स्वपार्जित और पैतृक संपतिमें बेटियोका क्या है अधिकार -The right of daugh...

जानिए कब बेटियों को पिता की संपत्ति में हिस्सा नहीं मिलता? क्या हैं प्रावधान

बेटियों का संपत्ति में हिस्से को लेकर हमेशा से विवाद रहा है। यह भ्रामक मुद्दा भी रहा है कि किसी बेटी को संपत्ति में कितना अधिकार मिलता है। कहीं लोग कहते हैं बेटी को बेटे से कम अधिकार है, कहीं कहा जाता है बेटी को कुछ अधिकार नहीं है और कहीं कहा जाता है बेटी को समानता के अधिकार है। समाज में अलग-अलग तरह की भ्रांतियां है जो बेटियों के पिता की संपत्ति में हिस्से को लेकर चलती रहती है। इसकी प्रमुख वजह कानून की जानकारी नहीं होना है।

वर्तमान भारत में बेटियों को संपत्ति में कितना अधिकार है और कब बेटियों को पिता की संपत्ति में हिस्सा नहीं मिलता है इसके संबंध में स्पष्ट कानून है।कहीं भी कोई भी भ्रम जैसी स्थिति नहीं है, आज की तारीख में तो सब कुछ स्पष्ट हो चुका है।

हमारे देश में संपत्ति के विभाजन को लेकर अलग-अलग कानून है। यह कानून सभी धर्मों के कानून है।इन कानूनों में कुछ कानून पार्लियामेंट के बनाए हुए भी है जैसे भारत के हिंदुओं के लिए हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 है। मुसलमानों के लिए उनका पर्सनल लॉ है, ऐसे ही कानून ईसाइयों के लिए भी हैं।

इन्हीं कानूनों के साथ ऐसे भी कुछ कानून है जो सभी धर्मों पर एक जैसे लागू होते हैं जैसे भारतीय उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1925। यह कानून सभी भारतीयों पर धर्मनिरपेक्ष रूप से लागू होता है। न्यायालय इस अधिनियम की सहायता अनेक मामलों में लेती है।

इन सभी कानूनों से किसी भी व्यक्ति के संपत्ति में अधिकार तय होते हैं पर यह ध्यान देना चाहिए कि कोई भी ऐसा कानून जो संविधान में दिए गए मूल अधिकारों से विपरीत जाता है तब उस कानून को न्यायालय द्वारा माना नहीं जाता है क्योंकि न्यायालय का ऐसा मानना होता है कि किसी भी ऐसे कानून को नहीं माना जाए जो मूल अधिकारों के विपरीत जा रहा है।

भारत में अगर मोटे तौर पर देखें तो संपत्ति दो प्रकार की होती है। एक वह संपत्ति होती है जो व्यक्ति ने स्वयं अर्जित की है और दूसरी वह संपत्ति होती है जो किसी व्यक्ति की पैतृक संपत्ति है।

पैतृक संपत्ति उसे कहा जाता है जो पीढ़ी दर पीढ़ी चली आ रही है। आमतौर पर शहरी अमीर लोगों के पास ऐसी पैतृक संपत्ति होती है जो किसी एक ही स्थान पर अनेक वर्षों से रहते आ रहे हैं। ऐसी संपत्ति हालांकि आज के समय में बहुत कम है पर फिर भी इस पक्ष को लेकर चलना चाहिए।

स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित संपत्ति एक साधारण विषय है। कोई भी ऐसी संपत्ति जो किसी व्यक्ति ने स्वयं से अर्जित की है उसे स्वयं द्वारा संपत्ति कहा जाता है। स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित संपत्ति भले ही किसी व्यक्ति ने खरीदी हो उसे दान में मिली हो या फिर किसी व्यक्ति के हक त्याग करने के परिणाम स्वरूप मिली हो, किसी पुरस्कार में मिली हो, यह सभी संपत्ति स्वयं अर्जित संपत्ति कहा जाता है।

सारी कहानी इन दो संपत्तियों के बीच ही चलती है। पैतृक संपत्ति और स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित संपत्ति। जब भी कोई व्यक्ति संपत्ति स्वयं से अर्जित करता है तब उस व्यक्ति के पास अनन्य अधिकार होता है कि वे अपनी संपत्ति के संबंध में कोई भी फैसला लिए ले।

