allow a person to
participate in the working of a state and also take part in any government-related activities. These rights include the Right to Vote, the Right to be elected in a Periodic Election, the Right to take part in public affairs, etc. The nature of civil and political rights is somewhat similar, though they are very different from each other.

Economic, Social And Cultural Rights 
These sets of rights originated in the time period between the 18th and 19th centuries, which is considered to be the second generation in the time chart of origins of Human Rights. This was the time when the Russian Revolution took place. Post that, the people had only one objective in mind, which was to bring about social equality within the people. The concept behind these sets of rights was fundamentally based on the above principle. These rights guarantee all the minimum and basic necessities of life. Without these rights, the ‘human’ aspect of individuals will be curbed. These rights include the Right to adequate Food, Clothing, Housing and adequate Standard of Living. These rights also include freedom from hunger, the Right to Work, the Right to Social Security, the Right to Physical and Mental Health and the Right to Education. The Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are termed as Red Rights.

Collective Rights
According to its name, these rights are enjoyed by individual members of a certain community. These privileges are given to a certain society for general public welfare and the overall development of the people. These rights include the Right to Economic and social development, the Right to a Healthy Environment, collective well-
being and so on. These rights are quite a recent addition to the International Human Rights chalked out by the United Nations. They were introduced in the 20th century as there were many countries that were in the developing state. The UN decided to grant these rights to the states as a whole, which would benefit their working and provide a larger scope of systematic development. These rights are termed as Green Rights. 

Human Rights Under The United Nations Charter
The San Francisco conference of the United Nations in 1945 was held for a purpose to create an International Organisation, where it was discussed that the United Nations should establish an International Bill of Rights. Soon after, a number of provisions were added to the United Nations Charter for the promotion of International Human Rights. These provisions were also important because they included the Fundamental Freedoms as well.
  • Article 1, paragraph 3: This provision deals with the achievements of the International Corporation in promotion and encouragement of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for all without discriminating between race, sex, language or religion. The International Corporation has also done a great deal by promoting respect for Human Rights.
  • Article 13: The United Nations Charter encourages and empowers the United Nations General Assembly to suggest measures and recommends ways to promote Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms without discriminating between race, sex, language or religion.
  • Article 55: United Nations shall promote: (a) Higher Standards of Living, Full Employment, Economic and Social Development (b) Solutions for internationally occurring problems of Economy, Social Health, Culture, and Education (c) Universal respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms without ant discrimination between race, sex, language or religion.
  • Article 56: This provision suggests that how all the members of the United Nations should pledge together to take joint and separate actions regarding all the objectives mentioned above in Article 55, for the smooth functioning of the organization. 
  • Article 62: This provision talks about supervising the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to make recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for all.
  • Article 68: This provision lets the United Nations set up various committees for the promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
  • Article 76(c): This provision in the United Nations Charter encourages the awareness and respect of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, without discrimination between race, sex, language, and religion.

