Saturday, December 9, 2017

Why punish married men alone for adultery, asks SC

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to examine the constitutional validity of a 157-year-old 'gender discriminatory' provision+ in Indian Penal Code which punishes a married man for adultery for consensual sexual relations with another man's wife. 


A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud sought the Centre's response in four weeks to a PIL by Joseph Shine from Kerala who is employed at Trento in Italy on why a married man alone and not the consenting wife of another should be hauled up. 

What persuaded the SC to examine the constitutional validity of what it felt might be an archaic provision was the clean chit given to the woman, irrespective of her role in the adulterous relationship, as also counsel Kaleeswaram Raj's argument that as per Section 497 no offence of adultery is committed if there was consensual sexual relation between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman; an unmarried man and a married woman; and between a married man and an unmarried woman. 

Section 497 states: "Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor." 

The bench said: "Prima facie, on a perusal of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, we find that it grants relief to the wife by treating her as a victim. It is also worthy to note that when an offence is committed by both of them, one is liable for the criminal offence but the other is absolved. It seems to be based on a societal presumption." 

"Ordinarily, criminal law proceeds on gender neutrality but in this provision, as we perceive, the said concept is absent. That apart, it is to be seen when there is conferment of any affirmative right on women, can it go to the extent of treating them as the victim, in all circumstances" while leaving the adulterous married man to face the grind of the law, the CJI-led bench said. 

The apex court's constitutional approach also stumbled upon another aberration in Section 497, which provided that it is not adultery if a married man had sexual relationship with a married woman with her husband's consent or connivance. The bench said: "it is perceivable from the language employed in the Section that the fulcrum of the offence is destroyed once the consent or the connivance of the husband is established. Viewed from the said scenario, the provision really creates a dent on the individual independent identity of a woman when the emphasis is laid on the connivance or the consent of the husband. This tantamount to subordination of a woman where the Constitution confers equal status." 

While seeking the Centre's response within four weeks, the bench said: "A time has come when the society must realise that a woman is equal to a man in every field. This provision, prima facie, appears to be quite archaic. When the society progresses and the rights are conferred, the new generation of thoughts spring, and that is why, we are inclined to issue notice." 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Bombay high court upholds validity of RERA

The Act provides for curbs on builders and developers in execution of construction projects, penalising them for delay in completing projects and safeguarding flat-buyers from unscrupulous builders.

The Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday dismissed a bunch of provisions challenging 18 provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, which regulates construction industry and protects interests of flat purchasers, upholding its constitutional validity.
The Act provides for curbs on builders and developers in execution of construction projects, penalising them for delay in completing projects and safeguarding flat-buyers from unscrupulous builders.
A bench of justice Naresh Patil and justice Rajesh Ketkar, however, allowed the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to grant extension beyond one year -- limit set by the enactment – to complete projects under exceptional and compelling circumstances.
“Having careful scrutiny of relevant provisions of RERA (the Act), its object and scheme and submissions advanced, we have harmoniously construed sections 6, 7, 8 and 37,” the bench said. “We hold in case the Authority is satisfied that there are exceptional and circumstances due to which promoter could not complete the project in spite of extension granted under section 6, then the Authority would be entitled to continue registration for completing the project,” it said.
This comes as a major reprieve for builders and developers, as they will get additional period – over and above the stipulated period of one year – to complete their projects, in case the work is delayed due to circumstances beyond their control.
The bench has, however, clarified that this power to grant additional extension can be exercised by the Authority only in exceptional and compelling circumstances and on case to case basis, and no builder or developer can seek such an additional extension beyond the stipulated one year period as a matter of right.
The court held the two-member bench of a majority of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal must comprise one judicial member and majority of the bench must comprise judicial officers where it has more than two members. It struck down part of section 46(1)(b) which required the judicial members of the Appellate Tribunal to have served as additional secretary to the government in addition to having been a judicial officer.

