A legal plea has been filed before an Ajmer court alleging that the iconic Ajmer Dargah, the pious abode of the Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti for the devotees of the seer, was once a Shiva temple. The controversy has gained much steam and raised questions about the history and religious aspects of the dargah. This plea to reclaim the place as a holy site of Hindu worship is provocative and does not help in reducing the tension between different religious groups but will get its bells ringing in the broader narrative of India's cultural heritage and layers of history.Historical Importance of Ajmer Dargah Ajmer Dargah, which is located in the state of Rajasthan, is one among the major pilgrimage centers for Muslims across India. It is the final resting place of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, who is regarded as one of the most revered Sufi saints and who introduced Sufism to India in the 12th century. For hundreds of years, the Dargah was a symbol of interfaith harmony and attracted pilgrims of all faiths, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and others. Today, millions of people visit the shrine every year to seek their blessings and prayers at the saint's grave. Claim: Dargah as a Shiva Temple A fresh petition contests this long-standing religious identity of the Ajmer Dargah - alleging that the structure was originally a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva. The plea claims that historical and archaeological evidence established this temple existed even before the Dargah was constructed. The plea sought for a survey of the site to arrive at its origins and a declaration that the Dargah was originally a Hindu temple. The petitioners here submitted that the Dargah was a prehistoric Shiva temple from the medieval times and, therefore should be restored as a place of worship for Hindus. They further prayed that Hindu ritual practices should again commence on the site and that prayer should be made to God Shiva; this, according to them, is precisely what the site was intended for. Legal as well as Religious Implications The filing of this plea has raised very significant legal and religious questions. On legal grounds, the case resembles those other high-profile cases related to religious sites in India, like the case relating to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya. There's an eminent potential for giving a handover to the communal and radical parties since the issue directly affects the sentiments of two religious communities. Much like the disputed site at Ayodhya, the Ajmer Dargah has been an icon of coexistence of religions. In case it is severely disrupted, social consequences can be very far-reaching. Wider Religious Site Disputes Context. It is an example of a larger Indian trend: places of worship have become fertile ground for contesting their histories. Such claims, often based on an interpretation of history or religious texts, have led to litigation and, in some cases, social unrest.
The Bombay High Court, under Chief Justice DK Upadhyay, recently questioned the state government on whether it considered rummy played over the internet to be a game of chance or skill. TThis PIL has once again ignited debate regarding the legality of online gaming in India, in particular, on whether some games could be classified as gambling to be regulated appropriately.The PIL and the Key Concerns A social worker, who had raised concern about the growing popularity of online rummy platforms which, he lamented, have tended to contribute to gambling addiction and financial ruin for many, mainly among the young, petitioned the court urging immediate steps to regulate or ban online rummy, which he averred was more or less a game of chance. The petitioner noted that aggressive marketing strategies devised by these online platforms are attracting people into playing online rummy. Celebrity endorsement is one of the common promotional tools along with ads presented in a glamorizing way as if it were easy money. In this manner, according to the petitioner, it pushes people into diseconomies, addiction, and social poisoning primarily among the lower income levels who tend to be more vulnerable to the dark effects of gaming. Legal Background: Skill vs. Chance The Indian judicial system has often made such distinctions regarding games like rummy, poker, and fantasy sports. As a background, Indian law distinguishes between games of skill and games of chance. Generally, games of skill have not been regarded as gambling and have therefore commonly been allowed, whereas games of chance have been regarded as gambling and, as such, have been subject to more restrictive regulation or even prohibition. The heart of the matter is whether rummy involves a reasonable degree of skill or whether it is more or less a game of chance. The petitioner's plea was that online rummy, in its digital avatar, reduces the factor of skill to near-game-of-chance status. The main contention proceeds with the principle that virtual space reduces human discretion and strategizing, fundamental elements of games of skill. Government's Role The Court's Inquiry The Bombay high court has now sought clarification from the Maharashtra government on what its stand is regarding the legal status of online rummy. The argument of this inquiry into the matter is that its verdict will finally decide whether the websites operating online rummy fall into the ambit of state gaming laws, which means stricter restriction or an outright ban on the said site. The Court further clarified as to whether such a legal framework presently existing would be able to address the social cause of harm caused by online gaming platforms. The Maharashtra government would then be required to evaluate the impact that online rummy would make in society and present its response by stating whether it holds the game of rummy to be predominantly one of skill or one of luck and chance. The response to this would potentially form the start of a new set of legislation or rules surrounding online gaming.
