The Punjab and Haryana High Court in a landmark judgment has ruled that a woman, who gets compassionate appointment after the death of her husband, is legally bound to maintain her mother-in-law. The court has underlined the moral as well as legal obligation of individuals to maintain dependent in-laws under certain circumstances.This case came when the petitioner's mother-in-law claimed maintenance alleging that she was left distraught following her son's demise. The petitioner who had been given a compassionate job following her husband's death argued against this claim saying that she owed no liability towards providing financial support. However, the High Court held that the right of maintenance had vested in the mother-in-law under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It made clear that Section 19 of the Act casts a liability on a widow to maintain dependent in-laws, if she is so able. The compassionate job assigned owing to her husband's untimely death was part of such ability. The court observed that the essence of compassionate appointments is providing a post to the grieved family, and in particular to dependent parents, so that they may derive financial security. If such an endeavor fails, it would defeat the very objective of the compassionate scheme. This decision reiterates that it is legally and socially imperative for widows, especially those who are beneficiary of compassionate appointments, to look after their dependent in-laws with care and concern so that they may live harmoniously.
The Police opposed the bail applications filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam as well as others in the ongoing Delhi riots case. The police stated that the accused were responsible for delays in the trial by consistently using procedural tactics to hinder the pace of the proceedings, thereby prolonging the trial.Background of the Case The two-month long Delhi riots, which began in February 2020, killed hundreds and injured many more, with widespread communal violence and property damage. Ex-JNU student leader Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, for his inflammatory speeches, were arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other charges for conspiring or inciting the riots. Khalid and Imam have both dismissed the charges. They claimed to have been wrongfully implicated on account of their disagreement with the policies of the government. Their legal team filed for bail, alleging that detention without a trial for so long is against their fundamental rights. Police Stand on Bail The Delhi Police opposed the bail applications with the argument that rioters were playing a significant role in the planning and executing of riots. According to the police, proof such as call records, social media messages, and testimony by the witnesses pointed to a well-planned conspiracy in inciting the violence. The police further contended before the court of law that at this stage, offering bail might hamper the trial itself. They further quoted the defense, which had accused it of resorting to dilatory tactics by filing repetitively and futile applications, further protracting the process of justice. Important Defence Arguments No Direct Evidence It argued that direct evidence did not associate the criminal with the horrific crime. They stated, however, that charging them assumed something and unsupported statements. Right to Speedy Trial The litigants filed their case for long stay at jail and insisted it violated rights for speedy trials provided in constitution. Health and Humanitarian Grounds: In the application, the applicants had based their case on health grounds that had deteriorated to the extent that preparation was necessary for a fair trial outside of custody. Judgment Reserved and Decision Pending To the court, "there has to be an appropriate balance in the rights of the accused persons and the interest of justice"-because this is a complicated case involving many accused persons and thus requires a large volume of evidence. Importance of the Case This case has generated a lot of interest because it throws up important issues regarding free speech, dissent, and the application of stringent laws such as UAPA. The ultimate decision regarding granting bail will have critical legal and political fallouts that could go on to shape the discussion about the balance between national security and individual liberties. The court is likely to pronounce its decision on the bail applications, and the two sides are closely watching it because it may shape the larger narrative of the Delhi riots investigation.
