Impact of Non-constitutional Decision Making Bodies on Women

Unlike various constitutional bodies such as UPSC, Finance Commission, National Commission for Women, etc. a non-constitutional body does not find its name in the Constitution of India hence it doesn’t derive any power from the Constitution of India.

There are various non-constitutional decision-making bodies in India which are not even statutory bodies, but they have a large impact on the communities mainly in rural areas because of their harsh pronouncements. Some of the biggest examples of these non-constitutional decision-making bodies are ‘Khap Panchayats’ and ‘Kangaroo Courts’ in India. These bodies act as agents of mass pushback mainly against women’s rights.

Khaps are unconstitutional and informal law giving bodies representing a clan or a group of related clans that have captured much rural terrain in the north and eastern India, particularly among the Jat people. They are not affiliated with the democratically elected local assemblies that are also termed panchayat, and have no official government recognition or authority. But in rural India, they have been asserting much power over the lives of people, the weakest of whom are women of all communities. They frequently make pronouncements on social issues such as abortion, alcohol abuse, dowry, etc. They have sanctioned several honour killings and have suggested a level of misogyny that is completely at odds with what the leading courts in the country are articulating.

Here are some of the harsh and cruel pronouncements made by Khap Panchayats:

In Haryana, two jat cast bodies imposed dress codes on women and one even said that girls are “agents who pollute society and bring a bad name to the community”.

Another suggested that the age of marriage should be dropped from 18 to 16 because being married would make young women less susceptible to rape.

On the other hand, a kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

Few years back, a 20-year-old Santhal tribal woman was raped by 12 men in West Bengal on the orders of a kangaroo court called a salishi sabha. Her crime was to have fallen in love with a man outside her community. The couple were tied up and “tried” and asked to pay Rs. 25,000 as payment. The man was able to pay but the woman could not. The headman reportedly decreed that she could be “enjoyed” by several men and that they could “have fun” with her.

The tone of diktat parrots what Nirbhaya’s rapists said- they were out to “have some fun” and a “good time”. She later died after having sustained massive injuries but left behind a mass political movement calling for more rights for Indian women.

Since the country is already struggling with the problems of women and implementation of their rights, these bodies, moreover, add to the problems instead of helping in any way. Khap diktats are singular statements that send messages to all women and families with daughters, successfully silencing any protest that could arise against their rulings.

The Indian state has been quite reticent in initiating any action against khaps even though it is apparent that khap diktats are blatantly undercutting women’s rights and thereby contradicting the verdicts of the highest constitutional lawmaking bodies. One of the biggest reasons for why no protest could arise against their rulings is that in rural India police presence is low and many local notables have links with local law enforcement agents. These notables are also involved in the functioning of khaps. So, they are reasonably confident that their diktats policing women’s behavior will not be challenged. But so long as Khaps have the power to take decisions in rural areas, proper implementation of law cannot be ensured.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Anshu Tulsyan

IMG-20170929-WA0010_2

Anshu Tulsyan is a second-year student of BBA LLB (H) at ICFAI Law School, Dehradun. She has a deep interest in legal research and legal writing. That apart, she is also interested in creative writing. Her first article to be published is titled ‘How to love what does not exist’. Dedication, in her view, is the one quality that describes her best.

The Constitutional Vision of Inclusive Growth: Challenges and Strategies

The Indian Society has suffered from the menaces of social and economic inequalities, caste-based discrimination, and purging of minorities for centuries. But the nation’s independence struggle and its ultimate triumph remains the greatest testimony to the world of the power of a people united in the spirit of nationalism.

The Constitution of independent India is a manifestation of the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. An inclusive society was the vision of the makers of our constitution. But even after independence the perils of inequality and discrimination lingered on. The post-independence era witnessed the re-emergence of these vices which had subsided during the independence struggle. Although attempts at tackling these were made in the form of social reform legislations, economic and social disparities continue to plague the society.

Over the past two decades, India has made a successful transition from an economy that was growing at best at a moderate rate to one that has become one of the principal drivers of the global economy in the post-crisis phase. The GDP growth rate, the investment rate and the savings rate have steadily increased.

