First Indian lawyer to get Medal of Honor
Vijayawada: Eminent child rights lawyer and Just Rights for Children founder Bhuwan Ribhu has become the first Indian lawyer to be conferred with the 'Medal of Honour' by the World Jurist Association (WJA) at the World Law Congress in Dominican Republic. Bhuwan Ribhu has strong connections with NTR district as Vijayawada-based Vasavya Mahila Mandali is a partner of the Just Rights for Children network.
Elated with this honour conferred to the founder of JRC, Dr B Keerthi, president of Vasavya Mahila Mandali said, 'This is not just an individual honour for Bhuwan Ribhu.
It is a moment of immense pride for all of us working on the ground to protect every child. We are committed to making NTR district child marriage-free by 2030.'
Bhuwan Ribhu received the 'Medal of Honour' from Eddy Olivares Ortega, Minister of Labor of Dominican Republic, and Javier Cremades, President of the World Jurist Association.
Bhuwan Ribhu has led over 60 PILs resulting in landmark rulings in the Supreme Court and various High Courts. His 2011 case led to the Supreme Court defining trafficking in line and his 2013 campaign on missing children triggered a historic judgment changing the way India's legal system perceived missing children cases.
His PICKET strategy to end child marriage, outlined in When Children Have Children, was endorsed by the Supreme Court in its 2024 guidelines. The strategy is also followed by the Vasavya Mahila Mandali, which is determined that the district would be free from child marriage by 2030.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
23 minutes ago
- India Today
Preventive detention extraordinary power of state, use it sparingly: Top court
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order by a district magistrate to detain a moneylender who was allegedly indulging in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan questioned the contention of the detaining authority that the order was passed as the detainee was violating bail conditions in the cases, and noted that they should have instead moved the competent court seeking cancellation of the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature."The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate."Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention."We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala."Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was InMust Watch
India Gazette
44 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Indelible inspiration for women's leadership: Delhi CM Rekha Gupta at 300th birth anniversary event of Ahilyabai Holkar
New Delhi [India], June 8 (ANI): Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta attended the 300th birth anniversary event of Lokmata Devi Ahilyabai Holkar on Saturday and said she symbolises harmony and courage. Later, in a social media post on X, CM Gupta described the queen as visionary who ruled with justice. 'Lokmata Ahilyabai Holkar was not just a queen - she was a visionary who ruled with justice, policy, harmony and indomitable courage and gave a new identity to Indian women power through her leadership. Her entire life is an indelible example of nation building, public welfare and women empowerment. The inspiring life of Queen Mother Ahilyabai not only empowers the role of women in Indian history, but also proves that a visionary woman can lay the foundation of a prosperous and welfare nation with her wisdom, policies and courage. His memory is both an ideal and an inspiration for us' . 'She is not just a queen, she is a symbol of policy, harmony and courage - an indelible inspiration for women's leadership. Her life tells us that even a woman can lead an entire era,' CM Gupta said. Union Minister of State SPS Baghel ji and Harsh Malhotra ji were also present at the event. Lokmata Ahilyabai Holkar is remembered for her people-centric policies, deep commitment to economic and socio-cultural issues, especially those that affected the life of women. She encouraged the education of women and their participation in the social and religious life of the local community. She supported and encouraged women weavers to make Maheshwari sarees. Her contributions were wide-ranging from infrastructure development (water bodies, roads, dharamshalas) to reconstruction and revival of temples across the length and breadth of the land. The edifices created by her have not only left an indelible mark on India's cultural and spiritual landscape but also stood the test of time. (ANI)
News18
an hour ago
- News18
'Technology Must Complement, Not Replace, Human Mind In Judicial Decision-Making': CJI Gavai
The CJI said that complex legal issues often require an understanding of human context, societal implications, and ethical dilemmas that AI, in its current form, cannot fully grasp Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai delivered a keynote address on the 'Role of Technology in the Indian Legal System" at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. His speech emphasised that technology should complement, not replace, the human element in judicial decision-making. The CJI highlighted the irreplaceable value of discretion, empathy, and nuanced judicial interpretation. While acknowledging the transformative potential of technological advancements, he delineated clear boundaries for their application within the judiciary. 'Though the judiciary welcomes innovations like automated cause lists, digital kiosks, and virtual assistants," he stated, 'it must ensure that human oversight, ethical guidelines, and robust training are integral to their implementation." This perspective reflects a cautious yet progressive stance. The Indian judiciary has indeed embraced various technological advancements to enhance efficiency and accessibility. Automated cause lists streamline case management, digital kiosks improve public access to information, and virtual assistants aid in administrative tasks. However, the CJI's address underscored the fundamental difference between processing information and exercising judgment. He elaborated that complex legal issues often require an understanding of human context, societal implications, and ethical dilemmas that artificial intelligence, in its current form, cannot fully grasp. Judicial interpretation frequently involves delving into legislative intent, societal norms, and the unique circumstances of each case, demanding human reasoning, ethical considerations, and a capacity for empathy that transcends algorithmic processing. 'Technology must complement, not replace, the human mind in judicial decision-making," the CJI said, adding, 'The emphasis must always be on using technology to enhance trust and transparency—never to replace the human conscience at the heart of justice." The CJI's remarks signal that while technology can vastly improve the procedural aspects of justice delivery, making processes faster, more transparent, and accessible, the ultimate responsibility and the nuanced decision-making power must remain firmly with human judges. (With PTI inputs) First Published:
