FREE Legal advice service Help! We offer a comprehensive legal advice and opinion service covering all aspects of Indian law: Email a legal question. WE DO NOT ASK ANY INFORMATION FROM USERS
Friday, November 29, 2013
Ganguly named as ex-SC judge accused of molesting intern
Thursday, November 28, 2013
If married man walks out of relation, live-in partner not entitled to relief -SC
Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked by a woman in a live-in relationship with a married man, especially if she knew his marital status.
A relationship between a woman and a married man could not be termed a 'relationship in the nature of marriage', the basic requirement for an aggrieved woman in a live-in relationship to take recourse to DV Act for action against her 'erring' partner, the court said.
After giving this interpretation to live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman, a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said if the married man walked out of such a relationship, the woman was not entitled to seek maintenance under DV Act from him.
On the contrary, it warned, the deserted woman ran a risk of being sued for damages by the man's wife and children for alienating them from the love and care of their husband/father.
But the bench was aware of the social reality of married men walking out of live-in relationships. Finding that in such situations, poor and illiterate women suffered the most, the apex court appealed to Parliament to take remedial measures through appropriate legislation.
One Indra Sarma had a live-in relationship with V K V Sarma, already married with two children. The man moved in with her, started a business enterprise with her and after several years, went back to his family.
After the live-in relationship ended, Indra moved a Bangalore court demanding from him a house, a monthly maintenance of Rs 25,000, reimbursement of her medical bills and Rs 3.50 lakh in damages.
The trial court found that the two lived together for 18 years. Finding the woman aggrieved, the magistrate directed the man to pay Rs 18,000 per month towards her maintenance under DV Act. The sessions court upheld the trial court decision.
But the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court order saying the live-in relationship did not fall within the ambit of "relationship in the nature of marriage", a cardinal principle for one to invoke DV Act.
Upholding the HC order, Justices Radhakrishnan and Ghose said, "We are of the view that the appellant (Indra Sarma) having been fully aware of the fact that respondent (V K V Sarma) was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage.
"Appellant's and respondent's relationship is, therefore, not a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than 'in the nature of marriage' and the appellant's status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to 'domestic violence' under Section 3 of the DV Act."
But the bench noticed the deficiency in law to address such relationships in which women, especially poor and illiterate, suffer the most when their partners -already married men - just walk out. The court said it was for Parliament to take remedial legislative steps to plug this loophole in law.
The bench said, "We have, on facts, found that the appellant's status was that of a mistress, who is in distress, a survivor of a live-in relationship which is of serious concern, especially when such persons are poor and illiterate, in the event of which vulnerability is more pronounced, which is a social reality. Children born out of such relationship also suffer most which calls for bringing in remedial measures by Parliament through proper legislation."
Despite the concern, the bench decided to go by the law and said, "If any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant (the woman) for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which an intentional tort."
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Drunk Pakistan Airlines pilot jailed for nine months in UK
Irfan Faiz, 55, was held at Leeds Bradford Airport on September 18 as he underwent pre-flight checks in an Airbus 310 with 145 passengers and 11 crew.
He was about to pilot the PIA flight to Islamabad when he was asked to leave the cockpit due to concerns raised by security staff, who said he smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on his feet.
The father of two was found to have three times the legal amount of alcohol in his blood, prosecutors told Leeds Crown Court in northern England. The legal limit for driving a car is 35 microgrammes but for flying in the UK it just nine.
Sentencing him, Justice Peter Coulson said Faiz had committed a "very serious offence".
He described as "extraordinary" that the rules in Pakistan only stated that there should be a 12-hour gap between "bottle and throttle", no matter how much the pilot had drunk.
"This is a very serious offence. If he had not been stopped, he would have flown the aircraft to Islamabad. That could have had potential catastrophic consequences," he said.
"Many people find flying a difficult and nervous ordeal at the best of times. They need to have absolute confidence in their safety and security."
Faiz told police that he had drunk three-quarters of a bottle of whisky but had stopped drinking at about 3:00 am, some 19 hours ahead of the planned take-off.
His barrister Paul Greaney told the court his client was not a heavy drinker but was under a lot of stress at the time because of a kidnap threat against his family. The court heard the defendant is from a prominent family in Pakistan.
Greaney told the judge that, despite being an experienced pilot, Faiz was not aware of the rules about drinking and flying in the UK.
Justice Coulson said he was "astonished" to hear pilots regularly flying out of the UK were not aware of the rules about alcohol consumption, which are based on the amount of alcohol present in the body.
In a statement, a PIA spokesperson said "further action" would be taken against Faiz once he had completed his sentence in the UK. "The maximum sentence is termination from service," he said.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
SC slams UP govt over riot compensation
A bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana P Desai and Ranjan Gogoi took serious exception to the notification and said, “In your relief operations, if your notification favours one community, then it is bound to backfire. How can relief and rehabilitation measures be denied on the ground of religion?”
Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan immediately assured the court that no one would be discriminated and that a corrigendum to the notification would soon be issued. “The team which visited the relief camps thought only Muslims wanted relocation. Now it will be extended to all, whoever wanted to relocate,” he said.
However, the bench, after a brief deliberation, asked for the notification to be withdrawn. “We feel you have to recall this notification and issue a fresh one to include all riot affected families whosoever is eligible irrespective of their religious or community identity,” the judges said.
Dhavan instantly gave the undertaking to the court that the state would immediately withdraw the ‘faulty’ notification and issue it afresh as soon as possible extending the relocation grant of Rs 5 lakh to riot victims without discrimination. Then the court issued notice on a writ petition filed by one Ravindra Kumar of Malikpur Majra Kawal village in Muzaffarngar district, who alleged the police investigation into the riots was biased.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Adultery justifies divorce: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has upheld a family court order granting divorce to a man after his wife failed to prove that her second child was the husband’s biological son and she refused to undergo a DNA test.
'Porn sites cause crime against women' Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said it wanted immediate steps taken to block websites with pornographic content, especially those featuring children.
The court asked the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) about the steps which can be taken in this regard.
A bench headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan asked the Union Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, of which DoT is a part, to file its response within three weeks.
The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Kamlesh Vaswani, who pleaded that although watching obscene videos was not an offence, pornographic sites should be banned as they were one of the major causes behind crimes against women.
"The absence of Internet laws encourages people to watch porn videos and over 20 crore videos or clippings are freely available in the market, which have been directly downloaded from the Internet or copied from video CDs," the petition stated.
Legal experts say the Information Technology Act does not make it illegal to view adult porn but watching child porn is an offence and the law applies to "whoever creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads'' child porn.
Referring to Section 67B of the IT Act added in 2008, which prescribes punishment for involvement in sexually explicit online or electronic content that depicts children, cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said: "The problem is that this law has never been invoked yet and till date there has not been any conviction."
The Centre had earlier told the SC that it was difficult to block international porn sites and sought time to consult various ministries in order to find a solution.
The court criticised the Centre for taking such a long time in dealing with a serious issue, while granting it time to devise a mechanism to block such sites, particularly those containing child pornography.
The petition pointed out that the sexual content that children are accessing today is far more graphic, violent, brutal, deviant and destructive, and has put the whole of society in danger as well as posing threats to public order in India.
Foreign donations to Congress, BJP matter of public interest-Allahabad HC
The order came on a petition filed by social activist and member ofAam Aadmi Party (AAP) Nutan Thakur. Terming the decision of the Union home ministry to probe into the complaints of anomalies in foreign contribution to AAP as one-sided, the petition demanded probe into the foreign donations received by Congress, BJP and other political parties.
After hearing the petition, a division bench, comprising Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Justice Ashok Pal Singh, said that this matter does not only relate to the petitioner but has a wider public realm and is hence a PIL. Thakur said that on October 26, 2012, when she was not a member of AAP, she had lodged a complaint with the Union home ministry on the alleged violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA) by Congress and BJP. Both parties had received donations of about Rs 5 crore each from Vedanta Group subsidiaries — Sterlite Industries and Sesa Goa. She sent a reminder on June 5. However, no action has been taken so far.
Thakur said that her complaint was based on newspaper articles published on October 17, 2012. She said the Election Commission had also asked the central government to probe the matter. But since no action has been taken, Thakur said, she decided to approach the high court to seek a probe into foreign funding of all political parties, including Congress and BJP. The petition also states that the AAP has welcomed the inquiry on its funding ordered by the UPA government. However, it adds, Union home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde has made the announcement at a time when Delhi assembly elections are under way, which raises suspicion.
Friday, November 15, 2013
SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P) LD.TR.DIR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. [2011] INSC 1034 (11 October 2011)
Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.13917 OF 2009
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner
State of Haryana & Anr. ....Respondents
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
CJI forms panel to probe intern's sexual harassment charge against former SC judge
Saturday, November 9, 2013
HC directs man to return jewellery gifted to ex-wife
SC stays Gauhati HC's order that declared CBI 'unconstitutional'
Friday, November 8, 2013
Gauhati High Court Judgement Against CBI
Full tact follow the link:
http://ghconline.nic.in/Judgment/WA1192008.pdf
The Gauhati high court has declared the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the country's premier investigating agency, an illegal entity on the grounds that it has not been created by law.
Any organisation whose functions curtail personal liberty, through means such as arrest, has to be set up through a legislation, it said.
The CBI, which functions under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE) 1946, was created by a home ministry resolution on April 1, 1963.
The verdict has far-reaching implications for high-profile cases such as the 2G, Commonwealth Games and Coalgate scams being probed/prosecuted by the CBI.