The charm of high growth is, however, obliterated by the fact that the distribution of benefits arising from the growth dynamics is highly skewed. Large sections of the population are precluded from partaking in the benefits of the economic growth which is evidenced by the rising economic disparities.

The lack of inclusion has two broad dimensions, economic and social, which analysts have pointed out, mutually reinforce each other. The most obvious manifestations of economic imbalances are the high incidences of poverty, wide income inequality and high rates of unemployment. These can be attributed to the inequality in access to essential services, particularly those related to education and health, which in turn is the result of social exclusion, “the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live”[1].

Exclusion is thus both the cause and the effect. It is antithetic to ‘inclusive growth’, which is the “process that yields broad‐based benefits and ensures quality of opportunity for all”[2] as envisioned in the constitution particularly in the preamble, in chapter III and in the Directive Principles of State Policy.  Inclusive growth is to be primarily achieved at the levels of Reduction Of Poverty, Reducing Unemployment, Social Justice And Empowerment, Environmental Sustainability, Gender Equity, Access To Essential Services and Governance.

Basely et el (2007) considers inclusive growth as the “growth that has a high elasticity of poverty reduction”, i.e., higher reduction in poverty per unit of growth. The ability to generate an adequate number of productive employment opportunities will be a major factor on which the inclusiveness of growth will be judged. Rapid growth focused on labour-intensive industries and small and middle enterprises will create employment opportunities in the manufacturing and services sectors. The ability to create jobs will be enhanced by greater labour flexibility which may require some changes in labour laws.

Access to essential services is an indispensable aspect of equality of opportunity. Copious theoretical studies have demonstrated that the idea that both the pace and pattern of growth are critical to accomplish a high, sustainable growth record, as well as poverty reduction, is consistent with the findings in the Growth Report, Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development[3].

The vision of inclusiveness must be taken beyond the conventional objective of poverty alleviation to embrace equality of opportunity, as well as economic and social mobility for all sections of society, with greater focus on  SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women. There must be equality of opportunity to all with freedom and dignity, and without social or political obstacles.

The Commission on Growth and Development, in the report found that inclusiveness, a concept that incorporates equity, equality of opportunity, and protection in market and employment transitions is a vital element of any successful growth strategy. The Commission regards systematic inequality of opportunity “toxic” as it will disturb the growth process through political means or conflict.

Another strategy of achieving inclusive growth must be one that not only preserves and maintains natural resources, but also provides equitable access to all.  This requires international co-operation to develop forms of burden sharing for alleviation as well as adaptation that are just and equitable to all nations.

Recognizing the depth of the problem of social exclusion based on gender, an integrated approach towards gender equity is also the need of the hour. Identifying and rectifying the flaws and drawbacks in the previous schemes and programs and improving the governmental machinery for implementation and expansion of strategies for inclusive growth through is the most crucial aspect in our stride towards inclusive growth. The need of the hour, thus, is a comprehensive and balanced approach in achieving inclusive growth and distributive justice as part of it.

[1] 1 11 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (1995), “Public Welfare Services and Social Exclusion: The Development of Consumer Oriented Initiatives in the European Union”, The Foundation,Dublin, quoted by De Haan, Arjan, and Simon Maxwell (1998), “Poverty and social exclusion in North and South”,IDS Bulletin, 29 (1): 1‐9

[2] 2 7 Govt of India (2008), “Inclusive Growth: Vision and Strategy”, Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p. 2.

[3] Commission on Growth and Development, 2008


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Treesa Ann Benny

2018-01-12_09-57-08

Treesa Ann Benny is a third-year student pursuing B.A LL.B(Hons.) course at the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. She enjoys writing, particularly on contemporary issues. She finds legal research extremely interesting as well as rewarding and has a particular liking for corporate and constitutional law. She has interned at various law firms in the country, participated in various moot courts, essay-writing and policy-framing competitions and authored several law research papers. She is a volunteer at the Kerala chapter of Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA). She is a music lover and also enjoys cooking.

