An advisory issued with the aid of the Finance Ministry on August 28 observed the final week's landmark Supreme Court judgment in the case for identical-sex marriage.It brings clarity that henceforth, financial establishments shall increase popularity to LGBTQIA partnerships for commencing joint bills and nominations by taking into consideration the Constitution Bench order of the Supreme Court, though it did not legalize same-sex marriages but brought to the fore the aspect of same rights and safety to deliver to the LGBTQIA community in all aspects of monetary and felony entitlements. Until recently, LGBTQIA couples went thru all manner of gymnastics in dealing with shared finances and securing the monetary futures of their companions. Without the prison reputation of relationships, those couples very regularly discovered themselves shut out of simple offerings accorded to heterosexual couples, along with joint bank debts and naming each other beneficiaries in insurance policies and other financial units. It is thus an advisory letter with the help of the Ministry of Finance and a new step toward bridging those numerous inequalities. It asks banks and financial houses in particular to amend their systems and policies in a way that would allow joint accounts of LGBTQIA couples, and recognize partners as nominees of the same financial products, including savings accounts, fixed deposits, and mutual funds. It also calls for reviewing the current policies, through the use of financial institutions, for any discriminatory practices or wording that would have excluded LGBTQIA couples in the past. The decision on the matter of joint bills and nomination of an accomplice is unique in the aspect of remaining financially secure, in that over several centuries, many LGBTQIA people have been subjected to unequal rights. By giving the facility for joint accounts and naming a partner as nominee, the government extends privileges to LGBTQIA couples to conduct their financial affairs with ease, just like any other heterosexual couple. This also secures the rights of LGBTQIA people in events where a partner is afflicted by severe illness or passes away, or for that matter, in emergencies when access to joint finances becomes important. This advisory through the Ministry of Finance indicates the greater changes in the society for the recognition and respect of LGBTQIA rights. This, in many ways, is a loud and clear message from the authorities to implement the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court judgment to ensure that every citizen enjoys equal financial services and protection sans discrimination based entirely on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In a recent judgment, Allahabad High Court has ruled that forcing one's husband to live in a separate room within their matrimonial home is an act of cruelty committed by the wife. The ruling of the Court came in a case where the husband sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and had alleged that his wife compelled him to live in a separate room for years. The Court insisted that marriage is an institution based upon mutual respect, companionship, and cohabitation. Where one spouse, without just cause, compels the other to live separately within the same house, it strikes at the very foundation of the marital relationship. The Court acknowledged such behavior as amounting to mental cruelty-a valid ground for divorce under Indian law. In this case, the husband would further the case that his wife was 'compelling' him to stay in another room thereby denying him marital rights and emotional support as expected in marriage. He said because of these acts, he had suffered a lot mentally, so he needed a dissolution of marriage. The wife opposed the same by pleading that such separation was on health grounds and did not amount to cruelty. The Allahabad High Court, after applying its judicial mind to the evidence led on record, held in favour of the husband. It stated that marriage implies cohabitation; that is, marriage means living together and having a physical, emotional as well as social companionship. Intentional separation in the home by one spouse not only demolishes the relationship but also inflicts psychological hurt on another spouse. The court observed that compelling the spouse to live separately without sufficient reason may indeed amount to cruelty. The Court went on to point out that in matrimonial disputes, testimony by family members is quite crucial. It held that the testimony of relatives cannot be deemed to be unworthy of credit simply because of the relationship. In fact, the Court acknowledged that those who are related to a party are usually the most natural and proximate witnesses to what occurred behind closed doors. Consequently, this is the testimony upon which the Court relies most in establishing the truth in matrimonial disputes. This judgment underlines how the concept of cruelty in marriage is developing upon the evolving perception of the judiciary, from physical violence into psychological and emotional abuse. The Allahabad High Court, therefore, went further in understanding what behaviors could justify a divorce by ruling that forcing a spouse to live separately within the matrimonial home can also be held as cruelty.
Recently, senior advocate and former Union Minister Kapil Sibal has fervently asked the Collegium to begin naming women lawyers from law firms as judges in High Courts. Sibal made this remark in a discussion in the Supreme Court, where he claimed that equally, both male and female lawyers are not being elevated to the judiciary, and more inclusiveness and gender balance needs to be brought into the judicial system. Sibal said that many men who practiced in law firms had risen with ease to become judges in High Courts across the country, and there was no reason why women lawyers could not do the same-the women lawyers who showed exceptional skill and devoted service in the career of law. Further, Sibal said the appointments of women from the law firms to the judiciary would not only result in the much-needed permutation of representatives but also lead to different perspectives coming before the bench for the healthy and correct dispensation of justice. The Chief Justice of India should also look at phenomenal lady lawyers working in this court as well as they should be designated as High Court judges. It has happened with male lawyers why not women lawyers Sibal asked, while underlining that there is a need to adopt a proactive approach towards recognizing and promoting talented women in the legal profession. Sibal's comments assume significance, considering debates that have been floated on women's representation in the judiciary. Though over the last couple of years, some improvement has taken place, even today, women comprise only a small fraction of judges both in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The bench's lack of gender diversity has been a point of concern for a long time from both lawyers and advocates of judicial reform, all of whom say that a more gender-representative bench is integral to any justice system that claims to represent the society it serves. Appointing women from law firms as judges will help solve the gender inequality problem afflicting the legal profession, Sibal said. The careers of women lawyers also face systemic obstacles, such as bias and discrimination that often deny them the opportunity for elevation to the senior level, let alone consideration for judicial appointment. Active consideration by the Collegium for appointment of qualified women from law firms will break this trend and set a precedent for the profession to be more inclusive. Though the demand for more women in the judiciary is not new, the sharp comments by Sibal have brought fresh focus on the issue. His appeal to the Collegium should remind all that the attainment of gender equality in the judiciary requires a conscious and sustained effort at recognizing and promoting the talents of women lawyers.
