The Bombay High Court ruled in a landmark case that Muslim males can register multiple marriages. However, the judgment went on to clarify that the 1998 Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act does not prevent them from conducting this practice. Such a judgment was based on the simple fact that Muslim personal law permits polygamy and is thus far superior to state legislation that may seem to legally prohibit them.Case Background A case had been brought before the Bombay High Court challenging the registration of a second marriage performed by a Muslim man against whom a petition had been filed. The petitioners argued that the impugned Maharashtra Act mandating the registration of all marriages in the state naturally restrained the Muslim males from registering more than one marriage, regardless of their religion. According to them, the said practice was contrary to the provisions of the state law, as it did not bear any implications of polygamy. On the contrary, it was pleaded by the respondents that Muslim personal law, as contained in the Shariat, enshrines a right of a male to marry four wives. They argued that the personal laws governing the Muslim community could not be set at naught by the state's marriage registration act, which had been entrenched in the Indian legal system since decades. Judgement of the Court The Bombay High Court, after considering the perceptive side, issued a decree in favor of the right of a Muslim man to register multiple marriages. The court further pored over the provisions of the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act and considered the overall implications. In the given act, there was no particular clause that would adversely affect the registration of more than one marriage by a Muslim man. The court made a pronouncement in that regard-it pointed out that all personal laws come under the complete cover of the Indian Constitution and any inconsistency between state laws and personal laws must be resolved in favor of the latter relating to religious practices. The judgment reiterated that although the Act provides for regulation of marriage registrations in the state, it has not violated the rights of Muslim men to wed multiple wives as allowed under their own religious law. The court, further clarified that even as such marriages are conducted under Muslim personal law, they may be lawfully registered. Legal Consequences This judgment will carry very significant implications for the Muslim community of Maharashtra and all over India, as it underlines legal validity of the personal laws to govern certain aspects of family life. In reiterating the principle that state legislation was not superior to religious law in matters of personal nature, unless such legislation was contrary to the contrary, the Bombay High Court reasserted the right of a Muslim man to register multiple marriages.
All these 15 different cases pertaining to this very contentious issue of Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid at Mathura have been ruled to be merged by a very important judgment from the Allahabad High Court. It is one case that deals with the fact, oft-in-question, that the Shahi Idgah Masjid, constructed right next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, was put up on holy land as it stands atop the birth place of Lord Krishna.Background of the Dispute One of India's most delicate religious conflicts is the Krishna Janmabhoomi controversy. It has its basis in claims submitted by Hindu groups that the Shahi Idgah Masjid, erected during the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb's rule in the 17th century, was built atop the remnant of a Hindu temple marking the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Such time there have been multiple legal cases that have emerged for the demolition of the mosque and the restoration of the temple on the site. In the past few years, many cases have been filed for various relief measures-including the removal of the mosque-on the grounds that the land should be with Krishna Janmabhoomi. These cases have been filed by the Hindu devotees, temple bodies, and the associated organizations. The Mathura civil court had earlier ordered consolidation of these 15 suits as their core question relates to ownership and right over the disputed land. Order of Allahabad High Court Contrary to the pleas, Allahabad High Court upheld that judgment pronounced by the civil court and it was of the considered view that judicial efficiency was mandatory and conflicting judgments should be avoided. The High Court also held that all 15 suits are based on the same issue and in the case of centering on the issue of rightful ownership of the Krishna Janmabhoomi land, justice would best be served if it were heard together. However, the court also underscored that consolidation would evade the risk of conflicting judgments and ensure that the cases are given a conclusive outcome so that both parties could establish clarity in the dispute. Implication of the Judgment This would rather expedite the procedural process of the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case. Through this clubbing of cases, courts will be able to address the central question of land ownership rather than handling separate suits. It also symbolizes the court's recognition of the sensitive nature of the case, with both religious and historical claims associated with it. Hindu groups have welcomed this judgment, but the management of Shahi Idgah Masjid have raised concerns about implications this order of clubbing might have. The whole legal battle will now likely go to the next intricate arguments at the related historical and legal entitlements to the land in question. This debate is likely to continue to be of interest to both legal and public passions because matters of law are interwoven with keen sentiments, perceived on both sides as deeply religious.
