Source:

India Code Information System (Full-text law database) [ID 6299]

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Law for medical examination within 24h of a death in custody ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 18950]

"In an attempt to expedite prosecutions, in May 2005 authorities updated a law requiring a coroner to conduct a medical examination within 24 hours of a death in custody. However, by the end of the year, the law had not been implemented. From April 2003 to March of this year, the NHRC awarded $51,354 (Rs 2.3 million) in compensation for deaths in police and judicial custody.
 "

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19228]

"There are different personal status laws for the various minority religious communities, and the legal system accommodates religion-specific laws in matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. Muslim personal status law governs many noncriminal matters, including family law and inheritance (see section 5)."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19229]

Information Technology Act, Indian Telegraph Act

"The law prohibits such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice; however, at times the authorities infringed upon them. Police must obtain warrants to conduct searches and seizures, except in cases where such actions would cause undue delay. Police must justify such warrantless searches in writing to the nearest magistrate with jurisdiction over the offense. The authorities in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Manipur have special powers to search and arrest without a warrant. The Information Technology Act grants police power under certain circumstances to search premises and arrest individuals without a warrant. The act specifies a one-year sentence for persons who fail to provide information to the government on request and a five-year sentence for transmitting "lascivious" material (see section 2.a.). The act also requires Internet cafes to monitor Internet use and inform the authorities of offenses (see section 2.a.). The Indian Telegraph Act authorizes the surveillance of communications, including monitoring telephone conversations and intercepting personal mail, in cases of public emergency, or "in the interest of the public safety or tranquility." The central government and every state government used these powers during the year. Although the Telegraph Act gives police the power to tap phones to aid an investigation, they were not allowed to use such evidence in court. The UAPA allows such evidence to be used in terrorist cases, and some human rights activists noted that the new UAPA ordinance confers additional powers on police to use intercepted communications as evidence in terrorism cases. While there were elaborate legal safeguards to prevent police from encroaching on personal privacy, there were no such protections in terrorist cases."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Two-Child Laws ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19231]

"Seven states (Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, and Maharashtra) enacted two-child laws for village council members with very low levels of enforcement. The laws provide government jobs and subsidies to those who have no more than two children and sanctions against those who do. National health officials in New Delhi noted that the central government was unable to regulate state decisions on population issues."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Legal Reforms - The Criminal Procedure Code ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18217]

"The adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005[72] was an important initiative for legal reforms on the administration of justice. Through this Amendment Act, the Central Government effected 33 amendments in the existing provisions while 10 new sections were inserted. Some of the key amendments were - setting up of a Directorate of Prosecution by State Governments {Section 25-A}, prohibition of arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise, barring exceptional circumstances {Section 46 (4)}; mandatory requirement of informing by the arresting officer(s) about the arrest to a person nominated by the arrestee {Section 50-A}; mandatory requirement of furnishing report of medical examination of the accused to the accused or to a person nominated by him (Section 54 (2)}; power to prohibit carrying arms in procession or mass drill or mass training with arms {Section 144-A}; medical examination of the victim of rape {Section 164-A}; mandatory requirement of holding an inquiry by Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate in case (a) any person dies or disappears, or (b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any woman in custody {Section 176 (I-A)}; under trial already detained for a period up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment shall be released on personal bond {Section 436-A} etc. Many of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code were regressive and faced opposition. Following wide spread protests by the lawyers throughout India against some of the provisions like setting up Directorate of prosecution; requirement of physical presence of the accused in court for anticipatory bail; declaration of an accused as proclaimed offender; attachment of properties of an accused etc, on 14 July 2005, the Central Government passed an order keeping in abeyance all the amendments.[73] In another notification in December 2005, the Ministry of Home Affairs set crucial amendments like the ones prohibiting arrest of women after sunset for implementation, while others like the setting up of Directorates of Prosecutions in States and cancellation of bail etc were put on hold.[74]"

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Judges' accountability ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18220]

"In 2005, Congress led United Progressive Alliance Government proposed to establish a National Judicial Council (NJC) by amending the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. The government drafted the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2005 and sought the opinion of Chief Justice of India. Both the former Chief Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti[75] and present Chief Justice of India Justice Yogesh Kumar Shabbarwal, who succeeded Mr. Justice Lahoti on 1 November 2005, expressed reservations to the proposal of establishing the NJC."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Repression of tribals under the forest laws ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18230]

