[2] John R. Boatright, Business Ethics (Strayer University), Pearson Custom Publishing (1868) at 104.
[3] R.C. Sekhar, Ethical Choices in Business (second edition), (Response Books (a division of Sage Publications, 2002) at 179.
[4] Koehn Daryl, Whistle-Blowing and Trust in Laura P Hartman (Ed.): Perspectives in Business Ethics, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Compnay Limited, New Delhi at 4567.
[5] Green R. M, The Ethical Manager: A New Method for Business Ethics, (Macmillan, New York, 1994) at 145-146.
[7]Castagnera, James (Spring 2003). "The Rise of the Whistleblower and the Death of Privacy Impact of 9/11 and Enron". Labor Law Journal; De George, R. T. 2010. Business Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Mac Milan.
[8] Harman G.: 2000, Explaining Value, (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
[9] Kaplan, C.: (Winter 2002–2003), “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002—Employment Law Aspects – Whistleblower and Securities Analyst Protections,” http://www.thelenreid.com/articles/article/art_165_idx.htm
[10]Larmer R. A.: 1992, “Whistleblowing and Employee Loyalty Journal of Business Ethics”, 11(2), 125–128
[37] Frank J. Cavico, ‘Private Sector Whistleblowing and the Employment-At-Will Doctrine: A Comparative Legal, Ethical. And Pragmatic Analysis’ p.no 90 (45 S. Tex. L. Rev. 534 2003-2004)
[38] L. Paine et al., ‘Up to Code: Does Your Company’s Conduct Meet World Class Standards?’ (2005) (83) Harvard Business Review 122 at 123
[39] Frank J. Cavico, ‘Private Sector Whistleblowing and the Employment-At-Will Doctrine: A Comparative Legal, Ethical. And Pragmatic Analysis’ p.no 89 (45 S. Tex. L. Rev. 534 2003-2004)
[1] Justice Malimath Committee Report (2003) on Criminal Justice Reforms constituted by the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi), available at: http://mha.nic.in/pdf/criminal_justice_system.pdf.
[3] Robert C. Davis et al., Victims of Crime, Sage Publications, U.S.A, 2007, p. 278. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/200013/17/17_annexure.pdf
[5] Human Rights Witness Protection Rights, Needs And Benefits Required To Ensure Effective Victim Testimony by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao available at: http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/dec05/humanrights.htm
[6] Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, Supreme Court of India, Shri P. Babulu Reddy Foundation Lecture on Victims of Crime – The Unseen Side, (1998) 1 SCC (Jour) 3 available at: http://www.practical-lawyer.com/lawyer/articles/9801a1.htm
[7]Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 571, Saheli v. Commissioner, AIR 1990 SC 513, Padmini v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1993 Cri LJ 2964, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organisation v. P.L. Kukerty, 1988 (2) G.L.R. 37, Susheela v. State of Karnataka, 1991 Cri LJ 2675, P.V. Kapoor v. Union of India, 1992 Cri LJ 128, P.U.D.R. v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 355, Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960.
[8] Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14, Bodhishtwa Gautam v. Subra Chakraborti, AIR 1996 SC 922.
[9] V.N. Rajan, Victimology in India, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, 1995, pp. 17- 85.
[1] Jennings, W.I., Cabinet Government, 13. [Cited in Dr. Madhabhusi Sridhar, “The Law of Expression, An Analytical Commentary on Law for Media 18” (Asia Law House, Hyderabad, 18, (2007)].
[2] Johan Milton, Aeropagitica and Other Tracts, 27 (1644).
[3] Ernest William Hocking, "Freedom of the Press: A Framework of Principle" (A Report from the Commission on Freedom of the Press, 88-89, 1947). [Cited in Dr. Madhabhusi Sridhar, The Law of Expression, An Analytical Commentary on Law for Media 19 (Asia Law House, Hyderabad (2007)].
[30]M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, AIR 1959 SC 395.
[31]Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129; Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578; Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305; Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[32]Sakal Paper (Pvt.) Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
[33]Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1958 SC 578; Sharma v. Sri Krishna, AIR 1959 SC 395.
[34]Pandit M. S. M. Sharma v. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Others, AIR 1950 SCR 594.
[1]World Health Organisation, The re-emergence of infectious diseases, Managing epidemics: key facts about major deadly diseases, (Mar 27, 2022, 05:48 pm),
[12] Reported by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
[13] Jennifer Shkabatur, A Global Panopticon- the Changing Role of International Organisations in the Information Age, Michigan Journal of International Law, (Mar 29, 2022, 03:38 pm) https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol33/iss1/508/
[25] World Health Organisation (2020), how the four biggest outbreak since the start of this century shattered some long- standing myths, (April 02, 2022, 01:55 pm)
[30]World Health Organization, Revision of the International Health Regulations, WHA 58.3, Fifty-eighth World Health Assembly (2005).
[31] Article 2, World Health Organization, Revision of the International Health Regulations, World Health Assembly (2005).