It was a landmark judgment wherein the Gujarat High Court ordered the Bar Council of India to issue provisional certificates to 29 law graduates who can sit for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). The law graduates had submitted their enrolment forms before the Bar Council Gujarat, only to be met with the delays in processing their applications, leaving them in limbo.Background of Case The petitioners are 29 law graduates from various law schools. On the expiry of the time stipulated for processing their enrolment forms which had been filed with the Bar Council of Gujarat, they were denied the certificates which are essential for appearing for AIBE examination mandatory to be cleared by the law graduates for being on the panel of lawyers in India. The graduates alleged that even when they had placed all their documents in place and followed the enrolment process, no reason was given for delaying their applications. This not only jeopardized their professional goals but also prevented them from beginning practice as it does not allow passing without recognition as an advocate to practice before courts in India. Gujarat High Court's Intervention This being a serious matter, the Gujarat High Court stepped in. The court ordered the Bar Council of India to issue provisional certificates to the 29 law graduates whose enrolment forms were not cleared in time. According to the court, the delay was not the petitioners' but they should not become a victim of administrative inefficiencies. The High Court came to an emphatic statement that law graduates must be provided with a fair opportunity to undertake the AIBE and kick off their careers as lawyers. According to it, until and unless those who pass the LL.B exam also are provided with an opportunity to sit for the examination, any procedure that gets delayed would be unjust. The provisional certificates would, of course, be subject to the final outcome of the final enrolment process so that full enrolment status would also depend upon the fact that all formalities were correctly carried out by the Bar Council of Gujarat. Implications of the Judgement In this light, the relief that the Gujarat High Court directive holds for 29 law graduates is quite significant. These graduates could not foresee their future when the bureaucratic delay unfolded. The court ensured that these graduates are not placed at a disadvantageous position in claiming their legal career by allowing them to sit for AIBE with provisional certificates.
In a significant judgment, Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected anticipatory bail for the father of a minor co-passenger accused of tampering with evidence by allegedly bribing doctors at Sassoon Hospital to switch his son's blood sample with that of the co-accused to save him from the legal hammerBackground about the case: Case of a high-speed road accident with a luxury Porsche car in Pune. This accident tends to result in grave injury and has brought up the alarm about rash driving. There are rumors that the under-age was sitting behind the wheel with his other co-passengers under-aged too. During the investigation by the police, so many loopholes have come into the limelight such as underage driving and dangerous speeding. The father of one of the co-passengers faced the heat when charges were raised that he paid doctors at Sassoon Hospital to exchange his son's blood sample for another individual victim of the accident. This was done so that his son would not face any legal action in the case as investigations were showing that he, too, had been traveling in the taxi when the accident occurred. Bombay High Court Observations The Bombay High Court observed prima facie evidence of the father's involvement in tampering with most important piece of evidence while rejecting the father's anticipatory bail plea. According to the court, bribing the medical professionals to thereby misreport the blood samples is a serious crime which not only causes obstructions to the process of investigation but also dilutes the legal proceedings. The court remarked that such acts are of grave severity, particularly when minors are involved, and were questioning how such tampering would defeat the very purpose of any investigation while seriously impacting the outcome of the investigation. The judge had some comments upon the actions by the father, commenting that if it is indeed true, his actions could also spell out far-reaching implications for the case because he might have wanted to cover other wrongdoers behind this. Legislative and Social Constraints Therefore, this judgment hints that the judiciary is not very lenient with the attempts of manhandling the process of court, especially matters pertaining to serious offenses like rash driving and evidence manipulation. The denial of anticipatory bail by the court denotes that in any case, where an individual attempts to thwart justice, the law will be applied, irrespective of whether he is a noble soul trying to save members of his family..