In a landmark judgment, India's Supreme Court recently ruled that the issue of "common intention" under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, or IPC, is left to be determined by the trial courts. The Court further elaborated that the common intention to commit a crime does not acquire any kind of fixed time frame from which the same is said to be formed. Moreover, meetings or conspiracies held with the accused prior to the commission of the crime are not a mandate for the formation of the common criminal intent. This judgment therefore greatly illuminates the provision on the interpretation of Section 34 IPC, dealing with liability in cases of joint criminal actions.History of Section 34 IPC It states that when an act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, then each of them is liable for the offense as if they themselves have done it individually. This is often called into play when there are many persons accused of a given offense, with one being primarily the perpetrator of such, while the other were only his accomplice or aide in such offense. The common intention issue under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is first, thereby determining "common intention" — existed and, if existed, whether all of the accused had it. Indeed, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court addresses these questions: "determinations of existence of common intention require a close reading of facts to be undertaken at the trial court itself". Judgment of the Court The Supreme Court held that it is better for trial courts to have determined rather than the High Courts, whether there has been or not an existing common intention between co-accused individuals. It is because only trial courts are the direct examinees of the evidence, hearing of the witnesses, and scrutinizing circumstances relating to the commission of a crime. The High Court, often dealing with appeals founded on points of law or technical error, cannot have the same capacity to weigh these factual considerations, at any rate not in the first instance without direct exposure to the whole process of trial. Held that the common intention under Section 34, IPC cannot be taken to be such that it can never form within a specified timeframe. It is not a necessity that common intention needs to be preceded by elaborate or protracted planning. It can arise spontaneously, even at the spontaneity of the situation, and it is no necessity for common intention to be preceded by meetings or discussions of the co-accused with each other to commit the crime. This judgment has tremendous ramifications for criminal justice administration in India. The Supreme Court holds that the evaluation of common intent is essentially a fact-finding process, which enables the trial courts to appraise criminal responsibility as best they know it in perceiving the case at close quarters.
The Bombay High Court has declared the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 unconstitutional through an order passed last week. A legal tussle over the amendments had always been surrounded with controversy since their introduction in the public domaiThe amendments brought new guidelines for stricter regulation of intermediaries or social media platforms and digital media outlets in terms of content regulation. Under these amendments, intermediaries are now liable for taking down content characterized as "false" or "misleading," with arguments about the openness to censorship and arbitrary takedowns of online speech. These challenges were based under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners urged that the amendments exceeded the scope of reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2), which permits the government to limit the freedom of speech on several grounds such as public order, decency or morality. According to the petitioners, the amendments conferred disproportionate powers on government authorities to regulate content without clear safeguards to prevent misuse. Justice AS Chandurkar decided on the side of the petitioners and declared amendments unconstitutional. He argued that amendments fail the proportionality test, a principle of jurisprudence announced by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (case related to the right to privacy). The proportionality test demands that any limitation on the rights must be for a legitimate aim or objective, necessary to achieve that objective, not excessive, and not disproportionate in nature. Justice Chandurkar concluded that the amendments posed an unjustifiable threat to freedom of speech, especially without adequate procedural safeguards. In his words: 'The exercise of power is, inherently, too vast and vague to be exercised with the requisite reasonable judgment to meet the test of article 19. This judgment is significant in the self-control of digital media regulation in India while the judiciary reaffirms their role in a society that seeks to foster free speech in the digital world balanced by constraints on governmental overreach.n.