इसका उल्लेख भारतीय उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, संपत्ति अंतरण अधिनियम में मिलता है। किसी भी व्यक्ति को उसकी संपत्ति के संबंध में फैसला लेने की पूर्ण स्वतंत्रता है। ऐसा फैसला लेने के लिए कोई भी व्यक्ति उसे बाध्य नहीं कर सकता है अब भले ही उसके बच्चे ही क्यों न हो।

समाज में कुछ ऐसा भी भ्रम देखने को मिलता है कि बच्चों को लगता है वह पिता को उसकी संपत्ति बेचने से रोक सकते हैं जबकि यह बात बिल्कुल गलत है एक बाप अपनी संपत्ति को कहीं भी बेच सकता है।कुछ संपत्ति पर बच्चों का कोई भी अधिकार नहीं होता।

जब भी कोई व्यक्ति अपने जीवित रहते हुए स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित की गई संपत्ति के पक्ष में कोई फैसला लिए लेता है जैसे उसे दान दे दे, बेच दे या उसके संबंध में कोई हक त्याग कर दें या फिर कोई अन्य व्यवस्था करते हैं तब कोई बेटा या बेटी किसी प्रकार का क्लेम अपने पिता की संपत्ति के बारे में नहीं ला सकते।

कोई व्यक्ति भले ही अपने जीवित रहते हुए अपनी स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित की गई संपत्ति के बारे में कहीं कोई वसीयत कर दें इसके संबंध में भी वह व्यक्ति पूर्ण रूप से स्वतंत्र है। वह जिसे चाहे जहां चाहे वसीयत कर सकता है हालांकि बच्चे ऐसी वसीयत को कोर्ट में चैलेंज दे सकते हैं और उस वसीयत के अवैध होने के बारे में आरोप लगा सकते हैं पर अगर जांच में यह पाया गया कि वसीयत वैध है तब बच्चे मुकदमा हार जाते हैं।

कब है बेटियों को पिता की संपत्ति में अधिकार

एक पिता की स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित की गई संपत्ति में बेटी और बेटों को उसके मरने के बाद ही अधिकार मिलता है। ऐसा व्यक्ति बगैर कोई फैसला किए हुए मर जाता है तब अगर किसी व्यक्ति ने कोई फैसला कर दिया है ऐसी स्थिति में तो बेटा और बेटियों को अधिकार है ही नहीं पर अगर कोई व्यक्ति बगैर फैसला किए मर जाता है तब बेटे और बेटियों को अधिकार मिल जाता है।

हिंदुओं के मामले में हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम लागू हो जाता है और मुसलमानों के मामले में मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ लागू हो जाता है। हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 में बेटे और बेटी को बराबर का अधिकारी माना है। कोई भी संपत्ति में जितना अधिकार बेटे को मिलता है उतना ही बेटी को मिलता है।

बेटा यह पक्ष नहीं ले सकता है कि बेटी की शादी हो गई है उसे उसकी पति की संपत्ति में अधिकार मिल गया है यह बात कोई भी बात बेटा नहीं बोल सकता। बेटी स्पष्ट रूप से पिता की अर्जित की गई संपत्ति में दावा कर सकती है अगर उसके पिता ने संपत्ति के बारे में कोई व्यवस्था नहीं की और उसकी मृत्यु हो जाती है।

न्यायालय में यह साबित हो जाने पर कि संपत्ति उस व्यक्ति की स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित थी तब बेटी को बराबर का हिस्सा संपत्ति में दिया जाता है और ऐसी संपत्ति बेटी को उत्तराधिकार में मिली संपत्ति मानी जाती है।फिर वह संपत्ति की स्वामी बन जाती है और अपनी संपत्ति के बारे में जैसा चाहे वैसा फैसला लें।

मुसलमानों के मामले में स्थिति थोड़ी सी भिन्न है, यहां पर बेटी को बेटे से थोड़ा अधिकार कम है पर आजकल न्यायालय इस अवधारणा को नहीं मान रही है और मुस्लिम पर्सनल लॉ के मामले में भी भारत का कानून भारतीय उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम को लागू कर बेटी को बराबरी का अधिकार दिलवाया जाता है। पिता द्वारा अर्जित की गई संपत्ति में बेटी को बराबरी का उत्तराधिकार मिल जाता है भले ही वे मुसलमान है।