In a decisive judgement, the Delhi High Court has permitted health and wellness leader Dr. Nikhil Himatsingka's product Bournvita that manages FoodPharmer to carry on what he describes as factual comments on the popular health drink Bournvita. However, the court did stick to its stand that Himatsingka should refrain from making any derogatory remarks about the product, for which the interim order dated October 15, 2023 continues to be in force.Background of the Case The case began with a video presentation of FoodPharmer, Dr. Nikhil Himatsingka, who posted in a series on social media against the nutritional content of the product of Mondelez India-Bournvita. His claims disputed the health benefits that were depicted along with high sugar content and ingredients he thought could not best be suitable for the children's health. Mondelez India went on to file a legal suit claiming that Himatsingka's videos were defamatory and further damaging the reputation of Bournvita. The Delhi High Court proceeded to issue an interim order on 15th October, restraining Himatsingka from releasing any disparaging remarks against Bournvita; although it did not place a demand for his videos to be taken off the online platforms immediately. Delhi High Court Ruling The Delhi High Court clarified the ambit of right to comment upon the product on part of Himatsingka in the clarification order. The Delhi High Court held that FoodPharmer can comment upon the factual information of Bournvita, including nutritional composition and health implications of ingredients in Bournvita, as long as such comments were based upon verifiable fact and not malice. The court, however, continues to maintain the interim order which bars Himatsingka from using language of disparagement or making any sort of defamatory statement that may harm the brand image of Bournvita. The business interests of Mondelez India are anything that may be possibly 'misleading' or 'pernicious'. The court balanced free speech with the protection of commercial interests. Although Himatsingka has a right to present factual comment, him doing so on matters that may give justifiable grounds for harming Bournvita's reputation is not allowed. Implications of the Judgment This judgment becomes precedent for how the courts will take over such cases involving freedom of speech, consumer rights, and corporate reputation. While it allows critics to let their opinions run loose under fact-based analysis and commentary on consumer products as a gateway to the public's right to know, it draws clear lines against defamatory and misleading content.
As part of efforts to uphold professionalism and credibility within the legal profession, the Bar Council of India recently revealed that it had removed 107 fake lawyers from the rolls in Delhi. The secretary of BCI, Srimanto Sen, who has initiated this move has stated that this is the second phase of a broader campaign by the council aimed at cleansing the profession from unregistered practitioners. With the lawyers playing such an influential role in upholding justice and the rule of law, the BCI is being forced to take on such measures to ensure the field remains pure.The term fake lawyers refers to lawyers that are practicing law without possessing proper qualifications or enrollment in BCI, which is considered the basic requirement for acting as a lawyer in India. The legal profession has always been regulated in order to ensure that only a person who fulfills and surpasses stringent educational requirements can be allowed to practice within India. Enrolment in BCI requires proof of having graduated in law from any recognized institution. One must then undergo enrolment in the respective state bar councils. Enrolled lawyers will get an enrolment number which itself is a sort of proof of authorization. The council, BCI, to remove those un-qualified professionals from practicing the law shows that it cannot allow unscrupulous activity to enter its council, and permit unscrupulous activities by any sort of law professional. The council conducts regular audits and inspections to verify the credentials of individuals listed on its roll, and it usually finds discrepancies, which are then corrected. The action taken recently in Delhi is part of a greater exercise by the BCI to cleanse the system with an eye to restoring public confidence in the legal fraternity and ensuring that clients are represented by genuinely qualified professionals. Removing unqualified practitioners from the rolls of legal practice may be essential in keeping the judiciary's prestige alive. Without doubt, people who are not qualified make the profession cheap and sometimes confuse and mislead the litigants as they do not observe the level of professional ethics the law practitioners are expected to adhere to, Srimanto Sen said. These "pseudo" lawyers do not only diminish public confidence in the judiciary but also harm the professions of some truly qualified lawyers who have spent a great deal of time, money, and hard work in becoming qualified lawyers. This move by BCI is a wake-up call to the other areas of India as well that similar issues are going on there. The council needs to continue vigilance and ensure similar verifications in the other states too, by which it would be quite hopeful that this would become a deterrent to the people seeking to exploit the profession on fraudulent grounds. Further, it is considering some measures about strengthening the verification process against new entrants and so that it is hard for fraudulent people to penetrate into this legal system.