The court, headed by single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna, granted relief to five people who had been charged with promoting enmity between different groups and indulging in actions which are prejudicial to the harmony between different groupsThis case took its inception from an incident wherein the respondents were reportedly participating in a public rally where they were shouting the slogan Bharat Mata Ki Jai. The respondents were arrested for the offense of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, or language under Section 153A of the IPC and for making statements likely to incite public disorder or violence under Section 505 of the IPC. The authorities argued, incited divisions and prejudiced the maintenance of harmony between communities. The petitioners, however, argued that in uttering Bharat Mata Ki Jai, they were merely exercising their patriotism and national pride for the country and did not mean to convey enmity and hatred. They further argued that such slogans invoked have historic and cultural connotations which find association with India's freedom movement and national integration rather than a divisive ideal. His judgment had the justice dwelling on the ground that hate speech must be distinguished from expressions of patriotism. He pointed out that slogans like Bharat Mata Ki Jai are a symbolic salute to the nation, an expression of national pride, and cannot be equated with speech which promotes hatred or enmity amongst different groups. It further noted that mere chanting of a patriotic slogan did not come within the purview of Section 153A. This was the crucial observation that the judge pointed out. For the definition of hate speech to be available, there must exist a deliberate intention to create enmity or hostility between groups. No evidence was presented indicating that the slogan caused malice or hate. In the course of permitting relief for the five accused persons, Justice Nagaprasanna touched upon the need to defend freedom of speech, especially with regard to expressions of national pride. He forewarned how characterizing such expression as hate speech harbored dangerous implications for democratic discourse and individual freedoms..
Such observations are not warranted in the case in hand, it quoted. The order has come while Supreme Court granted bail to an accused under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.The case pertained to a man who was charged under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, which prohibits conversion of religion with force, fraud or inducement. The accused moved for bail in the Allahabad High Court, upon which sweeping remarks were made about the alleged growing trend of forced religious conversions in the state. The High Court, while refusing to release the accused on bail, also voiced its concern on religious conversion in general, terming it as a very serious matter that affects public order and social harmony. He moved to the Supreme Court. He appealed the denial of bail and the observations of the High Court regarding religious conversion. The appeal of his lawyers argued in the Supreme Court that the observations of the High Court on the question of religious conversion were wholly irrelevant to the facts of the case and, hence, irrelevant to the matter before them, which was a cogent piece of reasoning. Delivering its judgment, the SC underlined that the Allahabad High Court had made remarks on extraneous considerations totally undeserving of the bail hearing. Clarifying matters, the bench comprising Justice BR Gavai pointed out: "Courts are absolutely competent to make observations about the causes of public concern. However, such an observation needs to have some specific relevance in relation to the subject matter of the case under consideration.". The Court found that remarks on religious conversions were not necessary for deciding the bail application and, hence, should not have been made. The Supreme Court also correctly made the pertinent point that judicial restraint is essential, and this becomes paramount when courts are dealing with sensitive issues, like religion. The Court was clear that any and all points of discussion on religious conversion should be addressed with cautious considerations to avoid related implications on societal harmony and individual rights. In the instant case, the Court held that the remarks by Allahabad High Court had a tendency to prejudice the accused person and created unfounded alarm in regard to the larger issue of religious conversion, which was not relevant to the case at all. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, while granting the bail, held that the availability of cases on facts and evidence should be assessed rather than making a general comment on trends prevailing in society. The Court further reiterated that personal liberty should be given utmost importance so that bail cannot be denied based upon grounds not directly relevant to the charges.
In an important development, the Oudh Bar Association had addressed a formal application for the transfer of Allahabad High Court Justice Sangeeta Chandra by citing ill-treatment towards the advocates she hands down judgments against. This application came in the form of a letter by Advocate Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, General Secretary of the Association, to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali on behalf of the legal fraternity.In addition, the letter emphasized that it has received numerous complaints from practicing advocates of the High Court regarding the alleged conduct of Justice Chandra during court proceedings, amounting to disrespect and a lack of fairness. According to the Association, such conduct is very destructive to the dignity and professional atmosphere inside a court of law. The court further remarked that the situation has given rise to distress amongst all advocates, compelling them to take joint action in the form of this letter of appeal to the Chief Justice. Advocate Dwivedi added that the Association has always remained conscious about the sanctity and hassle-free dispensation of justice. Yet, the frequent complaints of its members as alleged in the letter that Justice Chandra's courtroom attitude created an atmosphere of unease among advocates and undermined their ability to perform without fear or prejudice. He advocated the need for the judiciary and the legal profession to function in a symbiotic relationship, grounded in mutual respect and decorum. Justice Sangeeta Chandra is acknowledged for her ease while dealing with complicated cases and, in the context of a great career in judiciary. Nevertheless, the complaints from the Association hint that there are certain aspects of her interactions with advocates, the manner in which she has handled certain cases or perhaps her sensibilities towards the advocates, which have visibly impacted the relationship. Even the letter hinted that unless immediate redressal measures come in play, the tensions between the bench and the bar may aggravate further, thereby brewing storminess within the legal circles. A transfer request comes at this crucial juncture for debating the necessary balance between judicial authority and theprofessional environment within courts. On the one hand, judges need to show discipline to ensure the smooth course of administration of justice, while advocates need not be hampered in presenting their cases. In such a dynamic, at times, tension arises and so did in this case. The call of Oudh Bar Association reflects general concern to maintain an atmosphere of professionalism of proceedings in courts. Advocate Dwivedi urged the Chief Justice to take seriously grievances and that the behavior of a judge towards advocates can be pivotal not only for an individual case but also the view that justice is being dispensed.