This development is in the approach of the judiciary toward the integration of technology into judicial proceedings. This judgment is an example of the court's realization that procedural fairness must be balanced with practicality in the access of modern legal systems.Case Background The case emanated from a litigation where one of the parties sought permission from the court to carry out cross-examination of a witness from a different location based on logistical and cost reasons. The other party protested the request because examination in a physical courtroom has credibility and ensures that there will be no form of influence of the witnesses. The petitioner highlighted how virtual courts have become safe as well as effective due to present technology and tenets of service delivery of justice. Important Observations The Hon'ble Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while presiding over the matter has observed: "The right to cross-examine a witness is the culmination of cross-examination or the badge that marks the importance of a proper trial as mandated by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Such a right does not call for a need to be present physically, especially so when there exist circumstances where technology adoption which does not impair procedural fairness exists.". Video conferencing has become an ordinary tool in the process of delivering justice post-COVID-19. Access to justice was accorded to persons who, by reason of travel, health, or economic constraint, would otherwise be unduly placed at hardship. Moreover, the appeal emphasized the point that as a matter of procedure under Section 273 CrPC, where evidence is sought to be recorded in the presence of the accused, can well be satisfied by the use of live video links. The Kerala High Court has adopted some of the rules to preserve the integrity of the cross-examination process through video conferencing: Identification of the Witness: This includes some form of identification of the witness before they testify. Technology Reliability: Audio and video must be audible and clear and not much disturbed. Neutral Venue: It should be witnessed from a location which is neutral and safe to exclude external influence. Court Supervision: The proceeding must remain under the active supervision of the court. It is a historic ruling in the march toward embracing technology in order to increase access to justice. The court in allowing cross-examinations through video conferencing has indicated a willingness to reduce logistics involved without compromise on fairness and transparency. This judgment by the Kerala High Court would become a precedent in courts of other jurisdictions, when they decide such cases. The Indian judicial system will thus develop to be more comprehensive and effective.
A notorious dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala on the Mullaperiyar Dam has finally made the Supreme Court of India agree to a proper safety audit on it. The court did that as fears started coming forth all around the state over its age, which hails from years ago.This background is based on the possible vulnerabilities in the surroundings of it. The Mullaperiyar Dam was built in 1895 across the Periyar River in Kerala but is owned and operated by Tamil Nadu on lease. It is a vital part of irrigation and drinking water supply in Tamil Nadu, but the antiquity and seismic sensitivity of the dam have raised the specter of catastrophic failure. It did not stop raising alarms on the safety of the dam and asked for a new one in place, threatening loss of millions of lives and properties downstream. Tamil Nadu still argues that the dam is safe and thus should not be meddled with its operations. Observations of Supreme Court A bench of the Supreme Court, dealing with the pleas pertaining to the safety of the dam, suggested a thorough safety audit, which would be done by an independent expert committee. Underlining that the interest of both states be balanced while minimizing risks to the environment for the sake of people, the court said,. The court advised that the audit be structural analysis, hydrological studies, and testing of the capability of the dam in relation to natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. The court asked the concerned states to cooperate fully with the proposed measures and furnish necessary data to the committee. Earlier Interventions The Supreme Court has been intimately associated with the Mullaperiyar Dam issue for the last few years. It had permitted Tamil Nadu to raise the water level to 142 feet subject to regular safety review in the year 2014. Repeated pleas from Kerala on the de-commissioning of the dam and replacement have led to multiple reviews by expert committees, but no solution has been arrived at yet. Safety Audit Aftermath It would, therefore, give a scientific basis for an audit of the current state of affairs in the dam and indicate measures needed to mitigate the risk. This might even act as a confidence-building measure between Kerala and Tamil Nadu and result in more cooperation in handling the affairs of the dam. The proactive nature that the Supreme Court has portrayed in this case highlights that long-standing inter-state water disputes can and have been dealt with through a balance as well as safety-oriented framework. Still, the most crucial resolution of the Mullaperiyar Dam issue has to still depend on dialogue and consensus building between the states.
