It seeks the application of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to political parties. The petitioner has argued that political parties, like any other organization, should also provide a safe working place for women and have well-functioning mechanisms to tackle sexual harassment.Background The POSH Act is designed to protect women against sexual harassment in all Indian workforces. It requires the establishment of Internal Complaints Committees, which are responsible for making inquiries and determining decisions based on complaints about harassment. Political parties, on the other hand, notwithstanding having a large number of women working within different capacities, are not mentioned explicitly in the Act today. The petitioner submits that such mechanisms within political parties would save women from exploitation, discrimination, and harassment. The plea underlines the fact that political entities mostly function in informal structures where hierarchical and power structures deter women from raising their voices or seeking redressal. Important Arguments in the PIL Definition of Workplace Political parties are workplaces for female members, employees, and volunteers, the PIL submits, which bring them under the purview of the broader workplace definition of the POSH Act. Constitutional Protection: The petitioner submitted that denial of protection offended articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to have equality, non-discrimination, and right to life with dignity. Gender parity in Politics: Safe spaces in political parties would lead to more participation of women in politics, which is one of the central objectives of India's policy on gender equality and empowerment. International Obligations: India being a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has a commitment to adopt measures to prevent and address harassment in all spheres, including political spaces. Reliefs Sought The PIL seeks directions to Mandate political parties to constitute the ICCs under the POSH Act. Training and awareness on gender sensitivity and workplace harassment within the political organizations. Establish a monitoring body responsible for compliance. Potential implications This would be a great move of the Supreme Court of India extending POSH to political parties for the accountability and inclusiveness in politics. This step would resolve the systemic issue of harassment and create more open spaces for women's safety in politics. Conclusion This PIL seeks imperative, urgent action bringing the political parties within the fold of POSH Act, gender justice within the political framework, and providing equal opportunities at the workplaces. The response from the Supreme Court will be decisive on the issue.
India's Supreme Court refused a petition demanding eviction of protesting farmers, from roadways which had come under the banner of Samyukta Kisan Morcha which was termed to be non-political. On these grounds, the matter being already dealt in judicial verdicts, SC made this judgment that such kind of petitions should not come for submission before it at timely intervals.Background They have been camping on highways across Delhi since late 2020, protesting demanding contentious agricultural reforms. Assuring MSP and withdrawing the laws they feel are pro-corporate and anti-farmer is at the core of their demands. Though the Indian government rolled back the three contentious farm laws in 2021, the protesters have continued to take the streets and demand better guarantees. The prolonged siege of highways has caused immense hardship in the daily commute and the freight movement, which raises legitimate legal challenges to urge removal. Plea key points The petitioner argued that blocking highways is a violation of the right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and causes inconvenience to the public. They argued that demonstrations should take place in the designated places, not on the public roads. Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court bench, dismissing the plea, observed: The issue of highway protests had been dealt with earlier and directions had been given to weigh up the right to protest with the right of movement by the public. The Court has reiterated its disinclination to entertain repetitive petitions on settled issues. Rights of Protestors: The Court came to understand that while public inconvenience needs to be reduced to the bare minimum, peaceful protest is the fundamental democratic right as envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Responsibilities of the Authorities: The court observed that while dealing with such protests, the executive and the local authority are more responsible in striking a balance of citizens' rights between the two without depriving the crux of democratic expression. Reaction to the Judgement It's the vindication of its democratic right to peaceful protest, say leaders of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha. Once again, it emphasizes that their movement is non-political and targets grievance redressal by farmers. Critics feel blockades that go on for too long disturb public life and require stronger enforcement of legal measures controlling public space. The Supreme Court decision underlines in no uncertain terms the fine balance between democratic rights and public inconvenience. It reaffirmed the right of farmers to protest but left the onus on the authorities to manage such situations pragmatically so that they cause minimal disruption to the citizens' daily lives. This ruling has once again underlined the importance of dialogue and negotiation in resolving large-scale public grievances.