The swearing-in ceremony of Justice Manmohan as the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court was a ceremonial affair held in the capital city of Delhi. Handed over with an oath of office by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Vinai Kumar Saxena, this marks a new chapter in the administration of justice in the capital city of the nation. Many other dignitaries attended the ceremony, including newly sworn-in Chief Minister of Delhi, Atishi Singh and other powerful legal and political figures.Appointment of Chief Justice Justice Manmohan happens at the time when the Delhi High Court continues to bear a heavy case work comprising diverse cases of national importance, from constitutional matters to complex civil and criminal disputes. His elevation is therefore right as Justice Manmohan has long and rich judicial experience and great insight into some of the complex legal issues. Career and Legal Contributions Justice Manmohan is one of the strong pillars of Indian jurisprudence, a personification of incisive legal acumen and balanced poise toward justice and commitment to upholding the rule of law. He had earlier been a judge of the Delhi High Court where he had presided over landmark cases. His judgments have been accolades for clear and fair judgment; many can take up issues of constitutional law, human rights, and administrative law. During his sojourn as a judge, Justice Manmohan has come to the forefront not just in tough but empathetic judgments, especially when it pertains to matters related to basic rights, and also in the interpretation of statutes. Specialists who are versed with jurisprudence report that he can easily cope with complex legal terrains and is very uncompromising when the quest for justice is for all walks of society. Significance of Swearing-in ceremony The oath-taking ceremony took place at the Raj Niwas, the official residence of the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi. Chief Minister of Delhi, Atishi Singh, having been newly nominated, also graced the ceremony to imply the connectivity between the judiciary and the executive to facilitate a healthy system of governance. Speaking at the end of the ceremony in a very brief address, Justice Manmohan pledged his commitment to the Constitution of India and delivery of justice timely and equitably. He emphasized that the judiciary should remain independent while cooperating with other organs of government in a manner that would preserve legal and constitutional values. Challenges Ahead As Chief Justice, Manmohan shall now lead the Delhi High Court in managing the biggest threats to reform-at the top, the ever-mounting backlog, judicial reforms, and how to form the role of the court in contemporary issues on privacy, free speech, environmental protection, etc. His leadership shall be decisive in taking the judiciary to a future prospect in Delhi-to remain as an important pillar of democracy. The swearing-in of Justice Manmohan as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been well-received by members of the legal fraternity, who are optimistic that this tenure would bring about fruitful changes in the way the court functions and strengthens the justice delivery system in that region.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the right of a person to have his or her identity in school records linked to his or her biological mother. The order came while the High Court of Delhi was disposing of a petition filed by a woman who sought changes in her school records so that the name of her biological mother was reflected instead of her stepmother'sPetitioner who had gone through emotional trauma following the appearance of her stepmother's name in school documents, sought relief from this court with a prayer to declare her biological mother's rightful place. She wanted her records corrected to her parentage, that is the reality of her biological mother, and not her stepmother. In its judgment on the case, the Delhi High Court reminded that an individual's right to identity is a poignant right. It was also observed that an identity assumes gravity in the official record for an individual's self-image and social standing. The case highlights the challenge of legal systems in an effort to adjust to the rising complexity of modern familial relationships, where blended families and step-parenting become increasingly common. The connection of a biological parent to his or her child was held to form an integral part of personal identity, all the more so in situations where this connection is part and parcel of the upbringing of the person. This judgment is significant because it upheld one's right to maintain records of personal and family history ,also serve as a precedent in other similar cases wherein a person attempts to alter his record to indicate biological parentage. The judgment by the Delhi High Court reminds us that identity as well as personal history are so inextricably intertwined that a person must have the right to control how these are represented in official records. .