SC asks woman to behave properly with husband and mother in-law

The Supreme Court has asked a wife to go along with her husband, “behave properly” with the aged mother-in-law, saying “everything is still not lost” in their relationship.
The top court also restrained the family members of the wife from interfering with the peaceful living of the couple and asked the woman not to leave the company of the husband without its permission.
A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, after interacting with the couple, said the two would be given a chance to live together at least for a few weeks.
It kept the case pending before it and listed the matter for further hearing on January 17.
The husband had moved the apex court challenging an order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matrimonial dispute. The court had earlier directed both the parties for mediation to sort out their differences.
“We find that the parties should be given a chance to live together for a few weeks, keeping the case pending before us. Accordingly, respondent (wife) is directed to go with the petitioner (husband) today from the Court. The respondent is directed to behave herself properly and look after the petitioner and his aged mother,” the bench said.
It noted that the wife has not instituted any case except one for maintenance.
“Nobody from the family of the respondent shall interfere with their peaceful living. Without permission from the Court, respondent shall not leave the company of the petitioner,” the bench said.

(The court restrained the family members of the wife from interfering with the peaceful living of the couple and asked the woman not to leave the company of the husband without its permission.)

National Register Of Citizens: Supreme Court Allows Gram Panchayat Certificates To Be Used As Identity Document For Claiming Citizenship

The Supreme Court has allowed certificates issued by Gram panchayat(GP)or executive magistrate to be used as identity document for claiming citizenship if issued after conducting proper enquiries.
The apex court set aside the order of Gauhati High Court by which it had invalidated these certificates for claiming citizenship.
The move is likely to bring relief to lakhs of women in the state who use the document to establish linkage with fathers and husbands.
The GP certificate is used to validate residence of a person. It used to open bank accounts, apply for mobile numbers and so forth.
The lead petition was filed by Monowara Bewa (40), a resident of Dhubri district in Assam. She had been marked as a doubtful or ‘D-voter’ by the local election authority. Her family claims that she had switched addresses and not de-registered from her prior constituency.
A foreigner tribunal had discarded most of her documents as unable to prove that she was a citizen. The GP certificate was an important document to establish her citizenship and her linkage with her parental family since becoming a widow.
The foreigner tribunal, and later the Gauhati High Court, did not accept the GP certificate and referred to it as a “private document”. The Supreme Court has now restored the applicability of the document in establishing linkage to other documents that prove citizenship.
However, Monowara’s counsel said that her appeal against her being detected as a ‘foreigner’ by the foreigner tribunal has not yet been decided.
According to the provisions of a clause of Schedule of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, "the names of persons who are originally inhabitants of the state of Assam and their children and descendants, who are citizens of India, shall be included in the consolidated list if the citizenship of such persons is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the registering authority".
The Supreme Court on Nov 20 had pulled up the Assam government for making a "sweeping statement" that 15 per cent of the state population were tribals who have not participated in modernisation and were away from the mainstream.
The top court said it was a "dangerous statement" on the state's behalf and was neither good for the health of the people, nor the government as 15 per cent population was a huge chunk.
The court's observation came after Assam's counsel referred to this issue and said the government was trying to make them come forward in the ongoing process of updation and publication of draft National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state.
This is not the way to do it. From where you are making these statements. These kind of sweeping statements are not good for the health of the people and health of the state. 15 per cent is a huge chunk. If you say 15 per cent population is not in the mainstream, we will ask what have you done in this regard as a state," the bench said.
The NRC of 1951 is being updated for Assam in accordance with the tripartite agreement between the state and central governments and the All Assam Students Union (AASU), which was arrived at in 2005 to implement the 1985 Assam Accord.
The apex court was earlier told that as on November 22, a total of 3.29 crore claims have been made for inclusion in the NRC, which is being prepared to identify illegal migrants.
With inputs from PTI

SC calls for regulating hefty fees of lawyers


The astronomical fees charged by lawyers and the commercialisation of the legal profession is a violation of the fundamental right of the poor to get equal justice, the Supreme Court held in a judgment pronounced on Tuesday.

A Bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, in a scathing judgment on the state of the legal profession, said that neither the Bar nor the judiciary have made any move to regularise the hefty fees charged by lawyers from the poor and the needy.

