The right to bail under indian

Bail can be considered when a charged person is held because of concern of possible escape or of a continuation of criminal activity. Bail cannot be considered where there is a concern of influencing witnesses or otherwise frustrating of the proceedings.

The right to bail under indian

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act When Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act ofit determined that racial discrimination in voting had been more prevalent in certain areas of the country. Section 4 a of the Act established a formula to identify those areas and to provide for more stringent remedies where appropriate.

The first of these targeted remedies was a five-year suspension of "a test or device," such as a literacy test as a prerequisite to register to vote. The second was the requirement for review, under Section 5of any change affecting voting made by a covered area either by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or by the Attorney General.

The right to bail under indian

The third was the ability of the Attorney General to certify that specified jurisdictions also required the appointment of federal examiners. These examiners would prepare and forward lists of persons qualified to vote. The final remedy under the special provisions is the authority of the Attorney General to send federal observers to those jurisdictions that have been certified for federal examiners.

Section 4 also contains several other provisions, such as Section 4 e and Section 4 fthat guarantee the right to register and vote to those with limited English proficiency. Section 4 e provides that the right to register and vote may not be denied to those individuals who have completed the sixth grade in a public school, such as those in Puerto Rico, where the predominant classroom language is a language other than English.

In Section 4 fthe Act addresses the ability of those persons who are members of language minority groups identified in Section 4 f 2to register and vote as well as to get information relating to the electoral process in a manner that will ensure their meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The formula for coverage under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act As enacted inthe first element in the formula was whether, on November 1,the state or a political subdivision of the state maintained a "test or device" restricting the opportunity to register and vote.

The Act's definition of a "test or device" included such requirements as the applicant being able to pass a literacy test, establish that he or she had good moral character, or have another registered voter vouch for his or her qualifications.

The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1,or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November This resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": In addition, certain political subdivisions usually counties in four other states Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered.

In fully covered states, the state itself and all political subdivisions of the state are subject to the special provisions. In "partially covered" states, the special provisions applied only to the identified counties.

Voting changes adopted by or to be implemented in covered political subdivisions, including changes applicable to the state as a whole, are subject to review under Section 5. InCongress recognized the continuing need for the special provisions of the Act, which were due to expire that year, and renewed them for another five years.

It added a second prong to the coverage formula, identical to the original formula except that it referenced November as the relevant date for the maintenance of a test or device and the levels of voter registration and electoral participation. Half of these states Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming filed successful "bailout" lawsuits.

Inthe Act's special provisions were extended for another seven years, and were broadened to address voting discrimination against members of "language minority groups," which were defined as persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.

In addition, the definition of "test or device" was expanded to include the practice of providing any election information, including ballots, only in English in states or political subdivisions where members of a single language minority constituted more than five percent of the citizens of voting age.

Inthe coverage formula was extended again, this time for 25 years, but no changes were made to it. Inthe coverage formula was again extended for 25 years.

Terminating coverage under the Act's special provisions Section 4 also provides that a jurisdiction may terminate or "bailout" from coverage under the Act's special provisions.

Originally enacted in as a means to remedy any possible over inclusiveness resulting from application of the trigger formula, Congress amended this procedure in so jurisdictions that meet the statutory standards can obtain relief.

The amendment, which took effect on August 5,establishes an "objective" measure to determine whether the jurisdiction is entitled to "bailout". A jurisdiction seeking to "bailout" must seek a declaratory judgment from a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

On June 22,the Supreme Court held that any jurisdiction currently required to make Section 5 submissions may seek to "bailout" from coverage if it meets the statutory criteria set forth below. The successful "bailout" applicant must demonstrate that during the past ten years: No test or device has been used within the jurisdiction for the purpose or with the effect of voting discrimination; All changes affecting voting have been reviewed under Section 5 prior to their implementation; No change affecting voting has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the denial of a Section 5 declaratory judgment from the District of Columbia district court; There have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; There have been no consent decrees or agreements that resulted in the abandonment of a discriminatory voting practice; There are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and Federal examiners have not been assigned; There have been no violations of the Constitution or federal, state or local laws with respect to voting discrimination unless the jurisdiction establishes that any such violations were trivial, were promptly corrected, and were not repeated.

Before being allowed to "bailout", the jurisdiction must have eliminated those voting procedures and methods of elections that inhibit or dilute equal access to the electoral process. It also must demonstrate that it has made constructive efforts to eliminate intimidation and harassment of persons seeking to register and vote and expand opportunities for voter participation, such as opportunities for registration and voting, and to appoint minority officials throughout the jurisdiction and at all levels of the stages of the electoral process.

The jurisdiction must also present evidence of minority electoral participation. In addition, these requirements apply to all governmental units within the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction. Thus, if a county is seeking to "bailout", it must establish each criteria for every city, town, school district, or other entity within its boundaries.

The jurisdiction seeking "bailout" must publicize the intended commencement and any proposed settlement of the action; any aggrieved party may intervene in the litigation. After the granting of a declaratory judgment, the statute requires a ten-year "recapture" period.

During this time, the district court may reopen proceedings should the jurisdiction engage in any conduct that would have prevented the jurisdiction from bailing out in the first instance. Under such circumstances, the district court will review the evidence and determine whether to reinstate coverage.

The Attorney General is also authorized to consent to an entry of judgment granting the "bailout" if the Attorney General concludes after investigation that the jurisdiction has complied with all of these requirements.

Prior to actually filing a petition with the District of Columbia court, any jurisdiction interested in seeking "bailout" may submit a request to the Attorney General with supporting documentation and evidence.

Upon receipt, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division will undertake an investigation to determine whether the Attorney General would be willing to enter into a consent decree or would oppose the "bailout" petition.

If the Attorney General determines that consent to an entry of judgment is proper, the Voting Section will work with the jurisdiction to agree on the terms of the consent decree to be filed with the "bailout" petition when the litigation is actually filed.Bail as per Indian Law This article was submitted by Anjali Dileep from The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Ernakulam for National Legal Writing Competition, l The bail, in lay man’s term, means a guarantee or assurance given by a person arrested to appear before a competent court at a specified time at a specified place.

The Department of Justice has withdrawn from the Voting Section’s website the guidance information regarding termination of coverage under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act (i.e., bailout) from certain of the Act’s special provisions.

The constitution of India was adopted on November 26, Some provision of the constitution came into force on same day but the remaining provisions of the constitution came into force on January 26, This day is referred to the constitution as the “date of its commencement”, and.

INDOOR GAMES. Choosing-Up Sides. Give the command BY HEIGHT-FALL IN! The tall boys should always fall in at the right.

Call Wallin & Klarich Today

Count twos and execute "twos right.". Nov 04,  · "Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and community.

Indian System of Bail - Anti Poor written by: Urvashi Saikumar - Amity Law School It lays out that there is a general right to bail, except as provided for under the First Schedule of the Act. While there are different grounds for refusing the right to bail depending on the type of offence, for all imprison able offences the two basic.

MacScouter: The Great Games Resource