After the rising student suicides, especially in prestigious academic institutions like the National Law University or NLU Delhi, on a sharp knife lie all the administrative efforts made towards providing wellness of the students. The latest incidents of suicidal cases have specifically instilled concerns about the unbelievable pressure due to the kind of academic stress and environment of students today.Tragic student suicides have darkened the fortune of institutions that associate academic excellence with relentless pressure. NLU Delhi is no exception. As the institution continues to graduate elite legal professionals, the suffering for its students has become an issue of grave concern. The multiple cases of suicides in the recent past have compelled parents, students, and mental health observers to demand strong measures from the administration to promote safety for the emotional well-being of the students. NLUs are known for their challenging curriculum and academic rigour. This perhaps contributes to increased anxiety. However, a somewhat glaring omission that has often been pointed to is the absence of adequate mental health support services on campus. Initiatives Undertaken by NLU Delhi: According to NLU Delhi, in response to the growing mental health crisis, a string of initiatives have been announced with an aim towards guaranteeing the welfare of their students on campus and out. The administration of university seeks to ensure that all students experience a supportive and inclusive environment that recognizes and addresses diverse challenges. Mental health counseling services: NLU Delhi expanded mental health counseling services so that counselors are made accessible to students. They also have mental health professionals trained to deal with stress caused by academic pressures, anxiety, depression, and other related psychosocial problems that students undergo. The administration has also ensured counselors' time on extended hours on campus and even introduced an online portal for students who would desire to place their concerns anonymously. Peer Support Networks: Most students feel more comfortable discussing their problems with one's peers. In this regard, the university has begun peer support networks, which consist of well-trained students who offer emotional support to their peers and guide them about the required coping mechanisms in a cycle of mutual care and responsibility amongst the students. Workshops and Wellness Programs: Mandatory wellness programs and workshops on stress management, emotional resilience, and maintaining a good work-life balance have been introduced by the administration. These programs will enable students to understand the most vital tools for dealing with academic pressures and other personal challenges better. Faculty Sensitisation: Even the faculty members of NLU Delhi are being sensitized regarding issues in the mental health of students. Faculty are being sensitized to understand symptoms of distress to enhance empathy and support for learning. Recently, NLU Delhi has done something that is being hailed as the next step right to be taken to revive the country out of this mental health crisis. Students and activists demand that this process continues and becomes more robust. Mental health issues should ideally be also coupled with a culture wherein students have an unfettered freedom to speak about their struggles without a lump in their throats, fearing stigma.
A major judgment was given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the court held that a husband can use social media evidence to substantiate the claims of adultery on his wife's side and can oppose her petition for interim maintenance and litigation cost. This judgment creates new dimensions in family law, with the digital footprint holding a pivot position in the legal battle that deals with marital disputes and claims for alimony.Background of the Case: The case arises out of a petition filed by a wife who sought maintenance and costs of litigation at the hands of her estranged husband during the pendency of their divorce proceedings. The wife claimed financial support under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is a common feature in such cases to claim for maintenance from one another on the basis of financial needs and circumstances. However, on the other hand, this contention by the wife was met with an onslaught on her part in relating that she was in an adulterous relationship as a reason to disentitle her from getting interim maintenance. In order to prop his argument, the husband brought before the court messages, photographs, and other online interactions, etc., which would demonstrate his wife's involvement in an extramarital affair. Court's Decision According to a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, headed by Justice HS Madaan, credible evidence through social media platforms can have a husband plead his case to resist his wife's claim for interim maintenance and litigation costs. The court held that even though the burden of proof lay with the husband to prove the adultery claim, evidence obtained through social media, such as WhatsApp messages and Facebook posts, would be admissible as evidence. According to the ruling, it is the nature of digital communications and the interactions between the wife and the alleged lover that determines whether an adulterous relationship has been achieved. Under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, nothing is payable by such husband to his wife living in adultery. This very section gave the husband a pillar on which he stood to file his case-not to mention the digitized evidence he presented before the court. Legal Discussion This judgment follows the growing influence of social media and digital evidence in family law cases. It thereby establishes a precedence whereby platforms applied for informal communication purposes can be scrutinized for other serious legal implications, especially with adultery accusation cases. This also reflects the dynamic nature of evidence in Indian courts. Indian courts are witnessing the growing use of digital interactions supplementing traditional forms such as testimony and documentation. Notably, evidence taking the form of social media can, with social media having become a ubiquitous phenomenon, paint more complete vivid pictures about personal relationships that cannot be otherwise available.