A report filed by the Law Commission way back in 1988 to regularise lawyers’ fees continues to be in cold storage. The very essence of the legal profession is to provide inexpensive access to justice, the court observed.

The apex court urged for a law to check the violation of professional ethics by lawyers.

The judgment came in the case of B. Sunitha, a woman from Telangana whose husband died in a road accident. She was made to sign a cheque for three lakh by a lawyer who represented her accident claims case in the lower courts. This was over and above the 10 lakh she had already paid to him.

In her petition in the apex court, filed through Supreme Court advocate K. Parameshwar, Ms. Sunitha argued that the lawyer had exploited her trust.

“The confidence of the public in the legal profession is integral to the confidence of the public in the legal system,” the Supreme Court observed.

Monday, December 4, 2017

Poker is gambling and cannot be permitted: HC

 Putting an end to a controversy, Gujarat high court on Monday held that the game of poker is gambling and hence cannot be permitted.

Various petitioners who wanted to organize poker house in the city had approached the high court last year after they did not get permission from city police to organize the game. These petitioners told the court that cops were silent on the grant of permission for the game of poker and there were attempts on part of local police stations to stop the game.
Some associations of poker organizers like Indian Poker Association too involved in the litigation and asserted that poker cannot be considered a gambling and the gaming zones should be permitted to organize poker room in the city.


The high court was reluctant to entertain nearly a dozen such applications on technical ground that the nature of litigation was civil, but the petitions were filed as criminal applications. The petitioners withdrew all the applications to file them afresh on civil side.


Accordingly, fresh petitions were filed and the issue was debated at length. The state government vehemently opposed any kind of permission for poker in Gujarat on the ground that it is gambling and if allowed, the game has potential to spoil lives of people who play the game.

Panel of ministers orders arrest of eight Noida builders

A group of ministers, set up by the UP government to sort out the mess in Noida's real estate sector, directed Gautam Budh Nagar SSP Love Kumar on Monday to arrest eight builders for not delivering 5,000 flats to homebuyers. However, Noida officials refused to name these builders.

In September, police had lodged 13 FIRs against six builders with projects in Noida and Greater Noida. FIRs were registered against Amrapali, Supertech, Alpine Realtech, Proview group, Today Homes, and JNC Constructions following meetings held by the same three-member cabinet committee in August. The builders were booked under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

Urban housing minister Suresh Khanna, one of the three ministers in the group, further directed the SSP to initiate action against all builders who have failed to hand over possession to homebuyers and have FIRs against them.

The committee emphasised that builders have to be pushed to deliver 50,000 flats by the end of December, a goal UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath had set in August.

Officials said the three development authorities - Noida, Greater Noida, and Yamuna Expressway - have a roadmap to deliver 32,500 flats by the end of the year. But the committee has now asked for a plan to deliver the remaining 17,500 units.
Apart from urban housing minister Khanna, UP industries minister Satish Mahana, and state minister (independent charge) of cane development and sugar mills Suresh Rana are part of the committee.


Monday's directions came after a closed-door review meeting held by the ministerial committee in New Delhi. While Noida Authority has conveyed to the committee that 11,000 flats will be delivered in Noida, builders of Greater Noida have promised 14,000 apartments. Yamuna Expressway Authority has promised 7,525 flats, including, 2,970 houses the authority has built.
According to Noida Authority officials, 5,771 completion certificates have been handed over to builders since August 2017. Of these 5,670 flats were handed over by November. Besides, 3,791 flats are being fast-tracked for year-end delivery.


Greater Noida Authority officials told the group of ministers that they have already given possession of 4,529 flats. About 9,671 are over 90% complete and should get completion certificates this month. About 5,000 flats in Greater Noida are being pushed for completion by January 2018.

US Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban

The US Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

The justices, with two dissenting votes, said early Tuesday morning (IST) that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.

The ban applies to travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Lower courts had said people from those nations with a claim of a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those courts said could not be excluded.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place .


The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.
Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions "with appropriate dispatch."


Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.

Correction (Name, Address, Mobile Number, DOB)

If you need to make any corrections in your Aadhaar card whether it is Name, Address, Mobile number or Date of birth, it is very easy to do the same. Here in this article we will be discussing about convenient way to solve this problem that most of us are facing.

How to Change Name, Address In Aadhar Card (Aadhar Card Update)

Making Aadhar Card correction of our bio-data gets more convenient with the online process as it eliminates the need of running around to the Aadhaar centre physically. You can now very easily make corrections to your details like Aadhaar Card name, address, mobile number, date of birth by going through few steps that we will be taking you through in this post below.



Aadhaar Card Correction Online: Name, Address, Phone, DOB!

There are many reasons pertaining to which one needs to make a change in his/her Aadhaar card. So, there is an easy way to deal with this issue which will help you change any of your personal details on your Aadhaar Card. Still not many people are aware of the process to make Aadhaar card corrections.

Please read the following steps very carefully one after another for clear understanding of the correction process.

Change of name – For changing your name or any Aadhaar Card correction you need an most recent and updated Identity Proof documents. Once you change your name officially, you will be provided with a new document of Identity Proof which you have to upload on your PC to replace your previosuly registered name with the new one. So, having Identity Proof documents is mandatory for changing your name in Aadhaar Card.



Change of address – Changing Address is also similar to that of changing name in the Aadhaar Card. However, sometimes due to one reason or other, people prefer to leave their homeland and shift base to new towns and cities for better opportunities. So, in this case changing the address in Aadhaar card becomes crucial and for doing so you will be required to upload your original registered address of your homeland.

Change of date of birth – Most of the time changing date of birth becomes important as sometimes the added date is either no correct or people want to show different date of birth for getting admissions in new academics or for some other reasons. So, for changing your date of birth in Aadhaar Card you need to have the original date of birth certificate and upload it online.



Steps to Change Name, Address, Mobile Number, Date of Birth through Online

The process of updating and correcting your name, address, mobile number, date of birth requires you to first go to this link https://ssup.uidai.gov.in/web/guest/update

Before you start the procedure on online Aadhaar card correction, you need to have a registered mobile number in place. Once you have that, you need to follow the steps mentioned below:

  • Firstly, when you visit the page after clicking on the aforementioned link, you will be asked your Aadhaar number which consist 12 digits.
  • In the following column you will find the verification notification.
  • You can now easily click on “SEND OTP” button.
  • Now, 6 digit OTP will be delivered on your mobile and you can fill the password and go on.
  • You have to choose the address change field and choose the language you prefer.
  • Finally you have to upload the document of which you want to make necessary changes.

 (Name, Address, Mobile Number, DOB)



If you need to make any corrections in your Aadhaar card whether it is Name, Address, Mobile number or Date of birth, it is very easy to do the same. Here in this article we will be discussing about convenient way to solve this problem that most of us are facing.

How to Change Name, Address In Aadhar Card (Aadhar Card Update)

Making Aadhar Card correction of our bio-data gets more convenient with the online process as it eliminates the need of running around to the Aadhaar centre physically. You can now very easily make corrections to your details like Aadhaar Card name, address, mobile number, date of birth by going through few steps that we will be taking you through in this post below.



Aadhaar Card Correction Online: Name, Address, Phone, DOB!

There are many reasons pertaining to which one needs to make a change in his/her Aadhaar card. So, there is an easy way to deal with this issue which will help you change any of your personal details on your Aadhaar Card. Still not many people are aware of the process to make Aadhaar card corrections.

Please read the following steps very carefully one after another for clear understanding of the correction process.

Change of name – For changing your name or any Aadhaar Card correction you need an most recent and updated Identity Proof documents. Once you change your name officially, you will be provided with a new document of Identity Proof which you have to upload on your PC to replace your previosuly registered name with the new one. So, having Identity Proof documents is mandatory for changing your name in Aadhaar Card.