[32] World Health Organisation(2020), WHO Director- General’s opening remarks at the International Health Regulations Review Committee, (April 03, 2022, 05:01 pm)
[34] World Health Organisation(2020), WHO Director- General’s statement on IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Corona virus (2019-nCoV), (April 03, 2022, 05:25 pm)
[51] It is a global initiative which aimed at working with vaccine manufacturers to provide countries worldwide equitable access to safe and effective vaccines. It is currently the world’s largest and most diverse COVID-19 vaccine portfolio - including nine candidate vaccines, with a further nine under evaluation and conversations underway with other mayor producers.
[8] Many couples struggle to share their finances after marriage. Is the male meant to be the only owner of the house, or will they split the costs? This issue does not arise in live-in situations. You owe each other nothing, so you split your money evenly and create financial limitations.Information available at https://legalformatsindia.com/is-live-in-relationship-still-against-indian-culture/
[10]Acceptance of the aforementioned category of live-in partnerships as analogous to a domestic connection for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the DV Act does not imply that bigamy is encouraged or that the institution of marriage is under threat. The married woman/wife is not deprived of her marriage rights of support, legitimacy, and custody of children by simply deeming the live-in couple to be in a domestic relationship. It just accepts the current factual condition of our society while proactively promoting the DV Act's key aims of women's safety. https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/07/07/live-in-relationships-at-cross-roads-with-morality.html
[17]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/215649/.There is no live-in relationship if he spends a night out with a lady and engages in sexual acts, or if he stays with someone for a few days while on vacation. In addition, if a man has a 'keep/mistress/rakhail whom he financially supports and use her simply for sexual purposes (or as a servant or both), the Supreme Court believes that such a relationship is not marriage.
[31] In Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, to resolve a property dispute, the Court upheld a woman's ability to inherit property when her live-in partner died. Family members said in the court that their grandpa had been cohabiting with a lady for the previous 20 years. They also argued that she was not eligible to receive the land when their grandfather died because she was not married to him.
The Court disagreed, ruling that "where the man and woman lived together as husband and wife, the law will infer that they were living together in a lawful marriage."
[35]An order of the Jharkhand High Court, which stated that Section 125 CrPC does not allow for the grant of maintenance to a woman who is not lawfully married to the person for whom maintenance is sought, was challenged before the Supreme Court. It was admitted that there was a live-in relationship in this case. Referring to the Domestic Violence Act, the court stated that even though the petitioner is not the lawfully wedded wife and hence not entitled to support under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she would have an effective remedy to seek maintenance under the Act. According to the Act's requirements, economic abuse is also considered domestic violence.
[37] WRIT - C No. - 11108 of 2020, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73339714/
[38]The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 appears to have included live-in relationships as part of the definition of a domestic relationship. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 appears to have included live-in relationships as part of the definition of a domestic relationship. Any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent is a 'Aggrieved Person.' 'Domestic Relationship' refers to a relationship between two people who reside or have lived in a common household at any point in time, and who are connected by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family.
[43] Therefore in Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha 2011 1 SCC 141 the division bench of supreme Court referred certain questions to be decided by the larger bench which are yet to be decided. They were: a) Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
b) Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of DVAct, 2005?
c) Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?
[45] As a result, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of expanding Section 2(f) of the PWDVA 2005, which defines "domestic relationships," to include victims of illegal relationships who are poor and illiterate, as well as their children who are born out of such relationships and have no source of income. Furthermore, the Supreme Court urged that Parliament create new legislation based on specific criteria provided by it in order to safeguard victims from any social harm caused by such interactions.
[50].Ibid. The court went on to say that, while socially unacceptable in this country, a live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, and it is an extremely personal decision to marry or not to marry, or to have a heterosexual relationship, and thus the court felt there was a need for legislation because it was the woman who invariably suffered as a result of the breakdown of such a relationship.The Supreme Court bench also providedexamples of several countries that have begun to recognise such relationships. It said that Parliament should take this problem seriously and pass appropriate laws or make appropriate amendments to the Act to safeguard women and children born from such partnerships, even if such a relationship is not in the type of a marriage..
[51]Section 50 of Evidence Act says that opinion on relationship, where applicable.—When the Court must develop a view as to the existence of one person's relationship with another, the opinion stated by behaviour, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has specific information on the topic, is a relevant fact: However, such an opinion will not suffice to show a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act of 1869. The Supreme Court held in D Patchaiammal versus D Velusamy that if a man and a woman have a live-in relationship for a long period of time, they would be seen as a married couple in society, and the child born from this relationship will be considered legitimate.The question is, whether A and B were married. ? The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant.
[54]Tulsa & others vs Durghatiya and others (4) SCC 520)
[55] Children born out of void and voidable marriages have legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 26 of the Special Marriage Act, which provide that children born out of void and voidable marriages are legitimate or regarded to be legitimate.
[59] However, if their parents are not legally married, they will be unable to claim coparcenary rights in their father's HUF property. Because the law specifically states "both legitimate and illegitimate child," claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. is entirely within the rights of dependent children born out of live-in relationships. When it comes to guardianship, the mother is considered the natural guardian for such children. Even according to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, such children have the right to their parents' self-acquired properties..https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/ full/101177/2631831820974585