A 6-to-9-day delay in filing an FIR on an attempt-to-rape case in a landmark judgment declares it "unnatural" with an air of doubting the genuineness of such allegations. The judgment underlines the relevance of prompt reporting of serious offenses such as rape where any undue delay affects the investigation of the case and brings in some discreditability into it.The facts of the case concern an alleged case of attempt to rape, wherein the FIR was filed six to nine days subsequent to the incident. The victim went before the police and complaint that the accused made an attempt to commit sexual assault on her person. What has always been pivotal, however, is the six to nine days' delay since the date of the incident when the FIR was filed. The defense contested that the long time it had taken for the crime to be reported onto their books raised sufficient doubts on the truthfulness of the allegations. It emphasized that it was within this long time, either the facts might have been tampered with or charges might have been invented, given the delicacy of some cases as characterized by personal disputes. Court's Observations Justice Prem Narayan Singh opined that general understanding would be that delay of one or two days in lodging an FIR involving sexual assault or attempt to commit rape may generally be understood to be reasonable enough due to trauma in mind or fear of social stigma or confusion as to what to do. However, the court held that though delay of six to nine days is "unnatural", it needs explanation in its entirety by the complainant with reasons convincing enough to justify such delay. The court acknowledged that delays in reporting crimes of this nature are commonplace, but at the same time explained that victims may face societal pressure, emotional distress, or fear reprisal. The court, however made it clear that, in circumstances before it, where such a vast lapse could not be convincingly explained, the credibility of the allegations was also clouded. The court also pointed out how timely reporting of crime, especially those termed serious like attempted rape, is one way of ensuring the fair determination and retention of the integrity of the evidence in the case. In this case, failure to file the FIR after 6 to 9 days without a compelling reason raised the suspicion over the genuineness of the complaint. Therefore, the High Court held that such delay was unnatural and cast a shadow over attempted rape allegations. According to the court, immediate action from the part of the complainant not only strengthens the case but also assists the crime investigation department in recording potential witnesses and evidence.Judgement of the case at hand reiterates the law of precedents stating that some delays in filing of the report of sexual offenses are justified, yet, those have to be accompanied by a rationale. Courts shall look into these matters with close watch where there has been an unjustified delay in lodging the FIR either as an unexplained injustice or willingly done to fabricate or manipulate it.
In a landmark judgment, a Uttar Pradesh court sentenced a Muslim man to serve life imprisonment for the charge of "love jihad", a term coined to describe a campaign where Muslim men allegedly mislead Hindu girls in an attempt to transform them into Muslims. Those accused had actually been systematically targeting Hindu women for conversion to Islam through deception by having relationships on the pretext of love. Controversy over an infamous narrative called "love jihad" and religious conversions in India has flared up again.The case that involved this judgment was in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The accused, a Muslim boy, had taken money from a Hindu girl under the pretext of getting married to her. He had kept his religion from her and made friends with her. On marriage he influenced her to convert herself into Islam. She understood this as cheating and brought it to the notice of the police, and her lover was arrested. In the instant case, the court held that it was not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of religious conversion through devious means. The judge further observed that Muslim men are in a systemic and deliberate mode to target Hindu women and play upon the feelings of the latter by donning the garb of love with the sole intention of converting them to the fold of Islam. The court held such activities constituted "love jihad" and were a serious threat to social harmony. Love jihad' is a term that has been widely debated upon in India. Those on the side who believed the theory said people were actually being targeted and converted to other faiths through deceitful marriages, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, where allegations have cropped up quite frequently. It has been termed as a politically motivated label, and there is no documentary evidence regarding the systematic conspiracies that are alleged. The case also came at a time when the issue of interfaith marriages and religious conversion was still being debated in India, and many laws were being planned to be enacted within the country. Uttar Pradesh is already one of the states that passed anti-conversion laws with the aim of curbing forced religious conversions, especially by promoting interfaith marriages. While several defenders of anti-conversion laws hail this judgment as a precedent for other such cases, human rights activists have expressed reservations about the judgment, and stated that the judgment may infringe individual rights in the freedom to marry and convert freely. This judgment again marks the continuing tension between religious freedom and the perceived threats to social harmony in India.