Forty-five years after the abolishment of privy tote and benefits of recent leaders of Indian States, it is beneficial to analyze in the event that we have really discarded this training. The Privy Purse was an installment made to the decision groups of past regal states as a major aspect of their understandings to initially incorporate with India in 1947 after the autonomy of India and later to blend their states in 1949 whereby they lost every single decision right. The Privy Purse proceeded to illustrious families until the 26th Amendment in 1971 by which every one of their benefits and recompenses from the focal government stopped to exist was executed following a multi-year fight in court. In some individual stops anyway, privy satchels proceeded for people who had held decision power before 1947. 
Numerous youthful Indians would not be comfortable with the term, 'privy tote'. In any case, it might be reviewed that British India included certain topographical zones that were legitimately regulated by the British Government, while more than 33% of the subcontinent was under in excess of 560 regal States. The regal States extended from enormous States with impressive income to little territories with pitiful incomes. The Royal States were orchestrated in a progressive system and the number of weapon salutes decided their status right now. With the section of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the British Government conceded freedom to the regions that were administered straightforwardly by them and left the decision to the august States to choose their future game-plan. 
By the night before freedom, most States, which had a dominating Hindu populace, had marked instruments of increase with India. Just a couple of like Travancore, Bhopal, Jodhpur, Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir waited. It took the enticing ability of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and his capable government employee, VP Menon, to get Travancore, Bhopal, and Jodhpur to join the Indian Union before 1947, and the staying three after 1947. In light of such royal States marking the instrument of promotion, the Government of India allowed to them a 'privy satchel', which was a predefined aggregate of cash that was payable every year to the leaders of such States. The quantum of the 'privy tote' installment was dictated by the States income — the weapon salutes it was qualified for and so on. Such installments were liberated from charge and were ensured by an arrangement in the Constitution of India. (Article 291 of the Indian Constitution). 
The quantum of the 'privy totes' run from Rs 5,000 for each annum to Rs 26 lakh for every annum. States, for example, Mysore (26 lakh), Hyderabad (20 lakh), Travancore (18 lakh), Jaipur (18 lakh) and Patiala (17 lakh) were among the most elevated recipients, while a few little royal States got sums as low as Rs 5,000 yearly. 
Installments of 'privy satchel' to the previous rulers were frequently addressed as a relic of the past. Endeavors were made to get rid of this arrangement of installment. The movement to annul the 'privy handbag' framework in India and the official acknowledgment of the titles was brought before Parliament in 1969 and went in the Lok Sabha. 
Be that as it may, it didn't get the necessary two-third larger part in the Rajya Sabha, 149 decided in favor of it and 75 against. The nullification of 'privy handbag' needed to hold up till 1971 and was effectively passed as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1971. The then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, contended the case for cancelation dependent on equivalent rights for all residents and the need to diminish the Government's income shortage. The Constitutional Amendment recorded the accompanying as its targets and reason: 
"The idea of rulership, with privy totes and exceptional benefits random to any present capacities and social reasons for existing was inconsistent with a libertarian social request. The Government, in this manner, chose to end the privy handbags and benefits of the leaders of the previous Indian States. It was important for this reason, aside from altering the applicable arrangements of the Constitution, to embed another article in that to end explicitly the acknowledgment previously allowed to such rulers and to abrogate privy totes and smother all rights, liabilities, and commitments in regard of privy satchels. Thus this Act." 
Given this chronicled foundation, it is beneficial looking at whether we have really discarded this training or not. Right now, it is additionally worth looking at whether our new majority rule rulers appreciate such benefits or not. What is the prerequisite connected to resigning Prime Ministers, Presidents and so forth? Ensuing to the defeat in the 2014 general political race, previous Prime Minister Manmohan Singh needed to abandon the Race Course Road living arrangement for the new Prime Minister. Singh moved to a roomy sort VIII home set in a rambling three-section of the land plot in the core of New Delhi. 
The new place of Singh, which is arranged at 3, Motilal Nehru place, has all-around kept up yards and office space to meet the prerequisite of a previous Prime Minister. Singh and his significant other are qualified to possess the house for their lifetime. The cabin is home to around 40 fully-developed trees, including peepal, arjun, goolar, marorfalli, jamun, neem, mango and semal, which cover around 60 types of feathered creatures and well-evolved creatures. Additionally, on his retirement, previous President Pranab Mukherjee, after a stay at the palatial Rashtrapati Bhavan, has moved to another location — 10, Rajaji Marg, a rambling 11,776 square feet house, which has a library and an appended understanding space. 
Mukherjee will get a lifetime month to month annuity of Rs 1,50,000. The expansion in benefits came after the President's compensation was expanded from Rs 1.5 lakh to five lakh rupees for each month, following the pay modification under the Seventh Pay Commission. Under the President's Emoluments and Pension (Amendment) Act, 2008, Mukherjee is qualified with the expectation of complimentary travel anyplace in India, joined by an individual by the 'most elevated class, via air, rail, or steamer'. Mukherjee, who rode in a projectile evidence Mercedes as a President, will currently be qualified for a vehicle for lifetime and staff costs of Rs 60,000 per year. His secretarial staff includes a private secretary, an extra private secretary, an individual collaborator, and two peons. Mukherjee will likewise get two phones — one for Internet and broadband network and a cell phone with nationwide wandering office, other than free clinical participation and treatment. 
Previous Vice Presidents get Rs 1,25,000 every month as an annuity, and they get a free settlement in type-VIII house with free power and water, phone offices proportional to a Member of Parliament, free clinical guide and free travel by most noteworthy class anyplace in India joined by one individual. Mates of previous Presidents and Vice Presidents get 50 percent benefits, they get a free settlement in Type-VII houses, a phone, 250 liters of petroleum and staff with the expectation of complimentary clinical guide and free travel multiple times anyplace in India. 
Are these benefits predictable with communist principles? Are they steady with the possibility of a libertarian social request? Or on the other hand, is this the new privy handbag that we had abrogated 45 years back?