 

Privacy versus National Interest – An overview

The journey of privacy has been a roller-coaster ride in INDIA. This topic has been debated a lot and has again come to highlight because of the controversial biometric project.

Most people value their ability to keep their private lives private, to protect information that they consider private. Some people do it to hide information about their financial status, or relationship status.The importance of such a right cannot be denied – secret voting enshrines the principle that how people vote is ultimately their own private decision – even if they choose to publicly back a particular candidate, nobody is allowed to scrutinize their DECISION.

However, in the case of the biometric project, it has caused great concern among civil liberties campaigners, who argue that such state intervention threatens the privacy of ordinary citizens and also many experts believe it is not a fair trade-off for protecting the national interest.

When it comes to defining National Interest, it is the interest of a nation as a whole held to be an independent entity separate from the interests of subordinate areas or groups and also of other nations or supranational groups. In this case, it seems to be a fair decision to trade off citizen’s privacy for national security.

What actually privacy is? Privacy is widely regarded as an important right in free and democratic societies. Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation” and “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks”.

In India, the Right to privacy is one such right, which has come to its existence after widening up the dimensions of Article 21. The constitution in specific doesn’t grant any right to privacy as such. However, such a right has been culled by the Supreme Court from Art. 21 and several other provisions of the constitution read with the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Security versus privacy

The idea of government possessing citizen’s private information can be associated with AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES and can be a key feature of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, in which privacy is all but eliminated.

Despite a general consensus on the value of privacy, many argue it has limits or rather it must have some restrictions. If the government is able to maintain the right balance between privacy and security enabling the authorities to keep tabs on personal information, without giving them carte blanche to snoop on citizens. For those in favour of compromising on privacy for the sake of national security, the key point is that seeking such information is no big deal given the rationale behind it.  In other words, privacy might be important, but is it so important that we should risk national and international security rather than compromise a little?

Even the supreme court of India quoted that “Right to privacy can never be an absolute entitlement.” In my own opinion, I believe that both privacy, as well as security, are important for different reasons. I believe that national security is important because we are and will be protected as a whole. On the other hand, our privacy is important as well because everyone wants to keep their personal business to their self’s, or at least have the opinion to keep it that way. I believe that people should be able to have their own personal privacy without worrying that it’ll be interrupted. I also believe that national security is important so that people will know they are and will be protected without worry. What is to be done is maintaining the right balance and a reasonable compromise between privacy and security. Well, as many say, “We should be willing to compromise our privacy in the interests of national and international security”

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA

The right to privacy is seeded in several articles of Part III of the Constitution.

To pass the test of privacy, any law framed must be constitutionally valid. It must be need-based and it must be proportionated to the abridgement sought to the right to privacy consistent with actual need.

GOVERNMENT IS FACING A CHALLENGE

The government faces a formidable legal challenge in implementing its ambitious unique identification programme. Pleas have been made before the Supreme Court questioning the lack of a statutory basis for the collection of biometric details, and the government has to meet this point to the court’s satisfaction. Instead of arguing that privacy is not a fundamental right, it would do well to assure the court that it has the technology and systems to protect the data collected. And that it would do everything possible to prevent unauthorised disclosure of or access to such data.

WHAT WE NEED IS PRIVACY ACT

A Group of Experts appointed by the Planning Commission and headed by Justice (retd.) A.P. Shah came out with a comprehensive report in 2012 containing a framework for a Privacy Act. Such a law, it said, should recognise all dimensions of the right to privacy and address concerns about data safety, protection from unauthorised interception, surveillance, use of personal identifiers and bodily privacy. Underscoring a set of privacy principles, the committee said the underlying idea should be that the data controller should be accountable for the collection, processing and use to which data are put. In its zeal to aggregate data in electronic form and target subsidies better, the government cannot ignore its responsibility to protect citizens from the perils of the cyber era.

BUT To pass the test of privacy, any law framed must be constitutionally valid. It must be need-based and it must be proportionate to the abridgement sought to the right to privacy consistent with actual need.