Change of address – Changing Address is also similar to that of changing name in the Aadhaar Card. However, sometimes due to one reason or other, people prefer to leave their homeland and shift base to new towns and cities for better opportunities. So, in this case changing the address in Aadhaar card becomes crucial and for doing so you will be required to upload your original registered address of your homeland.

Change of date of birth – Most of the time changing date of birth becomes important as sometimes the added date is either no correct or people want to show different date of birth for getting admissions in new academics or for some other reasons. So, for changing your date of birth in Aadhaar Card you need to have the original date of birth certificate and upload it online.



Steps to Change Name, Address, Mobile Number, Date of Birth through Online

The process of updating and correcting your name, address, mobile number, date of birth requires you to first go to this link https://ssup.uidai.gov.in/web/guest/update

Before you start the procedure on online Aadhaar card correction, you need to have a registered mobile number in place. Once you have that, you need to follow the steps mentioned below:

  • Firstly, when you visit the page after clicking on the aforementioned link, you will be asked your Aadhaar number which consist 12 digits.
  • In the following column you will find the verification notification.
  • You can now easily click on “SEND OTP” button.
  • Now, 6 digit OTP will be delivered on your mobile and you can fill the password and go on.
  • You have to choose the address change field and choose the language you prefer.
  • Finally you have to upload the document of which you want to make necessary changes.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Supreme Court dismisses CJAR petition, imposes costs of 25 lakh

The controversy in the Supreme Court surrounding the medical college scam and alleged bribery of judges came to a close today, as the Court dismissed the petition filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR).

The matter was heard by the same Bench that had heard and dismissed Kamini Jaiswal’s petition in this regard – Justices RK AgrawalArun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CJAR, had argued that it was imperative that an SIT headed by a retired Chief Justice of India be formed in order to preserve and protect the integrity of the judiciary.

He apprised the Bench of the FIR filed by the CBI and reiterated that such a sensitive issue should not be left for investigation by a body controlled by the executive.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Central government, had argued that the submissions made by Bhushan were repetitive and very similar to the ones made in the earlier petition filed by Kamini Jaiswal.

The two petitions had sparked an unprecedented controversy in the Supreme Court.

Both petitions stemmed from an FIR filed by the CBI in which there were allegations of an attempt to influence high public functionaries for settling a case in the Supreme Court. This particular case was heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud.

Unprecedented events in the Court followed, as the petitioners had demanded the recusal of two judges – CJI Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar – from hearing the case, alleging conflict of interest, since both judges were part of the Bench that had heard the medical college matter.

Interestingly, Jaiswal’s plea was identical to the petition filed by CJAR (which had been listed before another Bench). This would lead to allegations of forum shopping for attempting to bypass the CJI’s prerogative to list cases. The Court had noted the same while dismissing that petition, and also rebuked the petitioners for contemptuous conduct.

And now, the petition filed by CJAR has met with a similar fate, with the Court additionally imposing costs of Rs. 25 lakh on the petitioner.


Wednesday, November 29, 2017

SC orders Lucknow medical college to pay Rs 10 lakh each to 150 students who were illegally admitted

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed a medical college in Lucknow to grant compensation of Rs 10 lakh each to the 150 students it had admitted in the MBBS course without formal permission from the government.
The court also told the college to refund the students’ fees and pay a fine of Rs 25 lakh to the Supreme Court registry, and barred it from admitting students for the 2018-’19 academic year.
The college, run by the GRCG Memorial Trust, was one of the 32 institutions that the Medical Council of India had barred from admitting medical students till 2019 because of substandard facilities and not fulfilling other criteria.
The college had moved the Allahabad High Court against the medical council’s order. In September, the High Court had allowed the college to admit the 150 students despite the medical council concluding that it had indulged in “unethical and callous” practices.
A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud rebuked the High Court and said this was a case of “judicial indiscipline and impropriety”.
“It is most unfortunate, which may cause [an] institutional problem,” the bench said. The lawyers appearing for the medical council said that the High Court failed to consider that the college had poor infrastructure, clinical material and faculty.
The top court also reprimanded the GCRG Medical Trust, and said that it had jeopardised students’ careers by illegally admitting them. The college must compensate them for “playing with their careers” and “polluting young minds”, the court said.