पैतृक संपत्ति और बेटियों का अधिकार

पैतृक संपत्ति के मामले में थोड़ी सी स्थिति भिन्न है। पैतृक संपत्ति पूर्वजों से चली आ रही संपत्ति है। बेटियों का दूसरी जगह विवाह हो जाता है ऐसी स्थिति में उनका अधिकार थोड़ा सा कम हो जाता है। अगर कोई रिश्ता बेटी की तरफ से है तब उसको अधिकार कम मिलते हैं और एक समय बाद बेटियों की तरफ से रिश्ते के अधिकार तो पैतृक संपत्ति के मामले में लगभग समाप्त ही हो जाते हैं।

पर 2005 में हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम में कुछ परिवर्तन किए गए और अब एक बेटी को भी पैतृक संपत्ति में लगभग लगभग बेटे की तरह ही अधिकार प्राप्त है।

9 सितंबर, 2005 को, 1956 के हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम में एक संशोधन, जो मूल रूप से महिलाओं को पैतृक संपत्ति के वारिस के अधिकार से वंचित करता था, अब एक हिंदू महिला या लड़की को अपने पुरुष रिश्तेदारों के साथ समान पैतृक संपत्ति का अधिकार होगा।

पैतृक संपत्ति के मामले में भी उसे बेटे से कहीं भी कम नहीं आंका जाएगा भले ही उसकी कहीं भी शादी हुई हो, कितने भी समय पहले हुई हो या फिर वह कोई भी पीढ़ी की क्यों न हो।

बेटियों को कब नहीं मिलता है उत्तराधिकार

कुछ परिस्थितियां ऐसी भी है जब बेटियों को संपत्ति में उत्तराधिकार नहीं मिलता है। जैसे कि कोई बेटी अपने को उत्तराधिकार में मिले हक को त्याग कर देती है तब उसे संपत्ति में किसी प्रकार का अधिकार नहीं मिलता। अब भले ही ऐसी संपत्ति उसके पिता की स्वयं अर्जित संपत्ति हो या फिर उसके पिता को पृथक रूप से मिली संपत्ति हो।

अगर बेटी में अपने हिस्से का त्याग कर दिया है और किसी पक्षकार के पक्ष में रिलीज डीड लिख दी है और उस रिलीज डीड को रजिस्टर्ड करवा लिया गया है तब बेटी किसी भी अधिकार को क्लेम नहीं कर सकती है।

जब बाप बेटों को वसीयत कर दे

अगर बाप स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित संपत्ति की वसीयत बेटों के पक्ष में लिख दे और बेटियों को पूर्ण रूप से खारिज कर दे ऐसी वसीयत को रजिस्टर्ड भी करवा लिया जाए तब बाप के मरने के बाद बेटियों को संपत्ति में किसी भी प्रकार का कोई अधिकार नहीं होता है। फिर वे अपनी संपत्ति के संबंध में कोई भी अधिकार की मांग न्यायालय में जाकर नहीं कर सकती हैं क्योंकि पिता ने ही उन को बेदखल कर दिया है और संपत्ति पिता की स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित थी।

यहां पर यह विशेष रुप से ध्यान देना चाहिए कि पिता स्वयं द्वारा अर्जित संपत्ति के संबंध में तो बेटों के पक्ष में वसीयत कर सकता है पर वह कोई भी वसीयत पैतृक संपत्ति के संबंध में नहीं कर सकता क्योंकि पैतृक संपत्ति उसे अपने पूर्वजों से मिली है। संपत्ति में उसकी बेटी का भी अधिकार है वह व्यक्ति अपनी बेटी को अधिकार से वंचित नहीं कर सकता।

इन सब बातों के बाद कुछ ऐसी बातें समाज में चलती है कि किसी व्यक्ति के कहीं विरोध के बाद भी शादी कर लेने पर संपत्ति में हिस्सा नहीं मिलता है यह बात निराधार है। कोई व्यक्ति किसी व्यक्ति से शादी कर ले तो उसका संपत्ति में अधिकार इस बात से समाप्त नहीं हो जाता। कोई व्यक्ति कोई बुरा काम कर ले उससे भी उसका संपत्ति में अधिकार समाप्त नहीं हो जाता।

कोई व्यक्ति किसी अपराध में सम्मिलित रहे तब भी उस व्यक्ति का संपत्ति में अधिकार समाप्त नहीं हो जाता है भले ही किसी व्यक्ति को अदालत किसी मामले में दोषसिद्ध कर दें तब भी उस व्यक्ति का अधिकार किसी संपत्ति में समाप्त नहीं होता है। यह सब भ्रांतियां हैं जो समाज में चलती रहती है।

Compassionate appointment can be granted to children from second wife: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

A Bench of Supreme Court Justices noted that the same is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution that among other things, prohibits discrimination in State employment based on descent.