Also, many people who totally protest that privacy should not be compromised at any cost should not forget what former president of Obama quoted, THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE 100% SECURITY AND 100% PRIVACY.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IMG-20170904-WA0046

DEEKSHA KATHAYAT

Deeksha Kathayat is currently pursuing BLS LLB (third-year) from Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law. An enthusiast debater and avid mooter, she’s into occasions where she can express her views on various issues. She believes that we realize the importance of our voice only when we are silenced. An aspiring bureaucrat, she describes herself as Unstoppable, Unconstrained, and Zealous.

Article 35A of the Indian Constitution – A critical overview

Debate on article 35A started again when during his visit to Kashmir, the Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that the BJP-led government at Centre will not go against the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir on the constitutional provision that guarantees special privileges to the natives. Article 35A of the Indian Constitution provides a special prerogative to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature to define “permanent” residents of the state and give them certain privileges and rights in the public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the state, scholarships, and other public welfare services.

The Delhi Agreement of 1952 between the then Prime Minister of Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru granted “Indian citizenship” to the state subjects of Jammu and Kashmir. This was followed by the incorporation of article 35A in 1954 by an order of Dr Rajendra Prasad on the advice of Prime Minister Nehru. Certain provisions in the interest of the “state subjects” of Jammu and Kashmir are allowed under Article 370(1)(d). Article 35A implies that Government of India has given a special status to the “permanent residents” of Jammu and Kashmir.

So, now the conflict is whether the President is empowered to incorporate an article into the Constitution. The article wasn’t put up in the parliament for discussion and was implemented. This again creates a dilemma on the constitutionality and validity of the article. According to article 368(I) of the constitution Parliament solely has the authority and power to amend the Constitution. This would land the article in the labyrinth of its validity. In 1961 the Supreme Court analysed the ambit of Presidential powers and concluded that the President could amend an existing article. But the court was silent on whether or not the President could add an entirely new article to the Constitution.

The NGO ‘We The Citizens’ had challenged the constitutionality of Article 35A and Article 370. It posits that the representatives from Jammu and Kashmir were involved in the framing of the Constitution. Article 370 was just a “temporary addition” in the interest of people from Jammu and Kashmir. Permanent amendments like Article 35A were not the intentions of the constitution-makers. The NGO petition claimed that the Article goes against the “spirit of oneness” creating a hierarchy of classes. It also restricts people from other states from getting employment and buying property within the vicinity of Jammu and Kashmir. This provision infringes rights guaranteed by the Constitution under article 14, 19 and 21.

Charu Wali Khanna had challenged Article 35A on the pretext that it infringes a woman the basic right to marry a man of her choice by not giving her children the right of holding any property if the woman marries someone without a Permanent Resident Certificate. Even if the women a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir the children have been debarred from her property. Also, the plea said that the children were not given a Permanent Resident certificate, thus considering them illegitimate.

A three-judge constitutional bench has been set up to hear the pleas challenging the article after Diwali.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ashish lD

ASHISH KUMAR YADAV

Ashish is an undergraduate student at Cluster Innovation Centre, University of Delhi. The institution has a Meta College concept and focuses on an interdisciplinary approach.  He is the co-founder of two non-profit ventures, one of which deals with education and the other in enhancing scientific communication among the masses. He has done three research projects at Cluster Innovation Centre the first aimed to create a prototype of full-fledged Hindi dictionary and another on the Study of a community’s cultural tradition (Banjara community). The third project was Hafta bazaar aimed to digitalize and study the various weekly markets in Delhi. He is quite ardent in the field of economics and journalism and is intrigued by topics from digital marketing to management, which are reflected in his undergraduate studies. He was also a part of a report published on education.

Beginning of a new epoch for Muslim women

Recently with the verdict of the Supreme Court calling the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional has paved a golden way towards religious reforms in the Muslim personal laws against the practices that were derogatory to a woman’s dignity. BUT this is just a beginning.  Much has to be done; though we cannot deny it is a very strong and historic beginning, one can say probably the process of reforms in Muslim personal laws has just begun and this is a very strong process and is very important because a process well begun is half done.