Recently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed pleas seeking a 33% reservation of women lawyers in elections to the state's bar associations in a significant order. The case had sparked quite a big debate within the legal fraternity, based on the demand for affirmative action that would ensure more representation of women in the decision-making bodies of bar associations.Background to the Case Two petitions were before the court at the instance of women lawyers canvassing for implementation of gender-based reservations in elections to bar councils. The main point was that notwithstanding a growing entry of women in the legal profession, their percentage of representation within the bar structure continued to remain despicably low. The women argued that an inadequate number of women in authoritative decision-making offices further entrenched inequality between genders, leading to improper access to this field of professions. The petitioners based their plea on constitutional provisions such as Article 14, Right to Equality, and Article 15(3), which empowers the state to make special provisions for women. They drew attention to the fact that the introduction of 33% reservation in the bar association elections would be a part of the general principle of gender justice within the Constitution. High Court's Observations The Bench of Karnataka High Court acknowledged the importance of gender equality but refused to accept the petitions, submitting that as such reservations are neither mandated by either the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the bar council rules. The court held that bar councils are independent in themselves. Mandatory reservations upon them would only require legislative intent rather than judicial enforcement. The court also observed that though the rationale behind the demand was noble, judicial overreach in the absence of clear legislative provisions would itself undermine the very institutional autonomy of bar associations. It further held that only policy reforms should bring about sustainable change in the manner of representation and not by judicial pronouncements. Implications of the Judgment It has evoked mixed reactions from the legal fraternity. While its proponents argue it is the need of the hour in the absence of affirmative measures as systemic hurdles will be perpetual to deem women absent in positions of power, the critics have suggested that reservations may eventually run into the issue of meritocracy and democratic working within bar councils. Legal experts argue that this judgment shows what legislative intervention is required in professional organizations to fill the gender disparities. They also advocate for more mentorship and support systems that will make women lawyers contest elections and gain leadership positions organically. This verdict would remind that, although the impetus to achieve gender equity falls within the constitutional horizon, a balance has to be met, which the effort should come through legislation and legislature as well as societal will. Reservation for women in bar elections would most likely continue to be a contentious issue and thus push the stakeholders toward radical solutions towards ensuring inclusion within the legal profession.
A landmark and rights-protective judgment was handed down by the Bombay high court which said a father cannot stall his minor child from getting a passport by announcing that he will not give his consent. It is on facts that the major battle of parents is forgotten on the ground when children's rights have to take precedence.The case was based on a petition filed by a mother who wanted to obtain a passport for her minor child. She prayed that her husband, estranged spouse of hers, had not given any consent for issuance of a passport for the child without any reasonable cause for doing so. She also pleaded that her husband's denial to give consent was harassment and indirectly affected the child's right to travel and engage in other ventures. The father, who opposed the petition, said his consent was mandatory under the Passport Act, 1967 and accused the mother of trying to alienate the child from him. Observations of High Court The court noted that this is an elementary right of the child to hold a passport as part and parcel of her Articles 21 rights of personal liberty and freedom of movement. The court further ruled that the requirement of parental consent cannot be allowed to become a means of denying such rights, particularly where one parent is being unreasonable. The bench pointed out that even though, generally, both the parents' consents are mandated under the Passport Act, yet the provision could not be given a color to violate the welfare of the minor. It observed that mechanisms have been developed within the law, and that children's rights may not be violated because of parentage conflicts. Court Judgment The Bombay High Court directed the Regional Passport Office to process the minor's application without requiring the father's consent. It held that the mother, being the primary caretaker of the child, is empowered to act in the best interests of the child and that she cannot be defeated by a case of withholding consent without justification over the rights of the child. Implications of the Judgment This judgment has a very important precedence in that it gives precedence to the welfare and rights of minors over the disagreements of parents. It provides clear direction for administrative authorities to balance statutory requirements with the constitutional mandate to uphold individual rights. The legal experts and child rights activists have welcomed the judgment as it further strengthens the protections for children in cases of disputes between parents. The judgment has further underlined the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the interests and fundamental rights of children by affirming that a parent's refusal to consent cannot block a minor's access to essential documents like a passport.