No law maker can take for granted the fundamental principles and principal paradigm of governance , as 'rule of law ' covers oral understandings of what a public way is to be; besides safety ad security of any citizen from any unruly animals, (includes unruly humans are treated as unruly animals in law, so punishments need to follow); courts cannot and need not depend upon very state statutes, as irrespective of statutes, the unwritten statutory perceptions of safety and security is mandatory, that way the courts need to interpret public law as such , as any kind of 'hurt' falls under law of crimes and the state is liable to meet its obligations if fails the state can be punished - see here the home minister can be punished irrespective of he is a minister, for he is responsible like any one is responsible for his felonous (criminal acts - may include even in one's utterances - in the criminal laws if one understands - even hurting one by words is a punishable offence, why a minister to left out will be question that would arise - after all when one is a home minister he is accountable to every one in his jurisdictional area of administration is the unwritten oral contact , that way very life depends on oral contracts, no need of written contract as such that way the idea of 'Magna Carta ' in 1215 surfaced in then England between people represented by Nobles and King John of England - one can note what chankya(Kautilya) did when he saw he Mahapadmanandin was illegally enjoying the fruits of kingship , by indulging in all kinds of pleasures caring nothing about the governance; so he needs to be removed, so Kautilya promotes chandra Gupta (King's illegitimate son from Mura - a chandala 'sthree' (woman from untouchable background of Magadh ; (in fact Kautilya can promote anybody not necessarily chandra Gupta, but why he chose is to ensure, Nandins cannot get away from illicit relation to avoid his liability of treating 'illegitimate son' not entitled for throne ; that way then in BC , the public liability is on every one for any wrongs committed by any one be it highest or the lowest person - that way Nandin's prime minister Rakshasa agreed to serve chandra Gupta as his prime miniser when Chanakya asked hin=m to be Chandra Gupta's prime minister.the historical determination is such , any public activity is embroied in all public activities - so none could escape is the settled principles of oral contracts too, so none can defraud in public activities is the settked paradigm from time immemorial so India is a most regarded country in those days before christ. Now India is all the more accountable than any other 'perceptions' touted.
So contracts of all kinds is prime and sacred.
it is like when i walk on public road my safety is assured by public authority, if public authority does not accept his duty to give security and safety to me there is nothing called public way called 'public road' - i need have any written contract with the municipality or any authority which maintains the public roads; so too if my safety is endangered by anybody, the public authority under Art 265 (constitutional liability of duty ) gets invoked; the authority need to pay liquidated damages for endangering my security - see in Bangalore , recent molestation on road on Brigade road by any person who molested the girls falls under 'public molestation' so the govt of karnataka is liable to pay liquidated damages under Law of Torts, as the safety of women here (for that matter any person) is the public responsibility;when the home minister there publicly said 'it may happen' calls for exemplary damages need be paid to the victims besides the home ministry there ought to punish the culprits as the perpetrators act falls squarely under law of crimes - that is some kind of oral contract like under very Art.289 r/w Art 14 r/w Art 19 r/w Art 21 - (Life and living), after all life and living of any is to be secured by the state, failing which serious breach of contract read in the Indian Contract Act 1872 (original Act grats 'oral contract' - even changing that oral contract into written contract has no legal validity at all, so state is bound to secure life of the citizens as also aliens is the purport of very parliamentary democracy.
In fact daily correspondence between parties involved are just 'justiciable' contracts - see marriage itself is enforceable contract - no need of registration of marriage can be read if one reads art 289, after all before art 289, marriages were going on on oral understanding that 'oral understanding itself is an enforceable contract. that way very idea of arbitration surfaced - arbitration is essentially based on oral understanding so there is vitality in conciliation and mediation itself, so we have sec 89 in CPC 1908. Oral understandings is very vital in any activity of man.
You need to be
logged in to post comment
You can also submit your article by sending to email@example.com
view more »
Our Network Sites
Join LAWyersclubindia.com and Share your Knowledge. Registered members get a chance to interact at Forum, Ask Query, Comment etc.