"While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 ... In this regard, ‘descent’ must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant’s legitimacy as their child." 

The Court also noted that in Union of India vs VR Tripathi, the top court had held that the scheme and the rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

POCSO court orders registration of FIR against producers of Marathi film with sexually explicit content involving minors

The film 'Varan Bhaat Loncha Kon Nay Koncha'

 Read Order

Additional Sessions Judge Nazera S Shaikh directed the Senior Inspector at the Mahim Police Station to take cognisance and investigate the case.

"Allegations of serious nature and cognizable are levelled. They are prima-facie apparent from a perusal of CD containing the trailer. There is substance in the allegations which needs to be investigated," the order said.

Additional Sessions Judge Nazera S Shaikh said that the petitioner has established a prima facie case for issuing directions against the accused under Section 156(3) (police officer' s power to investigate cognizable case) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It therefore, directed registration of FIR against producers, co-producers, studio and production house of the film.

Telangana Court directs The Wire to take down 14 articles against Bharat Biotech, COVAXIN in ₹100 crore defamation suit

A Telangana court has directed news portal The Wire to take down fourteen articles published on its website against COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer, Bharat Biotech International Limited.

The Court also restrained The Wire from further publishing any defamatory articles on Bharat Biotech and its product COVAXIN.

The Wire published several articles making false allegations on vaccine authorization and approvals without doing a proper fact-check, he contended.

List of Defendants: (Defendants in the suit)

1. Foundation for Independent Journalism, Publisher of

'The Wire'

2. Siddharth Varadarajan, Founding Editor 3. Sidharth Roshanlal Bhatia, Founding Editor

4. Mangalam Venu Kesavan, Founding Editor

5. Neeta Sanghi

6. Vasudevan Mukunth

7. Shobhan Saxena

8. Florencia Costa

9. Prem Anand Murugan

10. Banjot Kaur

11. Priyanka Pulla

12. Seraj Ali

13. Jammi Nagaraj Rao

Bombay High Court rejects plea challenging mandatory Marathi on signboards of shops

The Bombay High Court on 23-02-22 rejected a petition challenging a Maharashtra government decision mandating all shops and establishments within the State to display their signboards in Marathi (written in Devanagari script). 

A Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar emphasised in its ruling that using other languages on display boards was not prohibited and that the rule merely required the name to also be shown in Marathi.

The Bench questioned the motive behind filing of the petition in 2022 when the amendment to the Rules was carried out in 2018.

Creator or Administrator of a WhatsApp group, merely acting in that capacity, cannot be vicariously held liable for any objectionable content posted by a member of the group Kerala High Court

Read order

Admin of WhatsApp group cannot be held liable for posts by members: Kerala High Court quashes POCSO case.

Both the Bombay and Delhi High Courts have held that the only privilege of an admin is that he can add or delete members to a group. He doesn't actually have control over what they post and therefore, cannot be held vicariously liable for any posts put up by other members.

"As has been held by both the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, the only privilege enjoyed by the Admin of a WhatsApp group over other members is that he can either add or delete any of the members from the group. He does not have physical or any control otherwise over what a member of a group is posting thereon. He cannot moderate or censor messages in a group. Thus, Creator or Administrator of a WhatsApp group, merely acting in that capacity, cannot be vicariously held liable for any objectionable content posted by a member of the group," the Court ruled.

Creator or Administrator of a WhatsApp group, merely acting in that capacity, cannot be vicariously held liable for any objectionable content posted by a member of the group-

Kerala High Court

There is no law by which an Admin of any messaging service can be held liable for a post made by a member in the group. A WhatsApp Admin cannot be an intermediary under the IT Act.

Kerala High Court

Pharmaceutical companies gifting freebies to doctors “prohibited by law”; cannot claim tax deduction: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

Supreme Court held that if such pharmaceutical companies are allowed to claim tax exemption for the same, "it would wholly undermine public policy".

“Pharmaceutical companies’ gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly “prohibited by law”, and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1). Doing so would wholly undermine public policy.” 

The well-established principle of interpretation of taxing statutes – that they need to be interpreted strictly – cannot sustain when it results in an absurdity contrary to the intentions of the Parliament. 