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions against its landmark judgment declining to recognize same-sex marriages but confirming constitutional rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. The judgment, delivered in October 2023, refused to regard same-sex marriages but affirmed constitutional rights for the LGBTQIA+ community. The review petitions sought reconsideration of the refusal by the court to grant marriage equality, a stand that the bench reiterated through its order.Background of the Judgment: It was a response to the scores of petitions submitted by the litigants asserting for judicial review to be entitled to marital legal status on behalf of same-sex marriages under the prevailing law in place, the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The judgement was made, and it determined that the bar imposed by preventing the two sexes from entering marriage with each other violates the very Articles 14, 19, as well as 21 of the Indian Constitution as articles guaranteeing equality, rights of liberty and the right to life and personal dignity. The court, however, refused to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples in a split verdict. While it reiterated their rights to love, cohabit, and form relationships, the bench said that the institution of same-sex marriages needed legislation and not judicial intervention. Review Petitions and Arguments Other review petitions pointed out that the judgment further deepened discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ community because it was not yet giving them equal access to marital rights as far as inheritance, adoption, and decisions over medical interventions were concerned. The sense of urgency for judicial intervention was further argued due to an unbridgeable legislative gap on this matter. The respondents, Union Government, aver that marriage is a social institution which finds its origin in the customs and religion. Change, therefore, should be discussed and passed by Parliament. Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal This has an assertion that reminds one of general societal consensus as necessary in legislative actions. So, the judiciary's role here remains limited in issues like these. This has made it dispel the fact that maybe it would take the side with the concerns raised by the community of LGBTQIA+; yet, the only possibility of being able to approve marriage equality lay in legislation. On its behalf, the bench cleared that in its earlier judgement it held the government to work out practical problems which the homosexual couple faces, including devising ways for joint banking, housing, and medical rights. Impact of the Rejection This judgment has sparked heated debates regarding the role of the judiciary in bringing social justice into effect. Many activists and legal scholars have argued that it delays the cause of marriage equality, leaving the LGBTQIA+ community to the mercy of structural injustices. Further opinions of the supporters of the judgment are that an abiding and widely acceptable structure of same-sex marriages is required, which could be guaranteed only by legislation. This judgment has illuminated the fact that this fragile work of judicial interference, which counter-balances legislation's discretion, can be well-observed regarding emerging social order. Marriage equality is still in wait by political sphere; all probably will be activists while calling for legislations.
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea seeking exclusion of children of IAS and IPS officers from the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservation benefits in Madhya Pradesh. The bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud upheld the constitutional framework governing reservations and emphasized equity within these communities.The Plea Indeed, the petitioner has argued that even the children of IAS, IPS and other elite government officials who the petitioner refers to as the "creamy layer" cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefit of the SC/ST reservation system. It is submitted by the petitioner that this section violates the principle of equality because it gives an opportunity to avail the benefits from the marginalized class to one who enjoys great socio-economic advantage. The plea added further that such exclusion would ensure that the benefits of reservation go to the most deprived members of the SC and ST communities and thus serve the original purpose behind the affirmative action policies. Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the plea that the creamy layer was not applicable to SC and ST reservations, as clarified in earlier judgments. This was based on its landmark judgment given in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), in which it established a distinction between reservations for OBCs and those for SC and ST. The SCs and STs have, in the system of reservation, been considered in the light of historical and systemic discrimination against them, irrespective of their economic status. The court again reiterated that the primary object of these reservations was to address socio-cultural disadvantages. Government's Position Another reason why the government of Madhya Pradesh strongly defended the current policy was that they argued for this reason-that if reservations were important enough to empower SC and ST communities en masse, splitting them into classes and sub-classes would create many divisions and more intricate administrative troubles for the government itself. Larger Picture Implications This judgment has repeated the very principles that creamy layer applies not to SC/ST reservations and, therefore, socio-political considerations continue to be the basis for such policies. Even though this judgment will invite much criticism by some section of society, it will once again enforce constitutional compulsions towards attempts at social justice and equality in favor of the marginalized communities. Conclusion It clearly indicates its intent on keeping the constitutional vision of equity through the Supreme Court's decision to not alter the reservation policy. The judgment therefore preserves the status quo while reinstating the importance of affirmative action for countering deep-rooted inequalities in Indian society. Thus, this judgment spells out for the first time in very concrete terms the contours of the debate and its future direction concerning the nature and ambit of reservations in India.