"Thousands of petty cases have been lodged against the tribals under the Forest Act of 1927. On 8 November 2005, the Forest Department of Chattisgarh reportedly decided to close 2,57,226 forest cases registered against 1,62,692 tribals between 1953 to 30 June 2004 under Sections 26, 33 and 41 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 pertaining primarily to illegal felling of trees for domestic use and ferrying of wood by bullock carts.[141] On 11 March 2005, Chief Minister of Orissa, Navin Patnaik stated that his government withdrew 2531 cases against the tribals, and returned 1183.40 acres of land to the tribals.[142] The opposition leaders in Orissa contested the claims of the Chief Minister.[143] Tribals faced false prosecution because of the connivance of the mafia and the police and the forest officials. On 8 June 2005, the timber mafia in alleged connivance with the forest officials attacked and burnt the houses of Agaria tribe at Kumba Kurd village under Nagar Untari police station limits of Garhwa district in Jharkhand after the tribals opposed the activities of the timber mafia. One eight-month-old baby was reportedly burnt alive and 140 huts of the Agaria tribe were burnt to ashes. A case was lodged with Nagar Untari police station against 23 persons including 13 forest officials. On the other hand, the forest department lodged an FIR against the Agaria tribals on the basis of which the police swiftly arrested eight Agaria tribal villagers. But the police refused to take action against the accused forest officials.[144] The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee in its report submitted on 29 April 2005 stated that the State government of Kerala could transfer forest land to tribals if compensated with afforestation programmes. The State government was reportedly willing to resettle 53,000 tribal families in the forests of Muthanga Sanctuary by transferring nearly 7,000 hectares of forest land.[145] But the Kerala government failed to take action into the Muthanga firing incident of Feburary 2003.[146] The government also failed to place the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005, which seeks to protect the rights of those who had been occupying forestland prior to October 1980, before the parliament."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Application of the National Security Laws ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18438]

"National security laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, Public Safety Act, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Official Secrets Act continued to be misused. According to Home Ministry's assessment, 65 per cent people detained under POTA could have been tried under normal laws, while there was evidence against only 35 per cent of all the POTA detainees.[342] In May 2005, Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee to Review the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958 submitted its report but the government of India failed to make it public."

Document(s): Open document

04.08.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act restrict activities of the National Human Rights Commission ("Concerns with Protection of Human Rights Act [ASA 20/019/2006]") [ID 17464]

Document(s): Open document

26.07.2006 - Source: Christian Solidarity Worldwide

Government strengthened anti-conversion legislation to force potential religious converts to give one month's notice before conversion; otherwise they will face fines and imprisonment ("Anti-conversion legislation enhanced in Indian state as new report condemns abuses of the laws") [ID 17463]

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2006 ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17219]

"The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government introduced a draft bill to prevent communal violence, following widespread criticism of its predecessor for failing to halt the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat targeting the Muslim minority. However, some of the bill’s provisions were criticized as repressive."

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2006 ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17221]

"Following a vigorous civil society campaign, the Indian parliament passed landmark legislation guaranteeing the right to information. However, it was unclear whether various union and state government agencies would fully enforce this legislation."

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Annual Report 2006 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 17252]

"There was grave concern at the intensification of social, political, cultural and economic discrimination, oppression and violence against dalits. Data suggested that few cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 had resulted in convictions."

Document(s): Open document

24.06.2005 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

Article on the Right to Strike ("Right to Strike - Indispensable for worker's rights (HRF/121/05)") [#33563],  [ID 6293]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

11.05.2005 - Source: BBC News

Right-to-information bill aimed at forcing government agencies to disclose records to the public approved by lower house of parliament ("Indians get right to information") [#31927],  [ID 6294]

Document(s): Open document

12.10.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance contains notable improvements to the POTA, but also include verbatim provisions from the POTA that were repeatedly misused and adds provisions which further erode the rights of the accused ("The Reincarnation of POTA - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance is POTA’s Second Coming [HRF/106/04]") [#26387],  [ID 6295]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA) ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6296]