Chief Justice of India has constituted a special bench to hear petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991. This Act bars the alteration of the religious character of any place of worship as of August 15, 1947, excepting the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.Background of the Act: The Places of Worship Act, 1991 was enacted with the objective of preserving communal harmony and furthering secularism by freezing the status of places of worship existing at the time of India's independence. Therefore, the law criminalizes any effort to convert, alter or recharacterize such a place. However, this law has been questioned under various grounds, such as alleged violation of the Constitution's right to equality, freedom of religion, and the right to judicial remedies.Selective Exclusion The exclusion of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy has been characterized as a contradiction in the very principle of the Act. Judicial Oversight: Petitioners argue that the prohibition from trying disputes relating to places of worship violates judicial review. Special Bench Structure and Schedule The three-member special bench- Chief Justice Chandrachud, along with Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala-will consider these very essential constitutional questions. In fact, the Court had even issued a notice to the Union Government to file their reply. This, too, would play a vital role in the deliberation of the case. Ramifications of the Case The ruling holds deep implications for secular and communal harmony in India. If the Act remains undisturbed, it strengthens preservation of the status quo around places of worship and makes an assertion by the State toward its commitment to maintaining peaceful harmony.
The Supreme Court of India had passed a landmark directive with the aim to correct systemic inefficiencies resulting in death penalty cases becoming interminably long and protracted. A judgment, thus, seeks to redeem the principles of justice wherein a fair and expeditious procedure is offered for the persons facing capital punishment.Background of the Case It also took suo motu cognizance of delays in death penalty cases, a lot of times causing unrelenting mental agony on convicts and their victimized families along with the entire justice administration. Broader procedural inefficiencies leading to delayed communications of the sentence, dragging on and execution of appeals and mercy petitions were addressed in discussion. It originates from cases where inmates are left on death row for years on account of pending litigation, conflicting verdicts, or red tape. Critical Directives Issued Timeline for Execution Procedures: The court said in cases of capital punishment, there should be a timeline observed. When the trial court gives a death penalty, the high courts must speed up their review within six months from then. Pivotal Psychological Examination: The Court ensured humane treatment by ordering the psychiatric examination of all the death-row convicts at different stages, including the stage before execution. The reports shall be sent to the concerned authorities to judge the convict's mental state. Correct Communication of Sentence: Authorities were ordered to communicate the sentence of death-row inmates to them immediately, along with rights such as appeal and mercy petitions. Legal Aid: As evident by the judgment, quality legal aid should be provided for convicts at the appeals and review stages and when mercy petitions are filed. Compilation of Execution Data The Supreme Court ruled that for systemic errors to be identifiable, there must be written records of death penalty judgments involving dates of execution as well as delays in executions taking place. The judgment of the Court is likely to strike a balance between the rights of convicts and victims, thereby strengthening the procedural fairness enshrined in the Constitution. The directive aims at reducing the psychological trauma of protracted death-row periods and upholding the principles of justice and humanity. These directions are a progressive step toward reforming India's capital punishment framework, setting a precedent for other cases involving fundamental human rights.
The Supreme Court of India had recently referred a major legal question with regard to the property rights of women under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to a larger Bench. The reason behind this decision is to clarify the inconsistencies in the interpretation regarding the amendments to the said Act and settle the law concerning the inheritance rights of the daughters in the Hindu family.Background of the case The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended in 2005 to give daughters an equal coparcenary right to ancestral property as is accorded to sons. Still, the judicial verdict has been inconsistent, thus muddying the water as far as the applicability of these rights from before is concerned. The core issue is whether daughters can claim rights in coparcenary property if the father or other coparcener had died before the amendment came into effect on September 9, 2005. Conflicting Judgments There are several conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court: In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the Court held that the amendment does not apply if the father had died before 2005. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018), the Court held that daughters have equal rights even though their father may have died before the amendment. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) is a three judge Bench which clarified that daughters are coparceners by birth, and their rights do not depend on the date of death of their father. The settled partitions were, however, left unaddressed. It accepted the fact that such confusion and conflicting judgments from different lower courts needed to be brought out to a logical conclusion by an authority. The referral primarily relates to two issues: First, whether the amendment introduced in 2005 was retrospective or prospective in its applicability. Second, whether it had been effective when there were already settled inheritance rights or the father died prior to 2005. Referral Significance This decision has critical implications for women's inheritance rights in rural and patrilineal societies where this is most common. Decisive judgment by the Appellate Bench would standardize the interpretation of laws, providing uniformity and ensuring justice to women. By referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Supreme Court reiterates its commitment to filling up the gaps in interpretation and ensuring that women's rights are not violated under the Constitution. This is an important step in the strengthening of the legal framework for gender equality in property inheritance.