As part of an ambitious effort to contain increasing levels of air pollution in Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has called for phasing out diesel vehicles and kilns fired by traditional wood and coal into cleaner technologies. The court insisted on urgency as it heard a Public Interest Litigation filed about the degrading air quality in Mumbai and the surrounding regions.The Court's Observations A division bench headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor expressed serious concern over the health hazards caused by increasing air pollution. Referring to reports highlighting the adverse impact of diesel emissions, the bench suggested that the government work towards a systematic phasing out of diesel vehicles, particularly those older than 15 years. According to the court, major contributors to the increasing PM2.5 in the atmosphere are diesel-run vehicles, that have a considerable impact on people's health: respiratory and heart diseases. According to the judgement, cities such as Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur are already exposed to alarming air quality levels; therefore, urgency is required here. Targeting Traditional Kilns Another important observation made by the court in this regard has been the massive environmental damage attributed to traditional kilns fired up with wood or coal, generally used in any industry like that of brick manufacturing as well as any bakery operation. The bench directed that these kilns should be gradually substituted with environmentally sustainable electric or gas powered kilns. The court asked the state government to find ways to help small-scale industries shift to greener technologies. Subsidies or incentives were proposed as a possible means of helping them make this shift. Role of Government Agencies The Bombay High Court further criticized the inadequacy of the enforcement of environmental laws by state agencies. It appealed to the MPCB and RTO to team up for stringent implementation of already existing norms pertaining to vehicular emissions and industrial pollutants. The court further ordered the state government to submit an action plan detailing timelines for phasing out diesel vehicles and traditional kilns, besides strategies for monitoring air quality improvement. Impact on Public Health The court has stressed on guidelines on air quality from the World Health Organization, stating how pollution of the air over a long period of time shortens life expectancy and heightens the rate of chronic diseases. Court recommendations are in line with carbon emissions reduction as advocated to benefit human health throughout the world. Conclusion The Bombay High Court has shown urgency by demanding action towards multi-faceted remedies against air pollution. The proposed step of the gradual removal of diesel vehicles and old kilns will provide an example to other states to adopt a similar measure against this type of pollution. Now, the suggestions given by the court await government reaction and action.
As a welcome measure to redress the environmental issue, the Madras High Court has constituted a Special Investigation Team to probe illegal sand mining around Tamil Nadu's reserve forests. The prima facie feeling of the court was on account of grave concern for ecological damage owing to unauthorized extraction of sands and much more stringent enforcement of environmental laws.Case Summary The case before the Madras High Court was filed through Public Interest Litigation by an environmental activist. The PIL alleged that massive illegal sand mining is going on alongside reserve forests in riverbeds and ecologically sensitive zones, mainly. Such activities, said the petitioner, besides depleting natural resources also pose threats to wildlife habitats as well as disruptions in local ecosystems. The petition also alleged that the authorities had not acted sufficiently to curb the illegal mining, and in some cases, even became an abettor. Observations by the Court A bench comprising Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu took a very serious note of the allegations made and noted that: Environmental Degradation: The court referred to the irrevocable damage done to rivers, forests, and biodiversity by the illegal mining. Lax Enforcement: The court condemned that there was no adequate step from the officials to curb such activity. Accountability: The bench felt that due to lax enforcement and corruption, illegal sand mining thrives and directed immediate accountability from the officials. Formation of SIT The court passed an order to form an SIT consisting of officials from the police, forest department, and geological experts to deal with the issue in its entirety. Key directions for the SIT are: Identifying illegal sand mines sites through site visits Investigating the involvement of local officials and other interested parties. Making recommendations to prevent future illegal sand mining. Filing the findings report in court within a specified time frame. Consequences of Illegal Sand Mining Illegal sand mining has brought many severe consequences, the Court reported including, Drying up Rivers: Over-extraction of the sand lowers the water levels and affects the natural river flows. Loss of Habitat: Reserve forests and wildlife habitats are most affected by the ecological imbalance that develops through mining. Impact on Community: Rivers and forests upon which local communities depend for living are highly dislocated. The Way Ahead The court asked the state government to utilize technology such as GPS tracking and drone surveillance to strengthen the monitoring mechanism. The court also demanded a heavy penalty for the offender and suggested the implementation of more stringent licensing procedures to regulate the sand mining business. Conclusion The proactive step shown by the Madras High Court gives a reflection about the commitment the court has on the protection of the environment and natural resources within Tamil Nadu. Constitute SIT to enable accountability in balancing the ecological disturbance in areas adversely affected by unlawful sand mining within the country.
