What is difference between Section 34 of arbitration Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?

Understanding the distinction between Section 34 (application for setting aside an arbitral award) and Section 37 (appealable orders) is crucial to grasping the framework of judicial intervention in arbitration. While they operate together in challenging arbitral outcomes, they function at distinctly different stages with fundamentally different scopes.

Nature and Stage of Intervention

Section 34 represents the primary recourse mechanism against a final arbitral award. It permits a party to directly challenge the award itself on specifically enumerated grounds before the Court. This application targets the substantive output of the arbitral tribunal—the award.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment banning two-finger test of Rape Victim as violative of human rights.

 In view of International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966; United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power 1985, rape survivors are entitled to legal recourse that does not retraumatize them or violate their physical or mental integrity and dignity. They are also entitled to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent. Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence. The State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence. Proper measures should be taken to ensure their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy. {Para 12}

13. Thus, in view of the above, undoubtedly, the two finger test and its interpretation violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2011

Decided On: 09.04.2013

Lillu and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2013 SC 1784,MANU / SC / 0369 / 2013,( 2013 ) 14 SCC 643.

Print Page

Leading Supreme Court Judgment mandating completion of the trial in POCSO Act case in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act.

 It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava that in both the States, the cases are pending at the evidence stage beyond one year. We are absolutely conscious that Section 35(2) of the Act says "as far as possible". Be that as it may, regard being had to the spirit of the Act, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(i) The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and the presiding officers of the said courts are sensitized in the matters of child protection and psychological response.

(ii) The Special Courts, as conceived, be established, if not already done, and be assigned the responsibility to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act.

(iii) The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act.

(iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the Chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee.

(v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the States shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses are produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts.

(vi) Adequate steps shall be taken by the High Courts to provide child friendly atmosphere in the Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act so that the spirit of the Act is observed. {Para 23}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 76 of 2018 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided On: 01.05.2018

Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, C.J.I.

Citation: 2018 INSC 433,MANU/SC/0489/2018.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Sexual Abuse as a Serious Offense and Violation of Human Rights: Leading Supreme Court Judgments {Part 2}

Sexual abuse represents one of the most heinous crimes against human dignity. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that sexual assault violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to life, dignity, equality, and personal liberty. This compilation presents landmark judgments categorized thematically for easy understanding and memorization.​

Foundational Principle: Rape as Violation of Fundamental Rights

Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

This is the cornerstone judgment establishing that rape violates constitutional rights.

Key Holdings:

• Rape is not merely a crime under the Indian Penal Code—it is a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal dignity under Article 21.

Print Page