Previous years solved LLB / BA-LLB question papers. Must have handbook for all the Law students of Chaudhary Charan Singh University
Yes, under the Copyright Act, 1957, a copyright owner can voluntarily relinquish their rights.
According to Section 21, the author may relinquish all or any of the rights comprised in the copyright by giving notice in writing (using Form I) to the Registrar of Copyrights. Once the notice is published in the Official Gazette, the rights cease to exist from the date of the notice, effectively placing the work in the public domain.
Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 defines deceptive similarity as:
"A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion."
In simple terms, eceptive similarity refers to a mark that so closely resembles an existing registered trademark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the general public.
The core objective of this doctrine is to protect both the original brand owner’s goodwill and the consumer from being misled into purchasing a product under the mistaken belief that it originates from a different source.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been the most powerful tool in the Indian judicial arsenal, transforming the Supreme Court from a "Legal Court" into a "People's Court." By relaxing the traditional rule of Locus Standi (the right to appear in court), the judiciary allowed public-spirited citizens to seek justice for those who, due to poverty or social disability, could not approach the court themselves.
The pivotal role of PIL is best understood through the specific human rights domains it has revolutionized.
Before PIL, the "forgotten souls" in Indian jails had no voice. PIL established that prisoners do not lose their fundamental rights at the prison gates.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Regarded as the first PIL in India, this case brought to light the plight of thousands of under-trials in Bihar who had been in jail for periods longer than their maximum potential sentences.
Outcome: The Court recognized the Right to a Speedy Trial as an integral part of Article 21 and ordered the immediate release of over 40,000 prisoners.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980): This case originated from a letter written by a prisoner to a Supreme Court judge regarding the torture of a fellow inmate.
Outcome: The Court institutionalized Epistolary Jurisdiction, where even a letter or postcard could be treated as a writ petition to stop custodial torture.
PIL has been instrumental in filling legislative vacuums where the Parliament had failed to provide specific protections for women.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Filed after the brutal gang-rape of a social worker, Bhanwari Devi, this PIL challenged the lack of laws protecting women from sexual harassment at work.
Outcome: The Court issued the "Vishaka Guidelines," which remained the law of the land until the enactment of the POSH Act in 2013. It ruled that sexual harassment is a violation of the Right to Equality and Right to Life.
The Indian judiciary used PIL to expand the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) [Oleum Gas Leak Case]: * Outcome:
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (1985):
Outcome: This was the first case where the Court ordered the closure of limestone quarries to protect the ecological balance, effectively ruling that the Right to a Wholesome Environment is a fundamental right.
As of early 2026, PIL continues to evolve, addressing modern ethical and systemic issues:
Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026): In a landmark verdict involving a patient in a persistent vegetative state for 13 years, the Court expanded the Right to Die with Dignity.
In Re: Sexual Offences Sensitivity (2026): Following a letter from a women's organization, the Supreme Court took suo motu (on its own motion) notice to develop new guidelines for judicial sensitivity in POCSO and rape cases, ensuring that the "judicial approach" itself does not violate the victim's dignity.
PIL has successfully shifted the focus of Indian law from Legal Formalism to Social Justice. By allowing the judiciary to intervene in matters of executive or legislative neglect, PIL ensures that the "Human Rights" promised in the Constitution are not just high-sounding words but are enforceable realities for the common man.