In small private companies, it is not unusual to see that the articles of association provide that one person, usually the promoter, is to have permanent management or administrative position. This leaves the shareholders and the board of directors without many options when they are aggrieved by the actions of such a person.
It is a settled principle of law, that a company is free to be constituted the way its promoters want it to be. The Companies Act, 2013 also recognizes this fact and uses the terms ‘unless the articles of a company otherwise provide’ to allow the promoters to have considerable flexibility in making of the Articles in a way that is best suited for that company. However, the conflict between flexibility and regulation by the companies act leads to a legally ambiguous terrain. One such area is the validity of clauses within the articles of association (“AoA”) designating a person as the chairman for a set time or even for their whole lifetime.

What is the chairman?
Though ‘chairman’ has not been defined in the Companies Act, it has been used extensively and multiple powers and duties have been imposed on the chairman. The Supreme Court weighed in on the meaning of the ‘chairman’ as used in the Companies Act in the case of T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, [1] and stated that the chairman of a company is the head of its board of directors. Chairman means a person chosen to preside over meetings e.g. one who presides over the meetings of the board of directors. The function of chairman would, therefore, be to preside over meetings, preserve order, the conduct of the business of the day, ensure that precise decisions are taken and correctly recorder and do all that is necessary for smooth transaction of business.
Therefore the chairman is essentially a facilitator of the board of directors and nothing more. His role is further illustrated by provisions for his appointment and removal which may happen by a simple resolution in the board of directors. Since the chairman has to act for the board, it is a sine qua non that he be a director. 
A director can be removed from his post by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) by any shareholder under Section 169 [2] of the act. It was held in the case of LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd. [3] that the right to remove a director by calling an EGM is an inherent right an cannot be restrained.

Legislative Intent on Lifetime Appointments
Removal of a director under the Companies Act, 1956 could be done under Section 248 [4]. However, the provision created an exception for lifetime directors of private companies. Thus the removal of directors, and consequently a chairman under Section 248 could not be done as per the procedure sanctioned by the law. However, this has changed now since a parallel proviso is absent in Section 169. The omission of the proviso shows that the legislature has made changes to its view of granting significant flexibly to private companies in their regulation. Furthermore, the omission of the proviso makes the legislative intent clear to the effect that now directors can be removed by the shareholders.

Permanent post of chairman & validity of such AoA 
It has been held in Shiv Omkar Maheshwari v. Bansidhar Jagannath, [5] that Articles of association can be equated to a contract between all the members and directors of a company and that every member is bound to strictly adhere to the AoA. [6] Therefore, if the AoA provides for a person to be a permanent chairman, the members would be strictly bound by those terms if those terms are valid in law. However, it has to be pointed out that the legal validity of those clauses is doubtful, to say the least since Section 6 of the Act specifically provides that any AoA repugnant to the act would be void to that extent. Since the act clearly provides for the removal of a director, thus a clause to effectuate a permanent chairman of the board of directors would clearly deviate from the policy of the act. Coupling the deviation from the legislative policy with the legislative intent which can be derived from the omission of the first proviso to Section 248 in the new act, it can be reasonably said, that AoA having clauses to effectuate a permanent chairman would be likely held to be void.
This policy can also be extracted from cases such as the case of Tarlok Chand Khanna v. Raj Kumar Kapoor [7], where it was held that any restriction on removal of a director would be void and unenforceable. The court went even further and held that even a permanent director, who is not liable to retire by rotation, can be removed, even if there is a restriction on such removal. Through various judgments, it can be inferred that Section 169 is a statutory right, which cannot be taken by the AoA or any contract. If the right is sought to be taken away, the agreement would be void. 

Powers of the board and future developments
Since the chairman of the board of directors is still a director, he would be obliged with fiduciary duties just as the other directors. This fiduciary duty extends not just to act in the best interest of the company, but also to its shareholders. Thus holding the office of the chairman would mean that such office would also have to be discharged as per the fiduciary duties of a director. In the case of Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. TATA Sons Ltd. & Ors., [8] “likewise an executive chairman will continue as long as he enjoys the pleasure of the board. The NCLT held that the concept of ‘freehand rule’ is an antithesis to collective responsibly and collective decision making”. Thus the case implicitly recognized that the board has the power to remove a chairman, but the applicability of it on private limited companies and on companies whose articles are to the contrary remains unclear. Still, this judgment has to be considered important in that it recognizes and envision the role of a board as a check on the powers of the chairman, and thus it is possible that courts recognize the power to remove a chairman including a lifetime chairman to give teeth to the board’s responsibilities with respect to accountability of the chairman.