The Delhi High Court recently intervened in the case of nine Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) students suspended over allegations of sexual harassment. Granting interim relief, the Court observed procedural lapses in the university's handling of the matter, particularly noting that the suspension was imposed without affording the students an opportunity to present their side. The students had appeared before the Court with a claim that they did not know what was against them and that there was no hearing before a suspension order was issued against them by the university.In its decision, the Court has cited principles of natural justice and made it imperative to have due process in place on matters of this sort, more so when such cases directly relate to the career of a student as well as the reputation that gets associated with his or her name. The judge made clear that suspension without notice and any hearing to defend is considered denial of fundamental fairness. In such cases, interim relief, effectively puts the suspension in abeyance, allowing students to go back to class until the final verdict. In any case, the allegations against the students of sexual harassment are serious, especially because the university has a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual misconduct. However, the students claim to be ignorant of the basis of such allegations and the specific incidents they are accused of. They further argue that this suspension order has adversely affected their academic standing and reputation among other students in the university. Besides, they pointed out that the decision has exposed them to severe mental strain and distracted them from their studies. For the case of sexual harassment cases, it is normally the duty of the committee against sexual harassment (CASH) to probe into complains and prescribe necessary disciplinary action. Yet in the students' legal representatives claims that in the said case procedures had not been adhered by the committee and that adequate information or evidence was neither produced nor shown to verify allegations against the students. According to defense since clear information and evidence had not been shown to present before the students, mounting proper defense was practically impossible. Delhi High Court took cognizance of these apprehensions and made a query as to the decision of suspension of these students without any due process. The Court observed that educational institutions are statutorily mandated to protect the rights of students, and the rights do include the right to being heard in disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, in this regard, the decision-making process of the university would be reviewed and the opportunity of a fair hearing must be given to the students so that they may get a chance to respond against the allegations leveled against them.
Landmark judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court under the bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: Children born of an invalid marriage have the right to get their birth registered. This case is another reminder of the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination with an attempt to protect all the children's identity and rights irrespective of the marital status of their parents.In our case under review, the local authorities would not accept the petitioner due to a mismatch between that relationship between the petitioner's two parents and what was legally defined by law as forming a family, namely what constituted a legal marriage between them. Rejection as such becomes an issue upon recognition by the law and public in general over a child: an important source of pressure upon accessing various services. Justice Rewal Dua observed that de-nosing birth registration of children belonging to invalid marriages violates elementary rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India. The court relied on Article 14, which prescribes the principle of equality before law, and Article 21, which grants the fundamental right to life and human dignity. The judge stressed that these are "human beings" who must also be recognized on the document to prevent them from being condemned by fate. Further, the court emphasized the greater implications denied birth registration brings to this case. In essence, a child who remains without recognition may face restraints in accessing primary education and health care, as well as all other public goods and services. Birth registration is of huge importance for identity and to establish nationality, and more critically, to give them an identity of national origin. That further places the child into continuing cycles of exclusion and disenfranchisement. Justice Dua relied on progressive interpretations to harmonize with the international commitments that India ratified, such as the UNCRC, where it is ratified that every child has an entitlement for an immediate registration in birth and an identity. In light of this, the High Court directed the local authority to carry out the petitioner's application without prejudice of any form toward the circumstances under which the child was born. The court ordered a result of immediate registration toward having the right of a child to his or her identity and its legal recognition observed. This landmark judgment further strengthens the proposition that a child's rights cannot be overridden by the judgments of the society in the matter of the legality of his or her parents' marriage. Observations of Justice Dua do resonate well with the emerging recognition within Indian jurisprudence of the superior claims of child welfare and rights over the conventional norms and discriminatory attitudes.
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a father is liable to maintain his child, even if the mother is earning enough. The judgment clarifies that the financial capability of the mother does not negate the paternal responsibility, thus reinforcing the principle that the welfare of the child is paramountThe case has been based upon a dispute in which the father argued that since he was not to be taxed for his wife's maintenance, he should not need to pay for the child from his pocket either since his wife was earning a good salary. The Court rejected that argument and pointed out to the father that his duties towards the child's support do not cease with such an argument, regardless of the wife's financial position. The court elucidated that child support, as opposed to providing only elementary needs, is actually "general welfare," including such aspects as quality education and health care and standard living in accordance with the dignity of the family. His excellency justice, while unnamed, established that the rights of a child supersede both parent's rights, and that neither of them is exempt to share the responsibilities for nurturing and well-being of the child. Such provisions relate to the well-established legal precedents and statutes such as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) relating to maintenance of wives, children, as well as parents. This provision ensures even a child has rights to be maintained by the father irrespective of the mother's ability to do it financially. The Court pointed out that such denial could violate the child's rights and also accrue economic inequality that would negatively affect the child's development. It would fall under previous judgments of the courts as the High Court insisted that financial responsibility cannot avoid equitability and always must be divided. The fact that the mother has a big amount coming into her pockets can't relieve the father's liability. This judgment also represents a broader view: societal norms are evolving into those where both parents expect the other to raise a child while not letting a financially independent parent become a basis for the other parent not to take responsibility. This judgment reminds one of the principles of equity as well as the role parents assume when it comes to matters related to the welfare and upbringing of children. That is, both parties concerned with the future of a child are obliged to share, without regard to any differentiation in earning capacity between their own persons. Hence the judgment adds strength to that understanding: child maintenance can only be a joint or firm duty so as not to compromise children's entitlement towards supportive and balanced care for upbringing..