UIDAI orders probe against Bharti Airtel

Authority of India (UIDAI) has ordered an investigation against Bharti Airtel for alleged violations of the Aadhaar Act and is threatening to slap a financial penalty for opening Airtel Payments Bank accounts of customers surreptitiously while carrying out Aadhaar verification of their mobile numbers. The probe against the company was ordered after complaints of prima facie violations were found to be valid, sources told TOI.

"The lapses are serious in nature. Prima facie, it is a criminal breach of trust and contract, and there are violations of provisions of the Aadhaar Act," said a source, who did not wish to be identified. The matter came to the fore when payments related to cooking gas subsidy landed into the Airtel Payments Bank account for some customers, and not in their pre-designated savings bank accounts with other banks.
Most of them complained against the transfer and said that they were unaware of Airtel Payments Bank accounts, which they alleged had been opened without their authorisation or knowledge. The subsidy amount — sent under the central government's Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme — is estimated at over Rs 40 crore. After being tipped off, UIDAI had initially served a showcause notice to Airtel as complaints of violations against the company's ground staff were highlighted.


When contacted, UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey said that the authority has received complaints of wrongdoing against "certain telecom companies" during the Aadhaar verification process. "We have ordered an investigation into the matter. If the allegations are found to be true, after a thorough investigation. 

Monday, November 27, 2017

BMC razes ‘illegal’ cabins in Anil Kapoor’s office

The BMC demolished "unauthorized" glass-and- wood cabins and cubicles built inside veteran actor Anil Kapoor's 2,500-square-foot office in Santacruz West last week.

In all, the BMC's H-West Ward staff razed unauthorized interior work allegedly carried out at four premises in Savoy Chambers, including the actor's office, on Friday. The six-storey commercial building is situated on Dattatray Road in Hasmukh Nagar, Santacruz.
September 8, a notice was served on the four offices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP) 1956, over the interior works. Thereafter, on October 16, an order was issued to the four occupants, stating that they had not replied to the notices or submitted any documents to prove authorization of work. The order stated that while inspecting the premises, civic staff had observed "that you have still not reinstated the work as per the approved plan".

SC refuses to quash Rakesh Asthana's appointment as CBI special director

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash the appointment of Rakesh Asthana as CBI special director.
The apex court said there was no violation of any rules and regulations, and upheld the Centre's decision.
The court dismissed the plea by NGO Common Cause that had challenged the elevation of the Gujarat-cadre IPS officer, on the grounds that it was "illegal" and "arbitrary."
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, said Asthana's appointment was illegal as his name had surfaced in a diary recovered during a raid conducted by the Income Tax department.


Bhushan said the diary showed that Asthana received illegal gratification from a company. The CBI recently registered an FIR for money laundering against the firm and some public servants.

Wife Not Personal Possession, Husband Cannot be Guardian, Supreme Court Tells Hadiya

Wife is not a chattel and the husband cannot be her guardian, the Supreme Court said on Monday after interacting with Hadiya, the 25-year-old Kerala resident, whose conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage had started the whole ‘love jihad’ debate.

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud hearing the ‘love jihad’ case, now being investigated by the NIA, interacted with her for nearly half-an-hour and posed questions on her life, ambition, studies and hobbies.

Hadiya told the apex court that she wanted 'freedom' to live with her husband, Shafin Jahan, profess her faith in Islam and that she very well understood what she was doing.

When the bench asked Hadiya to name any relative or any near acquaintance to be named as her local guardian in college at Salem in Tamil Nadu, she said her husband could be her guardian and she does not want anyone else in that role.

"A husband cannot be a guardian of his wife. Wife is not a chattel. She has her own identity in life and society. Even I am not guardian of my wife. Please make her understand," Justice Chandrachud said.

The bench posed questions to Hadiya in English while she answered in Malayalam, which was translated by senior advocate V Giri, who appeared for Kerala government.