Acting on a petition filed by a BSNL employee, Navendra Kumar, who was being prosecuted by the CBI in a corruption case, justice Iqbal Ahmed and justice Indira Shah said, "...we do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a 'police force' constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946."
Reversing the verdict of a single judge who had on November 30, 2007 rejected Kumar's petition questioning the validity of the CBI, the bench quashed the April 1, 1963 resolution by which the CBI was created. It also set aside the CBI charge sheet against Kumar as also the trial.
However, it said the verdict would not act as a bar to any further investigation by police having jurisdiction over the subject matter.
While the CBI contested the case, the Union government chose not to file any affidavit.
The high court said the 1963 resolution was not even a proper executive order as it was neither a cabinet decision, nor was it signed by the President.
The bench said the impugned resolution can, at best, be regarded as departmental instructions, which cannot be termed 'law', nor can it be termed "procedure established by law", as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Article 21 says no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty, except in accordance with procedure established by law.
Former additional solicitor general and senior advocate Vikas Singh said: "I have not read the verdict. But prima facie it appears to be correct. But the Supreme Court in all probability will stay it, given the huge ramifications for high-profile cases such as the coal and 2G scams being probed by the CBI. If the Supreme Court finally upholds the high court's verdict, all CBI cases will fall flat. But the cases in which convictions have already taken place cannot be overturned."
Minister of state for personnel V Narayanasamy said, "I am not aware of what the court has ruled and I won't be able to comment till I have gone through the judgment."
Government sources, however, termed the verdict "strange and legally unsustainable" and said it would be challenged in the Supreme Court at the earliest.
Additional solicitor general of India PP Malhotra, who appeared for the CBI, said the judgment was "totally erroneous and the Centre will appeal in the apex court on November 11".
The government's top law officers are likely to mention the matter in the apex court on Monday, when it reopens after the Diwali break.
The CBI's spokesperson told HT, "We are yet to receive a certified copy of the court order. Once it is received, it will be examined and appropriate steps in this regard will be taken."
A CBI official said, "CBI probes, including those pertaining to the coal block allocation scam and 2G spectrum scam, are monitored by the apex court and high courts. Many high-profile cases are in fact handed over to the agency by the apex court and high courts. Would they be doing this if the CBI was an invalid organisation?"
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Controversial 3000-pound 'security bond' for UK visa to be scrapped
Child marriage not void, but voidable: Court
Stating that a sexual act between a man and his wife who is more than 15 years old does not amount to rape, a trial court has acquitted a youth of raping and kidnapping a minor. The court also termed their marriage valid saying, "child marriage contracted with a female of less than 18 years or a male of less than 21 years would not be a void marriage but a voidable one".
The court order is significant in the light of demands to amend the law related to child marriage. Human rights activists have time and again criticized the authorities for not doing enough to ban child marriage in India.
The country's law defines a child as someone younger than 18 years and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act prescribes jail for anyone-including parents-for allowing child marriage.
A survey found that every second bride in the country is a child but only around 400 people were arrested under this law in 2012.
Additional sessions judge Savita Rao let off Prashant Kumar Sahaniafter noting that the minor had eloped and married him by choice.
The court pointed out that the consent of the girl would be immaterial since she was less than 16 years old, but since she had married the accused "willingly" and was aged more than 15 years at the time of the incident, the general law would not apply in this case.
Relying upon a high court judgment, the judge said, "The consent of prosecutrix (alleged victim) below the age of 16 years is immaterial, except when rape is committed by a male who is married to the girl. Section 376 IPC (rape) does not treat the rape committed by a husband on his wife above the age of 15 years as an offence".
The court also held that their marriage cannot be declared null.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
High court rejects plea against expansion of NH-8
The court observed this while dismissing a petition filed by a group from Kheda district that complained that a small forest created by them and variety of trees cannot be chopped off for expansion of the National Highway number 8. They argued that a slight change in alignment could have saved the green patch.
Interestingly, these petitioners raised a contention that due to green felling, various species of birds would vanish from this area. They claimed that this forest is home to spotted owlet, vultures, babblers, barn owls, bulbuls, cuckoos, egrets, flower peckers, kingfishers, larks, munias, mynas, parakits and pheasants. Hence, the cutting of trees for the development project will amount to hunting of these birds, and this is prohibited. But the court did not accept this contention.
On the contrary, the court said that the expansion of the highway is a project of wide public importance, and it is not open to frustrate this project only with a view to safeguard a few trees standing on the land of the petitioners which has already acquired by the government.
The court rejected the petition mainly on the assurance given by the government as part of the project that it will plant more than 30,000 trees to compensate for the green felling. The authority believed that 18,056 trees would have been affected in this project due to original alignment, but of them 10,951 trees have been saved by balancing the alignment.
The court also asserted that the courts should not be asked to assess the environmental impact of expansion of highway but at the most could ensure that the recommendations of the experts have been abided by the government.