Even though, complete clarity on the law related to persons holding posts of a chairman is not present in the current context, as the differences between the 1956 act and the 2013 act, along with the viewing the board of directors as an accountability mechanism to the chairman, can lead to a clearer interpretation of the law by the courts. However, until these legal developments arrive, the present law does not suggest that a lifetime post for chairman of the board of directors is valid.

[1] T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611
[2] Companies Act, 2013, § 169, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India)
[3] L.I.C. of India v. Escorts Ltd., AIR 1986 SC1370
[4] Companies Act, 1956, § 248, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India)
[5] AIR 1956 Bom 459
[6] Boardland’s Trustees v. Steel Brothers & Co. Ltd., (1901) 1 Ch 279 
[7] (1983) 54 Comp Cas 12 (Del)
[8] C.P. No. 82 (MB) of 2016

The Indian Parliament passed new legislation "The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019" (CAA), through this act religiously persecuted minorities from three countries namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who have come to India before 31st December 2014 will get easy citizenship.
The chaos started when some leaders in the opposition linked CAA with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and confused the common men. The Muslim community thought that they will have to prove their citizenship by showing some sort of documents and if they are unable to show the documents they will be thrown out of the country. 
This amendment particularly does not touch any Indian, it is for the communities who have come to India because of religious persecution and living here for years without any dignity. Nobody from any community will be denied citizenship provided they fulfill the basic requirements to get the same.

Background: The hoardings by the UP Police
Amidst the confusion, people started protesting against this legislation across the country. Some groups became violent and vandalized the public and private properties. The state of Uttar Pradesh (U.P) was no exception. The U.P government led by Mr. Yogi Adityanath came up with an announcement that the protestors who are engaged in vandalizing the public and private properties would be penalized and they will have to compensate for the damages, and if they do not pay, their property would be seized and auctioned.
Videography and photography were done to create the shreds of evidence against the infringing elements. Only after a few days, the U.P government announced the name of such persons and also the amount they have to pay as compensation. Notices were sent to their houses and they were also told that if they do not pay the amount in due time their personal properties would be seized. 
In light of the above development, the government installed banners highlighting the names, addresses, and photos of alleged infringe elements. The government was criticized for this act and allegations were made that this act is in breach of the privacy of the individuals under the right to life and personal liberty which is a fundamental right as mentioned in the case  K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India {(2015) 8 SCC 735}.

Significance of this Development
The government is contending that all these developments took place to maintain the law and order and to control the damages being caused to public properties in the state. In any democracy, the dissent helps the government to perform better. Citizens living in a democratic country should and must have the right to dissent and protest peacefully.
William Faulkner said that “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha of Allahabad High Court (HC) on March 08, 2020, took a suo moto cognizance against this act of the state and ordered to remove the banners immediately. After the order of the HC, the state went to Supreme Court in the appeal.

Privacy as a Constitutional Right
The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. The law does not determine what privacy is, but only what situations of privacy will be afforded legal protection. {Hyman Gross, “The concept of Privacy”}.
The right to privacy, although oddly missing from the constitution of India, derives its undefined foundation from the right to life, and personal rights as enshrined in Article 21. The right to privacy in India has been developed through a series of judgments.
In the case of M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra {1954 SCR 1077}. The bench stated in this case that the drafters of the Constitution did not intend to limit a constitutional right to privacy to the authority to search and seize. They argued that the Indian Constitution does not include any language similar to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, and therefore, questioned the existence of a protected right to privacy.
However, in 1963 the right to privacy found its roots in Art. 21. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh {AIR 1963 SC 1295} the Apex Court held that "nothing is more deleterious to a man's physical happiness and health than a calculated interference with his privacy. Further, the recent landmark development in this right has been observed in Aadhar judgment. {K.S Puttaswamy case}.

How were the Hoardings in Violation of this Right?
The Allahabad High court in the suo moto cognizance said that the hoardings by the U.P government exposes the details of the individuals to the public at large and hence the personal information of an individual is not protected from public scrutiny and therefore it violates the right to privacy the intrinsic part of Right to life and personal liberty.
The matter is now in the apex court where the vacation bench said that there exists no law to back the Name and Shame posters, the bench also said that the case should be immediately placed before a larger bench led by CJI Bodbe.