Triple talaq was a burning issue and a topic of discussion for the past many years. We were constantly bombarded with many debates in news channels as well as newspapers about its validity, and the injustice and the cruel practices followed causing nightmares to Muslim women. Incidents such as talaq via WhatsApp, Skype, letter, cell phones were shocking and made us wonder how technology could be used in this way as well.  As rightly being said by someone, when a new technology is invented you not only find how to use it in various ways but you also try to find how to misuse it in many ways as well.

The triple talaq controversy started when Shayara Bano approached the Court, for assailing the divorce pronounced by her husband – Rizwan Ahmad on 10.10.2015, wherein he affirmed: “…in the presence of witnesses saying that I give ‘talak, talak, talak’, hence like this I divorce from you from my wife.” It was her contention, that such a divorce which abruptly, unilaterally and irrevocably terminates the ties of matrimony, purportedly under Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 be declared unconstitutional. And arguments put forth from her side to declare it unconstitutional were:

  1. Talaq-e-biddat, pronounced is not valid as it is not a part of Shariat.
  2. This practice of triple talaq is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens of India under article 14, 15 and 21 of Indian constitution.
  3. It was also submitted that practice of triple talaq was not sacrosanct to the tenets of Muslim religion as it has already been denounced internationally.

From the arguments put forward by the advocate of Shayara Bano one can see that not only he gave constitutional reasons for declaring the practice violative of fundamental rights but also he was able to give religious as well international viewpoint against this inhuman practice.

Now all the eyes were on supreme court that whether the court will follow its old traditional course or take a new route, which will come in the history of supreme court as a historic and landmark judgement – and Yes, this time supreme court changed its course and held that NO BODY OF LAW CAN CLAIM A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAsurely a landmark judgement.

One more uniqueness of the case was the bench of judges that headed the case and the various statements given by them. There were five judges of five faiths Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. Judges of five faiths heading a case where Muslim personal law was in question and verdict of declaring that practice as unconstitutional just shows how secular, impartial and beautifully extraordinary our Indian judiciary is, and Nemo est supra leges (NO ONE IS ABOVE LAW); not even religion.

If we look at the statements of various judges of the bench it clearly shows there was unity in disregarding the 1400-year-old talaq practice. Out of the five judges, three were totally in agreement to declare it unconstitutional like Justice Kurien Joseph said: “What is held bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat, and in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.” “There cannot be any Constitutional protection to such a practice” whereas former Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer deferred and said while triple talaq “may be sinful”, the court can’t interfere in personal laws, which have the status of fundamental right under the constitution. They were of the view that parliament should bring a law to end the practice.

Regarding the government’s view in the judgement, the government as well as opposition party has appreciated the verdict of the apex court and have agreed to the fact that legislature will bring a law to end the practice.

There is a great significance of this judgement for Muslim women and a great victory for them.  They have won the first and most important battle as triple talaq was a nightmare for Muslim women, and by declaring triple talaq as unconstitutional, the court has put a saddle on an unruly horse. The judgement of the Supreme Court has clothed her with dignity and strength.

KUDOS to women like Shayra Bano and others who have the courage and strength to come forward, and raise their voice against injustice, and were determined to get justice. It is truly said that there is no force more powerful than a woman’s determination to rise. For several decades she was suppressed, tortured in the hot water of patriarchal arbitrariness, but nobody knew she is like a tea bag; you can’t tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water and finally she fought back.

Now, what is to be seen is how far this fight goes? What is the next step? Is Uniform civil code the next step? All these questions remain unanswered. Nevertheless, until that time, let us just celebrate this first victory.

Talaq, Talaq, and Talaq is NO, NO, AND NO.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IMG-20170904-WA0046

DEEKSHA KATHAYAT

Deeksha Kathayat is currently pursuing BLS LLB (third-year) from Dr. D. Y. Patil College of Law. An enthusiast debater and avid mooter, she’s into occasions where she can express her views on various issues. She believes that we realize the importance of our voice only when we are silenced. An aspiring bureaucrat, she describes herself as Unstoppable, Unconstrained, and Zealous.