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, enacted to protect women against cruelty in matrimonial homes. While trying to focus on safeguarding women against genuine harassment, the Court expressed its concern over the increasing trend of women weaponizing this law to exert undue pressure on their husbands and in-laws.Section 498A was enacted in 1983 as a legal response to combat cruelty against women, especially dowry harassment. The section defines cruelty as an act that drives a woman to commit suicide or causes grievous injury to her mental or physical health, which includes harassment for dowry. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that, with time, there has been a growing trend of misuse of this provision for settling personal scores. The Court, in its judgment, noted that some women misuse Section 498A to coerce their husbands into acceding to unreasonable demands. The demands may be for monetary concessions or lifestyle preferences that may not have any resemblance to the spirit of the law. Misuse of this provision burdens the judicial system and tarnishes the reputation of innocent people, straining familial relationships and causing emotional distress. The Supreme Court underlined the destructive effect such misuse has on the institution of marriage. False cases create mistrust, stigmatize people, and generate hatred among family members. Moreover, these frivolous cases waste judicial resources from genuine cases of cruelty and dowry harassment. To curb the misutilization of Section 498A, the Court has mooted some safeguards. The Court has called for appropriate investigation by the police before invoking this provision to register cases. The judicial officers were advised to go into the evidence threadbare before taking cognizance to frame charges so that false cases do not go for trial. In addition, the Court has mooted to explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in matrimonial disputes like mediation for resolving the disputes amicably. While reiterating its importance in protecting women through Section 498A, Supreme Court cautioned against the misuse of the same for personal vendetta. The judgment would yet again remind everyone that protection legislation can not be utilized to harass or gain a wrong advantage over others.
The State of Tamil Nadu informed Madras High Court that there were still 153 detenues behind bars despite grant of bail. This disturbing matter shows how systemic failure is preventing timely release of detainees who are entitled to freedom as per law.The facts emerged in the course of a hearing when the High Court was inquiring into the state of affairs regarding prisoners in the jails of Tamil Nadu. The State submission disclosed that bureaucratic delay, lack of communication, and procedural inefficiency were major causes for which these people were still detained. The Court expressed serious concern over this infringement on basic rights. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stipulates the right to life and personal liberty. It also undermines the public's trust in the criminal justice system. The delay in communication of bail orders to prison authorities is considered one of the significant reasons for this situation. Many a time, there is delay in transmitting bail orders, so prisoners remain ignorant of the bail granted or the prison authorities fail to take timely action. Additionally, logistical problems like delays in the provision of bail bonds or failure to find sureties compound the problem. The Court noted that failures of such nature burden, not only the prisoners but, also, place undue burdens on the prisons. Detention beyond what is required to be kept by law strains cramped jails and diverts scarcest resources that otherwise might have been used for purposes other than judicial or administrative. The Madras High Court directed the State to take measures for the time-bound execution of bail orders. Suggestions made include digital platforms that would ensure real-time communication between courts and prison authorities, legal aid to remand prisoners so that they can complete the formalities to get out on bail. This case brings out the paramount need for systemic reforms in India's criminal justice system to ensure that procedural delays do not affect the rights of individuals. It also underlines the importance of holding administrative and judicial systems accountable for the fact that bail orders have to be executed without delay.
Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition that was filed by one Sultana Begum. Her claim is as one Bahadur Shah Zafar's descendant; in all probability, the last Mughal Emperor of India. She claimed she owns the Red Fort which symbolizes a huge heritage symbol and is under the care and jurisdiction of the Government of India. This, obviously represents the legal complication at one level with regard to any such historical claims.Background of the Case Sultana Begum, the wife of the late Mirza Mohammad Bedar Bakht, a pretender to the house of Bahadur Shah Zafar, appeared before the court. She claimed that this property was originally Mughal property fraudulently acquired by the British East India Company after capturing Delhi in the 1857 Revolt. The petition claimed that after India gained independence in 1947, the rightful ownership of the fort should have reverted to the descendants of the Mughals. The petitioner had contended that the seizure of the fort by the British and its subsequent management by the Indian government was a violation of her ancestral rights. She sought directions for the fort to be handed back to her as a legal heir. Court's Observations However, Delhi High Court dismissed the plea because of a series of legal and procedural hurdles. The court went further and commented that claims of historical lineage and ancestral rights cannot be automatically translated into actionable legal rights, especially where the property has remained a public asset for over a century. The court added that the petition was not only bereft of substantive evidence to prove that Sultana Begum was a direct descendant of Bahadur Shah Zafar but also did not establish her locus standi in the case. The bench also stated that the Red Fort is a national monument and its administration is being taken care of by the government. Legal Implications This is because claims to public property must be supported by enforceable rights and credible evidence. The court emphasized the fact that public interest for preserving national monuments is supreme over private claims based on historical grievances. Conclusion This case reminds the fact that although ancient fables are still significant, in the present time it is modern laws and constitutional provisions that govern the legality of ownership of such national treasures as the Red Fort. It has been dismissed from her plea that the court was unbiased in its steps to protect the heritage of the nation with the legal provision.
Jharkhand High Court stayed the law passed by the state government to implement 75% reservation in jobs under the private sector. It has evoked widespread reaction since it was termed a landmark decision on the aspect of unemployment at the regional level. The constitutional validity is a pertinent issue in the bill as well.Background of the Law This was the Jharkhand State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2021 that helped to ensure that there would be employment in the state by private sector jobs of any state for remunerations up to ₹40,000 a month. The law has compelled its private employers within the state to employ at least 75% of the local people within their workforce. It had intended to reduce the swelling unemployment crisis of the youth of Jharkhand by reserving jobs in industries, factories, and businesses for the domiciled population of the state. The employers were required to register their workforce details on a government portal and ensure compliance with reservations. Petitions filed against the law Several business associations and private companies challenged the law, arguing that it infringed on their fundamental right to conduct business freely under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners also argued that such mandatory reservation would deter skilled labor availability and investment in the state, thereby affecting its economic growth. They also stated that discriminatory practices would arise with this law since it emphasized domicile status and not merit or skill, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which is equality before the law. Court Observations The Jharkhand High Court, while granting stay to the law, said prima facie it throws up serious constitutional concerns. The court noted that it could have a significant ramification on the rights at the foundation and ease of doing business in the state. The Jharkhand High Court's stay of the law of 75% reservation underlines the role that judicial scrutiny has in seeing that state policies align themselves with constitutional mandates. Such a case is a reminder that although unemployment issues are very crucial to be addressed, policy measures must balance socio-economic objectives with fundamental rights and business interests.
Important directions issued by the Kerala High Court to safeguard juvenility from being tried as an adult and hence reaffirmed protection given under the Act Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: It is reflected in judgments about the judiciary's concern with safeguarding the rights of minors and correcting errors of procedure in the process.The Juvenile Justice Act is, in fact, a special mechanism of justice with rehabilitation and integration of children into society at its core. At times, due to procedural errors, juveniles are dealt with in the same way as adults. Observations from the Courts The Kerala High Court observed in the said case that this cannot be done unless procedures followed by the Juvenile Justice Act are adhered to while determining the age of the accused.The bench observed that an incorrect identification of a juvenile as an adult deprives the juvenile justice system of the very purpose, which it seeks to fulfill, to rehabilitate since the child is then treated with punitive measures rather than corrective measures. It laid down the principle that administration of justice should be in furtherance to the welfare and development of minors. Guidelines Engrafted High Court prescribed guidelines for this purpose to avoid mistakes. Mandatory Age Verification: If the juvenile accused is a minor, then all age verification must be done at the earliest level with birth certificates, school records, or medical checks if required. Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB): All age disputes arise must be settled by JJB and their decision must be final unless appealed. Training to Authorities: Law enforcement officers and judicial officers must be educated on how to detect children and also procedures that are adopted in the Juvenile Justice Act. Periodical Review Cases of juveniles must be reviewed periodical to check the procedure adopted, which protects the rights of the juvenile as well. End The guidelines by the court would be a proactive measure in preventing undue hardships to minors from the criminal justice system. This judgment, therefore, reinforces the child protection and rehabilitation principles at the core of the Juvenile Justice Act. Conclusion The judgment of the Kerala High Court is a vital intervention in ensuring that the judiciary treats juveniles fairly. Strict compliance with age determination procedures is mandated, and this along with the welfare of the minors is what made the court reaffirm the role of the judiciary as guardians of vulnerable sections of society.