In a landmark verdict, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court had cleared that a child's ordinary place of residence rather than the deemed custody of any parent is seen as a determining factor in assessing jurisdiction in child custody matters. Reiterating how merely even an assumption of deemed custody under a parent does not override the actual ordinary residence of the child at the time of making the determination, said the Court.This decision arises out of a battle over child custody, in which the mother with "deemed custody" of her minor child was trying to rely on her residence as a basis for jurisdiction, whereas the father argued that the child's ordinary residence is elsewhere and that jurisdiction should follow. The crux of the case revolved around the question of what is termed "ordinary residence" versus "deemed custody" in jurisdictional matters. The term "deemed custody" refers to a situation whereby one parent has the legal custody of the child, but this should not be necessarily interpreted to mean the child's place of residence or place of habitation. As deemed custodian, she argued that, in this particular case, jurisdiction should follow her place of residence. However, this contention was disapproved by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir with the view that the ordinary place where the child resides must take precedence. It would explain that within Indian law, issues of custody the welfare of the child is paramount, and this means the ordinary residence of the child should be a matter to which priority has been accorded in giving importance to the jurisdiction.The judgment further emphasized that in the family courts, the place where the child resides would form the basis for exercising jurisdiction and not necessarily on the legal arrangement of custody between the parents. This will, therefore, mark a very broad implication in cases involving custody and usually among the parents living in different geographical regions. It establishes the basis of supporting that the best interest of a child would always be associated with its habitual environment, thus the legal custody arrangements could not override the actual place of residence of the child in establishing jurisdiction. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, having pegged its trend onto the child's ordinary residence, established that courts must take into consideration the practical sense of living a child has over the technical definition of custody. This ensures that the court best in the position of understanding the child or the parents' situation would have jurisdiction over the child's future. This judgment in itself will be a reminder that any judgment about the child's environment should be taken with extra caution as it sets clear judicial precedent in similar cases to come. 30k words limits Deep Search PDF Report No Ads Starting
The most critical legal development that has emerged in the present debate on marital rape and exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is the response filed by the Indian government before the Supreme Court. The Centre stated that the matter relating to marital rape is more socially complex than it is legally, and thus, the issue calls for a comprehensive dialogue of various stakeholders concerned before any conclusive action is undertaken.Background: Marital Rape Exception in Indian Law Section 375 of the IPC defines rape but provides an exception for sexual intercourse between a husband and wife. In fact, it clarifies that "a man is not guilty of rape if he has non-consensual sex with his wife provided that she is over eighteen years of age.". This provision has been faulted by many as being archaic and fails to recognize the autonomy and rights of a woman in marriage. This is a call made by many legal experts, women's rights activists, and even NGOs that termed it ought to be abolished because it validates non-consensual sex within marriage. Argument of Centre: Social Concern Over Legal Change The center rightly justified the criminalizing of marital rape calling for a more thoughtful approach. It also argued that marriage involves mutual obligations, including reasonable sexual access, and any attempt to criminalise marital rape would upset the sanctity of marriage as an institution. The Centre's submission highlighted that marital rape cannot be considered in isolation as it would have wider social implications. According to the government, a change in law could lead to misuse of the legal provisions by the discontented spouse. The Centre further noted that Indian marriage is in most instances determined by various social, economic, and cultural factors. Any decision in the matter should, therefore, be preceded by wide consultations with stakeholders such as legal experts, social workers, women organizations, and representatives of different communities. In so doing, While the Supreme Court is continuing with its deliberation on the issue, it is the Centre's stand that underscores the much larger debate revolving around marital rape as a technical violation of law or, as a more important matter of social significance deserving more sensitive handling. This judgment promises wide-ranging consequences for the rights of women and the legal construct of marriage in India.the government cautioned that hasty legislative changes could set off unseen ripples both for marriage as an institution and for family structures in India.