Right to Privacy – An analysis of the recent developments

The Aadhaar scheme by the Union Government has been the point of friction for quite a few days. It had been under the lens of allegations like breaching individual’s privacy as it involved the collection of biometric data. With the 12-digit Aadhaar becoming the basis of obtaining the benefits of Government programmes, subsidies, tax administration, and online financial transactions, right to privacy comes under threat.

Privacy has been defined as “a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people” or “the state of being free from public attention” by the Oxford dictionary. Privacy can also be defined in the realms of body and mind. The three aspects of privacy include bodily integrity, dissemination of personal information, and right to make own choices.

The debate over privacy has come to light after two cases: the first being the Satish Chandra versus M.P. Sharma case whose documents were searched and seized when a First Information Report was lodged against him, and the second being Kharak Singh versus the State of Uttar Pradesh in which the petitioner was subjected to constant surveillance by police authorities which led to infringement of his constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The Government had reverberatingly stated that “privacy” was never a fundamental right. The government said that “privacy is an elitist concept” and has no benefit for the common masses. It also asserted that privacy is not explicitly mentioned as a right in the Indian Constitution. The increasing number of petitions coerced the Supreme Court to decide on this highly contested issue. Hence a separate nine-judge constitutional bench was formed. This constitutional bench on 24th August overturned the previous decisions of the 1950s and 1960s which held that “Right to Privacy” is not a fundamental right.

Although it was clear that “Right to Privacy” was not absolute in all aspects, the court needs to establish a balance between the rights of the state and citizens on one side and rights of citizens and non-state actors on other.

Four states, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and one Union Territory, Puducherry, have argued in the SC that they support a constitutional right to privacy.

The apex court said that although Right to privacy is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution but can be easily interpreted if we look through Article 21 and thus forms an integral part of this fundamental right. Privacy forms the heart and soul of Constitution as it embedded in both dignity and liberty which is Article 21. It was a historical unanimous decision though there were six judgements given.

There were 5 different judgements of 5 judges while a common judgement of four judges, including Chief Justice J S Khehar. The common verdict in the words of the court is “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.”

“Right to Privacy” is not absolute in the sense that it has to withstand the threshold of restrictions imposed on other fundamental rights. These aberrations must be a fair, just, and reasonable in the context of Article 21.

The ambit and the contentious areas of the right to privacy will soon be defined with the course of time. Other highly disputed areas include the various social networking sites and applications like the Facebook, WhatsApp, and other messaging services which breach Privacy by selling personal information to private companies.

The bench concluded that “Privacy” is the core of human dignity. This judgment has also wobbled the fate of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the recent beef ban by the Maharashtra Government. Privacy also covers the aspect of personal intimacies, sexual orientation, marriage and food.

This mammoth decision has a galore of impacts and consequences. Now, Aadhaar enrollment would be voluntary and not mandatory, thus not depriving anyone of the welfare benefits if one opts not to enrol. The government is entrusted to advertise that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

This verdict will have an impact on the collection of data by the government and even private companies. This could also lead to the formulation of a legal framework to safeguard individual data as well.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ashish lD

ASHISH KUMAR YADAV

Ashish is an undergraduate student at Cluster Innovation Centre, University of Delhi. The institution has a Meta College concept and focuses on an interdisciplinary approach.  He is the co-founder of two non-profit ventures, one of which deals with education and the other in enhancing scientific communication among the masses. He has done three research projects at Cluster Innovation Centre the first aimed to create a prototype of full- fledged Hindi dictionary and another on the Study of a community’s cultural tradition (Banjara community). The third project was Hafta bazaar aimed to digitalize and study the various weekly markets in Delhi. He is quite ardent in the field of economics and journalism and is intrigued by topics from digital marketing to management, which are reflected in his undergraduate studies. He was also a part of a report published on education.