Chhattisgarh High Court has recently refused to allow a Christian man to bury his father in his native village due to opposition by the locality's people, who argued that it would violate their customary practices as well as social harmony if a man from a different community is allowed to be buried in their locality.Case History A petitioner residing in one of the villages of Chhattisgarh had filed a complaint against the said court to interfere with the burial of the deceased father by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that death burial is part of the Christian religion and the family owns the land in question, which makes it perfectly suitable for burial. However, the local community opposed the burial by stating that the village traditionally follows a cremation-based system for disposing of the deceased. They argued that allowing a burial would contravene long-standing traditions and could lead to communal tension. Observations of the High Court The Chhattisgarh High Court, while appreciating the religious beliefs of the petitioner, underlined the need to maintain social harmony in the community. The court observed that: It would be violative of customary practices prevailing in the village. Social Harmony: Such permission granted could cause a disturbance among the villagers, which could lead to law-and-order problems. It further stated that permission granted would lead to the burial of the deceased in the Christian burial ground provided for, and therefore it would honor his religious belief and the customary practices prevailing in the village. Legal Grounds of the Decision The High Court applied the doctrine of weighing the individual rights with the interest of the society. Article 25 of the Indian Constitution grants the right to freedom of religion, which is qualified by public order, morality, and health. On this issue, the court ruled that the public order concerns outweighed the individual religious rights of the petitioner. Case of the Petitioner The petitioner had argued that: It was held on private property belonging to the family. It was an act which was perfectly lawful. They had been denied the right to bury which fell directly under Article 25 of the Constitution in order to exercise the fundamental right of professing religion. The stand of the villagers was not justifiable as it was a way to impose community practice on the private religious act of an individual. Conclusion The Chhattisgarh High Court judgment is a delicate balance between individual rights and societal norms. While the court acknowledged the religious sentiments of the petitioner, it preferred to maintain social harmony and respect the traditions of the village. The case is a challenge for courts in resolving disputes involving religious freedoms and customary practices, which requires a harmonious coexistence of diverse beliefs in Indian society.
In a bid to ensure public safety, the Gujarat High Court has banned all forms of glass-coated threads, commonly known as manja, that were used for flying kites. The high court had issued this order ahead of the popular Uttarayan festival, during which one of the most popular customs of the tradition is flying kites.Case Background Several issues emerged from this situation, which were that the glass-coated threads meant to slice up other kites were slicing humans, animals, and birds into pieces and pieces. Several incidents of severe laceration that sometimes turn out to be fatal and many wild animals are found maimed or killed in the process surfaced over the past few years. The petitioners argued that dangerous threads should strictly be regulated or even banned since these threads adversely affect public health, animal welfare, and the environment. Observations of the Court The Gujarat High Court admitted that there was a severe danger in using manja. It said that public safety was of utmost importance, and nothing could be placed above recreational activities. The court mentioned that the existence of such a ban did not help to solve the issue of availability in markets through illegal means. It observed, "Use of glass-coated threads will put human life in danger along with the infringement of rights of animals and creates disturbance in ecological balance. This is the high time when complete ban is necessary to save human life and nature." Order and Judgment It passed an order to the state government to the effect that it must: Ban on production, sale, purchase, and use of glass-coated threads, be it nylon or synthetic. Severe measures such as raids and punishment to check the circulation of the banned threads. Public awareness campaign about the hazards of manja and promotion of cotton threads as safer alternatives. The court has ordered the authority to establish helpline for filing violations and speedy action against culprits. Importance of Judgment In this background, a timely action preventing injuries and loss of human lives during Uttarayan is reflective of the judicial activism in defense of public cause and environmental preservation. Kite flying would continue to remain a part of cultural celebrations, but responsible practices would prevail over the judicial ruling that emphasized the safety issue. The very purpose of the ban is to enable Uttarayan to become a fun-filled celebration free from the threat of preventable tragedies.