The Supreme Court has recently imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on a police officer in Gujarat for arresting a person granted anticipatory bail. The development assumes significance in as much as the top court's move respects judicial orders and ensures protection of rights of every individual in criminal justice dispensation. Background of the Case It started with the granting of anticipatory bail to an accused in a crime in Gujarat by the court. Anticipatory bail is a legal provision to protect an individual from arrest in anticipation conditions, the accused was arrested by the police officer. Legal Proceeding :The matter reached the Supreme Court after the arrest, where the accused pleaded that the arrest was illegal and asked for action against the concerned police officer. The Supreme Court viewed the matter seriously, and it mentioned that the arrest clearly infringed on the anticipatory bail order. Such acts by the police undermine the rule of law and render the entire judicial machinery suspect. Supreme Court Verdict :The Supreme Court similarly condemned the Gujarat police officer to a fine of ₹25,000 for arresting Fitzgerald. The apex court, in its order, said that it was bound upon every party to act in compliance with the judicial orders and that too by the police department as well. According to the observation made during the hearing, it has been determined that the role of the officer involved not only illegally but also committed an offense against the judiciary's authority. The Supreme Court was also dealing with the role of the sessions judge who passed the remand order of the accused after arrest. Once it was found that such a remand order was passed when the anticipatory bail was operating, once the court considered initiating action against the judge. After Sessions Judge filed unconditional apology, the Supreme Court decided to close the proceedings against her. The court accepted her apology and decided not to take any further action against her. Importance of the Judgment This judgment is an important reminder that the rule of law has to be implemented and that courts must be respected. The judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court has strengthened the principle that anticipatory bail is an important legal privilege, which has to be respected by all law-enforcing agencies. A fine imposed on the police officer sends quite a clear message that violations of judicial orders are not to be tolerated and the rights of individuals, protected effectively by the law, have to be respected.The decision of the Supreme Court in this case thus only reiterates the rule of law and the requirement of all organs of state, including the police, to act in compliance with the directions issued by the courts. The fact that further proceedings against the sessions judge were closed after she tendered her apologies shows the balanced approach of the court in handling bona fide mistakes.
Adani Power has approached the Supreme Court by filing a claim for refund of Rs 280 crore against the state of Himachal Pradesh. The litigation arose out of an appeal by Adani Power against the July 18 judgment by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had dismissed the company's claims. The case reflects the headaches over contractual disputes between big corporations and state governments, particularly in the energy sector.The dispute between Adani Power and the government of Himachal Pradesh is based on payments due within a power purchase agreement. One of India's large energy firms, Adani Power, had entered into an agreement with the state to provide it with a certain amount of electricity generated through its thermal power plants. There was clear agreement upon tariffs and methods of payment for the supply.It is Adani Power's case that it paid ₹ 280 crores in excess to the state in terms of PPA. According to it, the payment was on the basis of wrong calculations of tariffs, for which the excess payment should be refunded. When the state government refused to refund the amount, Adani Power moved the court, seeking judicial intervention for the recovery of money.The Division Bench headed by Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ruled in favour of the state government and dismissed the company's arguments regarding the alleged overpayment. The court held that the payment made by Adani Power was as per the PPA and no refund was due to the latter.The judgment of the High Court thus came as a severe blow to Adani Power and spurred the said company to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. In this appeal, Adani Power has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court interpreting the PPA and dismissing the refund claim filed by the appellant.The Supreme Court is now poised to hear the appeal by Adani Power, an order which may have far-reaching implications on similar disputes between energy companies and state governments across India. This case has drawn considerable interest from the stakeholders of the energy sector given that it will set a precedent in regard to how the courts interpret PPAs and handle refund claims related to tariff disputes.A Supreme Court affirmation of the High Court verdict will, in effect, accord approval to the stand taken by the state government and, in the process, probably discourage similar claims of overpayment by power firms in the future. The judgment in this case has the potential to have wide ramifications, both legally and financially, upon Adani Power and the overall energy sector in India.