When the bench asked Hadiya what your dreams are for the future, she replied she wanted freedom and to live with her husband.

The bench then asked whether she was comfortable in professing her faith and studying simultaneously and told her that being a good citizen, she can profess her faith and be a good doctor.

Hadiya replied she wanted freedom to profess her faith and she fully understood what she is doing. The bench asked her whether she wanted to continue her studies and pursue internship in house surgeonship at the expense of the state government.

The woman said she wanted to pursue her studies but not at the state's expense as her husband will take care of her. 

She further requested the court that she be allowed to visit her friend before being taken to Salem, to which the court agreed and directed the state government to provide her security.

The court asked Kerala police ensure that she travelled at the earliest to Salem in Tamil Nadu to pursue homeopathy studies at Sivaraj Medical College there and appointed dean of the institution as her local guardian. 

Sunday, November 26, 2017

NEW PASSPORT RULES, YOU NEED TO KNOW

Recently, the Ministry of External Affairs declared new rules for applying for a passport. And here we have rounded up some of the major changes that these new rules have bought in.


  • DOCUMENTATION FOR PROOF OF BIRTH

As per old rules, submission of a birth certificate was compulsory for all applicants born on or after 26th January 1989. But the new rules have bought in some relaxation in this regards. Now, any of the following documents containing the Date of Birth (DOB) of the applicant will suffice:

  • Birth Certificate (BC) issued by the Registrar of births and deaths or the Municipal Corporation or any other approved authority to register the birth of a child born in India
  • Transfer/school leaving/matriculation certificate issued by the school last attended/recognized educational board
  • PAN card
  • Aadhar card/E-aadhar
  • The copy of the service record of the applicant’s (of govt. servants) or the pay pension order (of retired govt. employees), duly attested/in-charge of the administration of the concerned ministry/certified by the officer/ department of the applicant
  • Driving license
  • Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) issued by the Election Commission of India
  • A copy of policy bond issued by the public life insurance companies
  • DETAILS OF PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN:

In a welcome move, the new passport rules has done away with the mandate requiring names of both parents at the time of application. An applicant now only needs to provide the name of either one of the parents or the legal guardian. This makes it easier for children with single parents or orphans to apply for a passport. For spiritually oriented people like Sadhus/Sanyasis, there have provisions made for them to mention the name of their spiritual leader in place of their biological parents.

  • ANNEXES

The total number of annexes has been reduced from 15 to 9. Annexes A, C, D, E, J, and K have been eliminated and some of them have also been merged. Lesser annexes means less worry for people to collate documentation.

  • ATTESTATION

While all annexes needed attestation from a Notary/Executive Magistrate/First Class Judicial Magistrate previously, henceforth all these annexes can now be in the form of a self-declaration from the applicant on plain paper. This means no running around for attestation that one had to do previously.

  • MARRIED/DIVORCED PERSONS:

The need for a marriage certificate has been discontinued (along with annexure K). Also, in case of a divorce the applicant will not be required to provide the name of their spouse. This is another interesting change that has been made taking into consideration changing societal norms.

  • WORK RELATED URGENT PASSPORTS:
    In case of urgent passports, if a government employee is not able to procure the NOC (no objection certificate) or identity certificate from their employer’s side, they can submit a self-declaration stating that they have given a prior intimation letter to their employer informing that they are applying for an ordinary passport to a passport issuing authority.

To view the press release from the Ministry of External Affairs with regards to the new passport rules, you can visit their website to gain detailed information.

Overall, this move is set to make the application process easier and hassle-free for everyone. A welcome move, we say!

So don’t use your lack of passport as an excuse not to travel anymore. Apply for one now, and get going. Don’t forget to visit our website to get insured before you leave on your next adventure!





Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Cannot Be Exempted From Maintaining Child Even If Other Spouse Earns Sufficiently Well: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated the  principle that a spouse cannot be exempted from contributing towards maintenance of a minor child even if the other spouse, with whom the child stays, earns sufficiently well.