"[...]The USSD 2003 noted that,
“The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA), supplemented by the Penal Code, prohibits trafficking in human beings and contains severe penalties for violations. The Constitution also prohibits trafficking in persons.”[2c](p32-33) 6.158 According to the USSD 2003, “However, the country's prostitution and trafficking laws were selectively enforced by police; clients and organizers of the sex trade tended not to be penalized, while prostitutes found soliciting or practising their trade in or near (200 yards) public places were arrested. Due to the selective implementation, the "rescue" of sex workers from brothels often led to their revictimization. Using the ITPA's provisions against soliciting or engaging in sexual acts, police regularly arrest sex workers, extort money from them, evict them, and take their children from them. Clients of prostitutes, by comparison, largely were immune from any law enforcement threat, as clients committed a crime only if they had engaged in a sex act with a sex worker in a public place or had had sex with a girl under the age of 16 years (statutory rape). Therefore, although the intention of the ITPA was to increase enforcement efforts against the traffickers, pimps, and border operators, the opposite occurred. Implementation of the ITPA's provisions for protection and rehabilitation of women and children rescued from the sex trade was extremely poor. NGOs familiar with the legal history of prostitution and trafficking laws regarded the failure of the judiciary to recognize this inequity in the law's implementation as a continuing "blind spot." Over the last several years, arrests and prosecutions under the ITPA increased slightly, while all indications suggested a growing level of trafficking into and within the country.”[2c](p33) [...]"

Document(s): Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Legal rights & detention ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6297]

"[...]
5.23 As stated in the US State Department report 2003, “The Constitution provides that detainees have the right to be informed of the grounds for their arrest, to be represented by counsel, and, unless held under a preventive detention law, to be arraigned within 24 hours of arrest, at which time the accused must either be remanded for further investigation or released. However, thousands of criminal suspects remained in detention without charge…The Constitution provides that arrested persons have the right to be released on bail. The police must file charges within 60 to 90 days of arrest; if they fail to do so, court approval of a bail application becomes mandatory…” [2c](p9)

5.24 Information sourced by the Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa in August 2001, indicates that a police officer or arresting officer should not proceed to arrest unless he has a warrant in his possession, otherwise resistance offered to him would not be punishable. The warrant is the justification of arrest and need not be parted with. The arresting officer’s status must be shown or notified to the person to be arrested. The arrest warrant has to be in writing, must be signed by the Presiding Officer and bear the seal of the Court. A warrant of arrest remains in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until it is executed. [4d]

5.25 As reported by the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (REFINFO) on 27 March 2003, "The concept of anticipatory bail is mandated under Section 438 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. Under its provisions, any person who has reason to believe that they may be arrested 'on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence' may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for grant of bail in the event of an arrest. Anticipatory bail is not available in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Unlike a regular bail order that follows a person's arrest and results in that person's release from police custody, anticipatory bail is effective at the moment of arrest." [4j]

5.26 As cited in the US State Department report 2003, "The Criminal Procedure Code provides that trials be conducted publicly in most cases, but it allows exceptions in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the State might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly. Defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the Government. There were effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system and the State provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants.” [2c](p11)

5.27 An article in The Hindu dated 14 January 2003, reported that the Legal Services Authorities Act was promulgated in 1987 and amended in 2002 when national and state legal services authorities were created to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society. It means that persons covered by the Act are entitled to legal advice, legal representation and legal adjudication free of cost. Despite this laudable objective, some of the provisions of the Act have attracted criticism from lawyers who claim that it seeks to reduce justice dispensation to an informal and casual process. The reason for the backlogs is the abysmal infrastructure, enormous delays in filling up vacancies, low entry level barriers into the legal profession and appallingly low judge-to-population ratio in India. [60a]

5.28 The US State Department report continues, “Muslim personal status law governs many non-criminal matters involving Muslims, including family law, inheritance, and divorce. The Government does not interfere in the personal status laws of the minority communities, including those that discriminate against women.”[2c](p11)

5.29 As stated in the same report, “The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) of 1958 remained in effect in Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and parts of Tripura, and a version of this law was in effect in Jammu and Kashmir. Under this Act, the Government has the power to declare any State or Union Territory a ‘disturbed area’, allows security forces to fire on any person if it is considered "necessary for maintenance of law and order;" the authorities can arrest any person "against whom reasonable suspicion exists" with no obligation to inform the detainee of the grounds for arrest; and the authorities are given immunity from prosecution for any acts committed by them in relation to the Act.” [2c](p10-11)