"It is a matter of great public importance and concern when it is demonstrated that a doctor’s prescription can be manipulated, and driven by the motive to avail the freebies offered to them by pharmaceutical companies, ranging from gifts such as gold coins, fridges and LCD TVs to funding international trips for vacations or to attend medical conferences."

"It is but logical that when acceptance of freebies is punishable by the MCI (the range of penalties and sanction extending to ban imposed on the medical practitioner), pharmaceutical companies cannot be granted the tax benefit for providing such freebies, and thereby (actively and with full knowledge) enabling the commission of the act which attracts such opprobrium." 

Delhi High Court orders blocking of illegal streaming websites airing Netflix, Disney, Universal content

Read order

The suit was filed by production houses including Universal City Studios, Warner Bros Entertainment, Columbia Pictures, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures Corporation and Disney Enterprises.

They listed out the piracy of movies like Mulan, Lego Batman, Finding Nemo, Finding Dory, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, San Andreas and Joker and TV series like Mob Psycho, Friends, Stranger Things, Sacred Games, Jojo's Bizarre Adventures and Arrow, to point out the “immense loss” caused to them.

34 websites were observed to have been created to upload pirated movies, TV programmes etc.

“These websites are anonymous in nature. The information provided in the public domain regarding the owners of the websites is inherently incorrect or protected behind the veil of secrecy and hidden behind private domain services offered by various domain name registrars,” the order underlined.

'Love Affair' Irrelevant Ground For Bail When Victim Is A Minor Girl : Supreme Court In POCSO Case

Noting that once prima facie it appears that the prosecutrix was a minor, the grounds that there was a "love affair" between her and the accused and the accused's alleged refusal to marry would be extraneous for bail, the Supreme Court on 22/02/22 set aside the bail granted to an accused under section 376, IPC and section 6, POCSO.

The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing an appeal arising from an August 2021 decision of a Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand by which the application for bail of the second respondent/accused had been allowed, subject to conditions.

The bench then proceeded to hold that, "In our view, the High Court was manifestly in error in allowing the application for bail, particularly on the ground that from the statement under section 164 as well as the averments in the FIR, it appears that there was a 'love affair' between the appellant and the second respondent and the case was instituted only on the point of the refusal of the second respondent to solemnise marriage with the appellant."

The bench continued to observe in its order, "Once prima facie it appears from the material before the court that the appellant was barely 13 years of age on the date when the alleged offence took place, the ground that there was a 'love affair' between the appellant and the second respondent, as well as the alleged refusal to marry, maybe circumstances against the grant of bail."

X (Minor) V. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13- Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court

Read Judgment

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder [Referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152]. (Para 7)

The Apex Court bench noted that there is only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance. PW1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap and that the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made from time to time is an improvement, the court noted. Therefore, the bench concluded that the demand made by the accused has not been conclusively proved. The bench observed:

"The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act."

State cannot deny pensionary benefits to ad-hoc employee after availing 30 years of his service: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Court said it was unfortunate on the part of State to avail the services of the ad-hoc employee for more than 30 years and thereafter contend that the respondent being an ad-hoc employee is not entitled to pensionary benefits.

"The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable," the Court said.

Labour Court cannot adjudicate on questions of employer-employee relationship-Section 33C ID Act: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in its recent decision has held that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-­employee relationship.

It further observed that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Labour Court's jurisdiction is like that of an executing court and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based.

"As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based," the Bench has stated in its decision.

Inserting finger into vagina of minor girl is penetrative sexual assault: POSCO: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Court upheld the conviction of a man who was accused of inserting his finger into the vagina of a 4-year-old.

The Supreme Court on 8/2/2022 held that the act of inserting a finger into the vagina of a minor girl would amount to an offence of 'penetrative sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Nawabuddin vs State of Uttarakhand].

"It has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor. We are of the opinion that therefore the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and it can be said to be penetrative sexual assault and considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act as such penetrative sexual assault was committed on a girl child aged four years (below twelve years) the same can be said to be ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act," the Court has observed in its decision.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid objects and to achieve what has been provided under Article 15 and 39 of the Constitution to protect children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, the POCSO Act, 2012 has been enacted. Any act of sexual assault or sexual harassment to the children should be viewed very seriously and all such offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment on the children have to be dealt with in a stringent manner and no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them. Cases of sexual assault or sexual harassment on the children are instances of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of such debased sexual pleasure. 

Supreme Court asks High Courts not to make general observations which are "not warranted"

Read Order

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said that High Courts should restrict itself to the controversy between the parties before it.

"We advise the High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them." 