Due to the Corona pandemic, the Supreme Court has said that it will listen only to very important matters, only the time will tell whether the Apex court considers this matter as a very important one or not. In between all these developments, the UP government came up with an ordinance to give the legal sanction to Name and Shame posters.
The last date for the payment of the due amount will be ending very soon, Corona has taken its entry in the game and has made the functioning of every machinery slow,  it will be very interesting to see the race between the legislature and Judiciary in this situation. 
Fines can be imposed under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984. These are penal provisions, and for penal offenses, a trial as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be held before imposing any penalty on the accused.
These steps by the state government have been taken to control the situation during anti CAA protests. After this announcement, the violent protests have become negligible. People have stopped vandalizing public and private property. Peaceful protests are still going on.
On a personal note, I also feel that the Fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution provides us with the freedom to protest, to raise the voice against the majority but it nowhere gives the right to vandalize the properties, create chaos in the society.
As the famous jurist, Salmond said that "No right exist without the corresponding duty", our Constitution guarantees us rights but it also mentions some duties which should be fulfilled by everyone.

The obligations of the state parties to the regional human rights instruments are similar and include duties of abstention and of action. The European Convention requires state parties to ‘secure’ to everyone within their jurisdiction the guaranteed rights (Art.1). In an era when privatization and de-regulation have been common, regional tribunals have had to ascertain what conduct can be attributed to a state, to which state it should be attributed, and whether or not that conduct breaches a right guaranteed by the relevant regional instrument. The law of the state responsibility holds a state responsible only for its acts or omissions in breach of an international obligation. States thus are not responsible for the wrongful conduct of private parties, as such, but acts will be attributed to the state if it is complicit in or condones the private wrongdoing. The problems of attribution are even more difficult when the conduct relates to historical injustices and efforts to remedy them.
Since the partition of India in 1947 many Sikhs have been engaged in a political campaign for an independent homeland, Khalistan, which would approximate to the Indian province of Punjab. In the late 1970s, a prominent group emerged under the leadership of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, based at the Golden Temple, in Amritsar. The government submits that he has been using the temple premises for the accumulation of arms and has been advocating the use of violence for Khalistan. Since, 1984, the conflict in Punjab has claimed over 20,000 lives, peaking in 1992. On 1st January 1984, Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal traveled to Punjab with his wife and children to visit relatives. He submits before the court that he attended at the Golden Temple and saw Sant Bhindranwale. At around that time Mr. Chahal was baptized and began to adhere to the tenets of orthodox Sikhism. He also became involved in organizing passive resistance in support of autonomy for Punjab. On 30 March 1984, he was arrested by the Punjab Police but somehow he was able to return to the UK on 27 May 1984.

Mr. Chahal’s political and religious activities in the United Kingdom
On his return to the United Kingdom, Mr. Chahal became a leading figure in the Sikh community, which reacted with horror to the storming of the Golden Temple. He met Jasbir Singh Rode, who was Sant Bhindranwale’s nephew. In October 1985 Mr. Chahal was detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 on suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate the then PM of India Rajiv Gandhi, during his official visit to the United Kingdom. He was released for the lack of evidence. In March 1986 he was charged with assault and affray following disturbances at the East Ham gurdwara in London. 

Deportation and Asylum Proceedings
On 14th August 1990, the Home Secretary decided that Mr. Chahal ought to be deported because his continued presence in the United Kingdom was unconducive to the public good for reasons of national security and other concerns of political nature, namely international fight against terrorism. Mr. Chahal claimed that if he returned to India he has a well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of the United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Because of the national security elements of the case, there was no right in his hand of appeal against the deportation order. He was served with the deportation order on 29 July. On 9th August 1991, he filed for judicial review of the order. The Home secretary reasoned and considered that the breakdown of law in Punjab was due to the activities of the Sikh terrorists and was no evidence of persecution within the terms of the 1951 convention. 

Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. The court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by states in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct. Unlike, most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 even in the event of public emergency threatening the life of the nation. In determining whether it has been substantiated that there is a real risk that the applicant if expelled to Indi, would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, the court will assess all the material placed before it and. If necessary, material obtained of its own motion. Furthermore, since the material point in time for the assessment of risk is the date of the Court’s consideration of the case, it will be necessary to take account of evidence that has come to light since the Commission’s review. The court did take notice of the Government’s comments relating to the material contained in the reports of Amnesty International. Nonetheless, it attaches weight to some of the most striking allegations contained in the reports, particularly with regard to extrajudicial killings by the Punjab police and the action taken by the SC of India. The court got persuaded by the fact that the Punjab police were accustomed to act without regard for human rights. Moreover, the court found that there is no concrete evidence to show that there has been some improvement in the organization of the Punjab police. This was the reason the court held unanimously that sending or deporting the applicant back to India would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the European Human Rights convention.

Each State Party to the any Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. Every state tries to uphold this since they are obligated by the convention to which they are a party.