5.30 BBC news reported on 5 August 2004 that thousands of protesters in Manipur campaigned to demand the withdrawal of the Act after a Manipuri woman was found raped and shot by the security forces, however the latter say they need the special powers to fight the separatists. [32dc] Amnesty International made a public statement on 11 August 2004 and called for a review of the Act. "In areas declared as "disturbed" -- such as in the north-east region -- Amnesty International is concerned that the AFSPA:
• facilitates grave human rights violations,
• empowers the security forces to arrest and enter property without warrant,
• gives the security forces powers to use excessive force, including to shoot to kill without members of the security force lives being at imminent risk,
• facilitates impunity because no person can start legal action against any member of the armed forces for anything done under the Act without permission of the Central Government,
• by certain of its provisions violates articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)…"[3j]

5.31 As reported in the US State Department report 2003, the Disturbed Areas Act remained in effect in several states in which active secessionist movements exist, namely, in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and parts of Tripura. The Disturbed Areas Act gives police extraordinary powers of arrest and detention.[2c](p3)

5.32 The report continues, “The National Security Act (NSA) permits police to detain persons considered to be security risks anywhere in the country (except for Jammu and Kashmir). The authorities may detain a suspect without charge or trial for as long as 1 year on loosely defined security reasons. NSA does not define "security risk." The state government must confirm the detention order, which is reviewed by an advisory board of three High Court judges within 7 weeks of the arrest. NSA detainees are permitted visits by family members and lawyers, and must be informed of the grounds for their detention within 5 days (10 to 15 days in exceptional circumstances).” [2c](p10)

5.33 As cited in the US State Department report 2003, although the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) lapsed in 1995, authorities in Jammu and Kashmir continued to keep in detention persons who had been arrested under TADA in the past. “TADA courts used abridged procedures. For example, defense counsel was not permitted to see witnesses for the prosecution, who were kept behind screens while testifying in court. Also, confessions extracted under duress were admissible as evidence.”[2c](p9)

5.34 The report indicated that in March 2002 the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) was enacted into law and changed to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The POTA allows detention without charge for 3 months, and a further 3 months if allowed by a special judge, deems not disclosing information to the authorities about terrorist activities an offence, and provides extensive new powers to ban organisations and seize their assets. The act is similar to the TADA in its provisions for detentions, summary trials, and the use of testimony obtained under duress. In addition, the act provides for special courts to try offences, place the burden of proof at the bail stage on the accused, allows confessions made to a police officer admissible as evidence, extends the period of remand from 15 to 60 days, and sets mandatory sentences for terrorism-related offences. ”Human rights groups alleged that the governments have invoked POTA selectively and on dubious grounds against the political opponents of the ruling parties and persons belonging to the minority communities…. In December, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the POTA and held that journalists and lawyers have no right to withhold information regarding a crime under the pretext of professional ethics. The court also ruled that under POTA mere "moral support" for a terrorist organization did not constitute an offence under the Act. Despite this ruling, POTA was used to arrest members of various organizations and opposition political parties on charges of publicly expressing support for the banned LTTE terrorist group. For example, in March the Tamil Nadu government reported that 42 persons were detained under the POTA, four of whom were arrested for expressing support for the LTTE.” [2c](p10)

5.35 The report continues, “In March [2003] the Government issued a directive to form a POTA review committee to examine the use of the law in various states and prepare a report of findings and recommendations. In October [2003], the government gave statutory powers to the POTA Review Committee for redress of complaints by individuals. The POTA Review Committee reviewed cases, and its findings were binding on the government and interrogating police officers. The Committee had not issued a final report by year’s end.”[2c](p10)

5.36 BBC news reported on 10 August 2004 that the new Congress-led government is to repeal the controversial POTA which has been criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International for being “draconian”. Critics say that after the Gujarat riots of 2002, Muslims were unfairly singled out by POTA.[32cw]
[...]"

Document(s): Open document

11.08.2004 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Article on Draft National Policy on Tribals and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes ("Spanners in the Draft National Policy on Tribals (ACHRF/33/04)") [#24835],  [ID 6298]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

People Trafficking ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 6300]

"6.161 According to the US Department of State report 2003, “The law prohibits trafficking in persons, however, trafficking in persons was a significant problem…The country was a significant source, transit point, and destination for numerous trafficked persons, primarily for the purposes of prostitution and forced labour”…Over 2.3 million girls and women were believed to be working in the sex industry within the country at any given time and more than 200,000 persons were believed to be trafficked into, within, or through the country annually…Trafficking in, to, and through the country largely was controlled by organised crime.”[2c](p36) The US Department of State report 2003 noted that “The Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act (ITPA), supplemented by the Penal Code, prohibits trafficking in human beings and contains severe penalties for violations. The Constitution also prohibits trafficking in persons.”[2c](p37-38)"