“It is a settled principle of law that both the parents have a legal, moral and social duty to provide to their child the best education and standard of living within their means. The mere fact that the spouse with whom the child is living is having a source of income, even if sufficient, would in no way absolve the other spouse of his obligation to make his contribution towards the maintenance and welfare of the child,” Justice I.S. Mehta observed.

The Court had been petitioned by the husband, challenging an order passed by the Single Judge who had upheld an order of interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month to the wife in an application filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife had complained against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, alleging that they were harassing her for dowry. The Petitioner had now submitted that this amount was too high and that the impugned order was rendered in a mechanical manner. He had further brought to the notice of the Court that his wife was earning sufficiently well and was capable of maintaining herself and her minor child. The wife, on the other hand, had challenged the Petition, contending that the Petitioner was under a legal obligation to maintain her and her minor child. Agreeing with such contentions, the Court observed, “Since the respondent and her minor child are to be maintained by the petitioner, in the absence of denial of existence of the marriage and denial of paternity of the minor child, the petitioner cannot shy away from his statutory obligation of maintaining his legally wedded wife and his minor child.” It, thereafter, dismissed the Petition and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the wife’s Application under Section 12 of DV Act as soon as possible, preferably within a period of six months.


Notification Gujarat High Court for Exercise of power


Sunday, November 12, 2017

Bhopal gangrape: HC takes suo motu note on ‘junked’ medical report

Taking a suo motu cognizance on media reports related to the "junked" medical examination report in the Bhopal gangrape case which said the sexual act on the girl was committed "with her consent and will", the Madhya Pradesh high court has registered a case and issued notices to the chief secretary (CS) and the director general of police (DGP). Chief justice of Madhya Pradesh high court Hemant Gupta has desired to put up the matter suo motu.


Apart from the CS and the DGP, the principal secretary (home), principal secretary (public health and family welfare), IG and SP of Bhopal police have also been made respondents in the case (referred to as WP 1932/2017).


Meanwhile, DGP R K Shukla has asked the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to submit its report at the earliest. The Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission (MPHRC) too had recommended penal action against policemen found accountable for the delayed FIR in the case.


Earlier on Friday, the Madhya Pradesh administration served show-cause notices to two women doctors over the medical examination report which said the sexual act was committed "with the girl's consent and will".


The report, prepared by the doctors at Sultania Lady Hospital, termed the 19-year-old UPSC aspirant as an "accused" instead of "survivor". Bhopal divisional commissioner served notices to two doctors — Dr Khushbhu Gajbhiye and Dr Sanyogita — asking them to furnish their replies within three days notwithstanding their claim that it was an "inadvertent" mistake.


Investigating officers said the "junked" report had errors, but also confirmed that the woman was sexually assaulted.

No Compulsion For Any Legal Heir Of Deceased Predecessor To Apply For Heirship Certificate: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently allowed a miscellaneous petition that sought revocation of a Legal Heirship Certificate granted under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 to respondents.
Justice SC Gupte heard the petition filed by one Kusum Chandrakant Shankardas and her two daughters. The petitioner is the widow of Chandrakant Shankardas, a retired Army officer who died intestate (without making a will) in August 2013.

In 1969, Chandrakant Shankardas married Rajeshri, the petitioner’s sister. They had two daughters together, but in 1982, they started living separately. It was the case of the petitioners that there was a customary divorce between the deceased and Respondent No.1 (Rajeshri) in 1983, after which they started living separately, and on May 25, 1984, the deceased married the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple had two daughters, one was born in 1986 and the second daughter was born in 1993. The four were living in a tenement that was being redeveloped by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). After the death of Chandrakant in 2013, the petitioner started receiving Rs 14,000 from the developer, which continue till March 2016. In March 2016, the petitioners filed an application under RTI and learnt that the respondents (Rajeshri and her two daughters) had obtained a legal heirship certificate through a miscellaneous application in 2015. On the basis of the said certificate, the collector had added the name of Rajeshri in the redevelopment project. When the petitioners raised an objection before the SRA, it was rejected. Thus, the petitioners filed the present petition for revocation of the heirship certificate.