Bombay HC has ruled that a false 498-A IPC case filed to correct the husband's conduct falls within the meaning of mental cruelty.In that landmark judgment it said, when false case for criminal trespass on account of having failed to respond correctly is initiated it abuses not only legal processes but inflicts mental agony inasmuch as a bad social image which are of very considerable anguish. Case Story This was a case of marital dispute where the wife had filed a case against her husband and his family under Section 498A of the IPC, which prescribes harassment of a woman by her husband or his relatives. But at the time of trial, it was found that the allegations were false and fabricated for the sole purpose of compelling the husband to do her biddings. The husband approached the court seeking relief on the ground that he had been grossly humiliated and caused emotional disturbance and reputational damage due to the false complaint. He also contended that there was no prima facie grievance on the part of the wife but a personal vendetta. Court's Observations While noting the trend of increased misuse of Section 498A, the High Court reiterated that this section should not be used as a tool for settling personal scores. Citing previous rulings of the Supreme Court, it re-affirmed that cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is also when false allegations are made against the husband. It has been pointed out in the cases that "When a spouse resorts to making false allegations of a criminal nature against the other, it strikes at the foundation of a matrimonial relationship. Such conduct is indicative of malice and disregard for the emotional well-being of the other spouse." Outcome Considering the facts and admitting of the wife that the case was filed in order to "discipline" the husband, the court term it as an act of mental cruelty. The court granted a dissolution of marriage based on those grounds and directed not to misuses protective law such as section 498A. This judgment gives a message from the judiciary that scales of justice must be balanced: protecting the rights of real victims and preventing malpractices using legal provisions. It brings a message to take laws which aim to protect women from harassment and abuse responsibly. The judgment reminds the public that legal redress should be invoked with prudence and not as coercion, and hence justice is seen to be served for all concerned.
Allahabad High Court on Friday restrained police from arresting Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair in an FIR lodged for promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion after an associate of Yati Narsinghanand, a notorious priest. The order was passed by a bench of justices Siddhartha Varma and Nalin Kumar Srivastava. But in her complaint, the general secretary of Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Trust Udita Tyagi said that Zubair posted a video of a programme aired in October 3 which he knows will enrage Muslims for them to attack him. It was further alleged that Mr Zubair posted edited clips of a priest on X, with the doings on Prophet Muhammad by Yati Narsinghanand andposted to provoke the radicals against the radical priest. As for the X post, Mr Zubair labelled the alleged speech of Yati Narsinghanand as ‘derogatory’. The FIR was filed by Ghaziabad police last month under sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 356(3) (defamation) and 351(2) (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The plea has been filed by Zubair in the high court seeking an order to quash the FIR while praying for protection against any coercive action. He said in his plea that his post did not incite violence against Yati Narsinghanand. Instead, he had only informed the police authorities about Yati Narsinghanand’s actions and had asked for action on her as per law and this surely could not incite disharmony or ill-will between two classes of people. Apart from it, he also criticized invoking the defamation provision of the BNS for seeking action against Yati Narsinghanand by sharing own made videos which are already viral.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stated that the higher forum would not intervene unless the answers are clearly wrong while suggesting that petitions relating to the CLAT 2025 in the various State High Courts essentially be transferred to one High Court for hearing and disposal. CLAT is a Common Law Admission Test for the purpose of gaining admission to under graduate and post graduate courses in law conducted by 24 National Law Universities across the country. Taken at the end of the five years, exam is conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities (CNLU), consisting of representing Universities. Courts will not intercede unless the answers are wrong … That is the law,” The Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna with Sanjay Kumar as the other member of the Bench said. The matter was under hearing of a petition by CNLU that sought consolidation of various cases that are pending in the various High Courts on the grounds that indecision on them aggravated by uncertainty of outcome was delaying the admission process. But this Chief Justice Khanna did not oblige on the request to shift the case to the apex court. The CJI said that a previous application seeking a similar order had been dismissed by the apex court in December 2024. In that case, the petitioner was requested to proceed to the High Court. The Chief Justice apparenciaedly wanted all the PILs questioning the CLAT 2025 results to be transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The disposal rate has been found quite satisfactory where the subject court is the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Better than the others. That is why I suggested it,” the CJI said. Arguing for CNLU Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta supported the Karnataka High Court but he was willing to have a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to dispose off the petitions.