The petition has been moved by Kaustubh Shakkarwar, a lawyer who is currently pursuing Masters of Law (LLM) in Intellectual Property and Technology Laws at the Jindal Global Law School.The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday sought OP Jindal Global University’s response on a student’s petition against the decision to declare his submission in an exam as AI-generated. Justice Jasgurpeet Singh Puri listed the matter for further hearing on November 14.The petition was moved by Kaustubh Shakkarwar, a lawyer who is currently pursuing Masters of Law (LLM) in Intellectual Property and Technology Laws at the Jindal Global Law School.Interestingly, the petitioner had previously worked as a law researcher with the Chief Justice of India and runs an AI platform related to litigation. He also practices in the fields of Intellectual Property law
The Supreme Court today (November 5) held by a majority of 8:1 that all private properties cannot form part of the 'material resources of the community' which the State is obliged to equitably redistribute as per the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.The Court held some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they are material and belong to the community.The 9-judge bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.The majority opinion was authored by the CJI, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.
In a nine jurist Constitution bench majority decision holding that all private properties cannot constitute ‘the material resources of the community’ within the meaning of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) read with Article14 of Constitution the learned Judge dissented.The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih by 7:2 argued that certain private properties falls under Article 39(b) just as it may be qualified as a ‘material resource of the community’. However, Justice Nagarathna agreed partly.The majority judged in favour of that perception that Justice Krishna Iyer sought to advance in the case of State of Karnataka v. The general opinion associated with the practice of considering private properties as community resources has been derived from the eminent work of Ranganatha Reddy (1978). Further, the judgment of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. (1983) where the court upheld the view of Justice Iyer was take to be wrong.In his 97-page dissent, Justice Dhulia also observed that he utterly subscribed to the CJI majority judgment in the Article 31C aspect and that, to the extent held valid in Kesavananda Bharati, survives, unamended.
The court was rather clear to remind that complicances that go as far as those unforeseen do not in any way suggest that the doctor has behaved negligently in discharging his/her professional obligations. The Supreme Court has noted that doctors can in no way be called to account for negligence merely on the ground that the operation or treatment attended with the anticipated results, and that they can be made to answer for their misdeeds only when there are circumstances which speak of negligence and or deviation from the standard methods. In a judgment that affirmed categories of claim suits against healthcare specialists, the court held that complications, let alone unpredictable ones, are not sufficient to allege that a doctor has not exercised the proper degree of care and competence. The court said, “A doctor cannot be held liable for negligence straightway by applying the principle of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’, merely for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or the surgery has failed, unless the evidence was led that the doctor failed to exercise the degree of skill possessed by him while, thus discharging of his duties”
The chief justice of India DY Chandrachud retired form judicial service on Friday and the supreme court of India bid him off with a ceremonial send off. Finally at night I was wondering that at 2 the court would be empty, and I will be there looking at a screen and there I am I’m humbled to be in front of all of you. Its work goes on from one human being to another and different people will have different views…The person who will follow me is so strong, such a pillar of strength- Justice Khanna, a man of the court, so conscious of history,” said the CJI. The CJI in a remark demonstrating affection to judiciary and justice said he wished to take up as many matters as possible before the Ceremonial Bench will be called, this was looked as a farewell to the service. The CJI also apologized in case he ‘ever hurt anyone’ adding that it is the court that sustains him through the strength of the institution. He thanked the lawyers for attending the Ceremonial Bench.
All Legal Services Authorities commemorate 9th November every year as “Legal Services Day” along the line of the appeal made by Chief Justice A.S.Anand in the First Annual Meet. The first Annual Meeting of the State Legal Services Authorities (NALSA) was chaired on 12th September 1998 in New Delhi and it discussed about the existing schemes and decide the way forward to make the legal aid schemes more effective in India.The day is spent in raising awareness and fight for the poor people and underprivileged, and stresses on the thought that nobody should be denied the legal aid because of his/her poverty. Press release, it publishes Press Releases in prominent English, Hindi and regional newspapers regarding Legal Services Authorities Act, Legal Aid Schemes Lok Adalats sessions & Legal awareness regarding rights of people.