The High Court while passing a direction allowing petitioners to make a representation to PM, had also made observations on the government's much-publicised 'Make in India' scheme.

"Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis on “Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta), the grievances of the petitioner appear to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest level," the High Court had said in its order.

"The High Court ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it. Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against," the top court said.

3 percent quota for persons with disabilities can't be sub-classified: Gauhati High Court

Read Judgment

The Gauhati High Court on Monday reiterated that the government has a statutory obligation to provide 3 percent reservation for persons with disabilities and to ensure that the same are filled up only by persons with disability.

Justice Suman Shyam said that there should be no sub-classification of such reserved posts based on caste or religion.

"Government would not only have a statutory obligation to identify posts which can be reserved for persons with disability but would also have to earmark such vacancies, not less than 3%, for being filled up only by persons with disability. Such mandate of the statute is dehors any sub-classification and over and above any reservation based on caste, creed and religion," the single-Judge observed.

The Court noted that India's legal commitment towards providing equal opportunities for person with disabilities (PwD) comes from being a signatory to the Beijing Declaration.

Cannot accept compromise between accused and survivor after conviction under Section 354 IPC - Apex Court

A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka dismissed the appeal filed by the convict against a judgment of the Tripura High Court.

"We find no reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court under the judgment impugned," the apex court said.

Read Order

Offensive FB Post About Goddess Saraswati: Calcutta HC Directs Sharing Of URL Details With Facebook India To Authorise Removal, Orders Impleadment Of Alleged Offender

The Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the petitioner to immediately share the URL details of an alleged offensive post about Goddess Saraswati with the authorities of Facebook India in order to authorise the removal of such an offensive post. The Court also directed the petitioner to take appropriate steps to implead the alleged offender as a party in the instant proceedings.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for the removal of an offensive Facebook post about Goddess Saraswati. The alleged offender had purportedly posted that worship of Goddess Saraswati must be discouraged in schools as the Goddess is portrayed to have an 'illicit relationship' with her father.

Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing for the State government apprised the Bench that the alleged Facebook post was indeed an offensive post about Goddess Saraswati and must be removed. He also informed the Bench that the State government had written a letter to the authorities of Facebook India to identify the account details of the alleged user.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Facebook India submitted before the Court that since the petitioner has not disclosed the URL details of the alleged offensive post, it is difficult to trace such a post and find out whether such an offensive post has been taken down or not. He further submitted that his client would provide basic subscriber information relating to the alleged offender with the State government as well as the petitioner.

The senior counsel further apprised the Bench that although the name of the alleged offender had been mentioned in the petition, however the alleged offender had not been imploded as a party. Accordingly, he prayed for directions to implead the alleged offender as a party to the present proceedings.

Senior advocate Rohatgi further submitted that the settled legal position pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is that in such circumstances the Court has to give a direction for removal of such offensive Facebook posts. Since Facebook is an intermediary platform, it cannot on its own decision whether a post is immoral or not, the senior counsel stated further.

"We don't contest if Court orders its removal", the senior counsel remarked further in relation to allegedly offensive Facebook posts.

The counsel for the petitioner remarked before the Bench, "Facebook is not acting as an intermediary..it is missing loopholes in Indian laws to spread hate speech".

Pursuant to the submissions of the concerned parties, the Bench observed that if the concerned Facebook post still exists then it is certainly an offensive post and is thus required to be delated.

"Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to disclose URL To Respondent 1 (Facebook India) without any delay and also take appropriate steps to implead the person who made such a post", the Bench directed further.

The petitioner was also ordered to file English translations of the documents annexed with the petition. The Court also took on record the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to serve a copy of such a supplementary affidavit to the respondents.

.

Insurance company cannot deny claim on ground of delay in intimation of theft: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that an insurance company cannot repudiate a claim merely on the ground of delay in intimation of theft of an insured vehicle.

A Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi held,

"When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft." 

The Supreme court in the present case relied on its 2020 decision in Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Another, where it was held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.

Transfer cannot be claimed as a right by government employees

Read Judgment

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday held that an employee in government service cannot claim transfer as a matter of right.

Justice SM Subramaniam emphasised transfer is only incidental to service and that a concession can never be claimed as a right.

"This Court is of the considered opinion that transfer itself is incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. Transfer can never be claimed as a matter of right by the Government employees. Transfers are issued on administrative grounds. It is the prerogative of the public administration to transfer the employee in the public interest and to ensure efficient and effective administration," the order stated.