Document(s): Open document

04.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Employment Rights ("Country Report - April 2004") [#22427],  [ID 6301]

"6.155 According to the US Department of State report 2003, “State government laws set minimum wages, hours of work, and safety and health standards. The Factories Act mandates an 8-hour workday, a 49-hour workweek, and minimum working conditions. These standards were generally enforced and accepted in the modern industrial sector; however, not observed in order [sic] and less economically stable industries. Minimum wages varied according to the state and to the sector of industry. Such wages provided only a minimal standard of living for a worker and were inadequate to provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family. Most workers employed in units subject to the Factories Act received more than the minimum wage, including mandated bonuses and other benefits. The state governments set a separate minimum wage for agricultural workers but did not enforce it effectively. Some industries, such as the apparel and footwear industries, did not have a prescribed minimum wage in any of the states in which such industries operated.” [2c](p35-36)
6.156 According to the US Department of State report 2003, “Trade unions often exercised the right to strike, but public sector unions are required to give at least 14 days' notice prior to striking. Some states have laws requiring workers in certain nonpublic sector industries to give notice of a planed strike.” [2c](p32) The US Department of State report 2003 states that, “The law provides for the right to organize and bargain collectively. Collective bargaining is the normal means of setting wages and settling disputes in unionized plants in the organized industrial sector. Trade unions vigorously defended worker interests in this process.” “The Essential Services Maintenance Act enable the government to ban strikes in government owned enterprises and requires conciliation or arbitration in specified “essential” industries.” However, essential services never have been defined in law.. The act thus is subject to varying interpretations from state to state. State and local authorities occasionally use their power to declare strikes “illegal” and force adjudication.”[2c](p32) According to the US department of State report 2003 in “August [2004] the Supreme Court declared all strikes by government employees to be illegal; however, in practice this has not been enforced.”[2c](p33)
6.157 The US Department of State report 2003 states that “The Industrial Disputes Act prohibits retribution by employers against employees involved in legal strike actions, and this prohibition was observed in practice.” The Trade Union Act prohibits discrimination against union members and organisers, and employers are penalised if they discriminate against employees engaged in union activities. ”Unions are free to affiliate with international trade union organizations.”[2c](p32)
6.158 According to the US Department of State Report 2003, “The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, but enforcement is inadequate. In both rural and urban areas, women were paid less than men for the same job. Women experienced economic discrimination in access to employment and credit, which acted as an impediment to women owning a business. The promotion of women to managerial positions within businesses often was slower than that of males. State governments supported micro credit programs for women that began to have an impact in many rural districts”.[2c](p27)
6.159 As cited in the US Department of State report 2003, “The Constitution prohibits forced or bonded labour, including by children; however, such practices are widespread. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act prohibits all bonded labour, by adults and children. Offenders may be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison, but prosecutions were rare. Enforcement of this statute, which is the responsibility of State and local governments, varied from state to state and generally was not effective, due to inadequate resources and to societal acceptance of bonded or forced labour.” The working conditions of some children in the workplace amounted to bonded labour. Children sent from their homes to work because their parents cannot afford to feed them, or in order to pay off a debt incurred by a parent or relative, had no choice. It is estimated that in the carpet industry alone there may be as many as 300,000 children working, many under conditions that amount to bonded labour. Officials claimed that they were unable to stop this practice because the children were working with their parents’ consent. [2c](p33-35)
6.160 The US Department of State report 2003 states that “There is no overall minimum age for child labor. However, work by children under 14 years of age was barred completely in “hazardous industries,” There were 13 occupations and 57 processes in which children were prohibited from working under the Act. In occupations and processes in which child labor is permitted, work by children is permissible only for 6 hours between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., with 1 day’s rest weekly.” [2c](p34)"

Document(s): Open document

15.01.2003 - Source: Law Library Resource Xchange

Guide to Legal Research (by V. Ramakrishnan) ("Guide to Indian Laws - Updated (by V. Ramakrishnan)") [#17663],  [ID 6302]

Document(s): Open document

Source: SAARC Law

Collection of full-text laws (Economic, Civil and Criminal law) ("Collection of full-text laws (Economic, Civil and Criminal law)") [#26419],  [ID 6303]

Document(s): Open document