Recently, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed constitutional rights of individuals to decide about their personal choices including whom they want to love. It rejected objections over a Hindu woman cohabiting in a live-in relationship with a Muslim man where the court emphasized on individual autonomy and a right to life and liberty offered under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.She, however, contended the relationship as a non-consensual one, and said that she had chose the man. Thus the case highlighted the emerging tides of tension in Indian interfaith relationships, increasingly catching societal attention and court litigious disputes. Judicial Observations The Bombay High Court dismissed the objections from the woman's family, who asserted that the personal decisions taken by the woman were within her rights under the Constitution. Right to Personal Liberty- Article 21 protects each citizen's right to life and personal liberty. As such, it has freedom to choose a companion or to live with that partner without interference. Nature of the Relationship The court regarded the relationship as consensual and between two adults. It argued that society or relatives have no right to interfere unless coercion or illegality arises in such matters. No Space for Moral Policing: The court disapproved this kind of moral policing and cultural bias against persons while opining that the personal relationship is a private affair of a person and cannot be regulated by the dictats of society or family members. Interfaith Relationships The bench further spoke on the sensitivities of interfaith relationships and told society to respect the choice of the individual and constitutional principles over traditional prejudices. Significance of the Judgment The judgment further strengthens the role of the judiciary as a protector of personal liberty and an antagonist to oppressive social norms. The judgment also makes clear the fact that the state and individuals cannot dictate one's personal choices, particularly relating to love and relations. It also points towards an increased need for more acceptable interfaith unions in such a pluralistic society of India. Conclusion The Bombay High Court's declaration, It's her life, is a great affirmation of individual rights in the face of societal and familial resistance. The court's preference for constitutional values over traditional norms has paved the way for greater acceptance of personal autonomy and freedom of choice in contemporary India.
The suicidal tragedy of Atul Subhash stirred legal debates and emotionally upheavals, and after an entire week of the event has put his estranged wife along with her family moving towards the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail. Atul, 30-year-old man from Uttar Pradesh, hung himself in November. The suicide note he left behind was so poignant that it accused his wife and her parents and brother of persistent harassment and abetment to suicide. This case has drawn widespread public attention and raises critical questions in the context of marital disputes, mental health, and the legal implications of abetment charges.Background of the Case: It is claimed that Atul Subhash had a strained relationship with his wife. For several months, the wife was staying outside. The suicide note quotes that he was constantly tortured by his wife and his in-laws. And so, this is how he had to take it to that extreme. Based on these allegations, the local police have filed an FIR under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Petition for Anticipatory Bail The estranged wife, with her family, approached Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail as she feared arrest. They contended in the petition that the allegations made against them in the suicide note are without substance and will not help to establish the charge of abetment. Further, they stated that charges under Section 306 IPC can be leveled only on direct instigation or when someone actively prompted a person to commit suicide and denied this aspect. The case has reached the High Court and the meritous consideration of the anticipatory bail application is in process. The order of the court would also be landmark one because it has to provide justice to the victim but, at the same time, must protect the rights of the accused person. Legal and Social Consequences The case points to the rather complex interaction between marital disagreement, mental illness, and legal remedy in India. Section 306 IPC mandates proof of a causal link between harassment and suicide. Such instances are mostly lacking in immediate evidence, thereby making proceedings in courts of law strenuous. The Allahabad High Court judgement will be crucial not only to the litigants in this case but to similar cases on the issue where allegations of harassment and abetment are interwoven and intertwined with family disputes, and the case also called for stronger mechanisms to combat mental health crises arising due to strained relationships.