40 Landmark Judgments by Supreme court of India

40 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS BY COURTS IN INDIA

1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) – 1961

Hardly an open-and-shut case, the nature of the crime garnered media attention.
This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him "not guilty" which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.

2. Amendment masquerades as law (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) – 1967

Parliament's prevented from taking away individual rights.

In the highly famous case of Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions nipped in the bud.

3. (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973

Elected representatives cannot be given the benefit of doubt

A highly notable case which introduced the concept of "basic structure" of the constitution of India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the Parliament. The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.

4. Beginning of the fall of Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain) – 1975

The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency.

In this landmark case regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.

5. A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) – 1976

Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights.

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies. Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.

6. Overlapping zones of laws rectified thanks to a writ petition

The case caused a huge uproar over the definition of Freedom of Speech. The court ruled that the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other Fundamental Rights.

7. Parliament limited by itself (Minerva Mills v Union of India) – 1980

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. Two changes which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in this particular case.

8. Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) – 1981

SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.
This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.

9. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) – 1985

Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband.
The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.

10. MC Mehta v Union Of India – 1986

Mounting environment-related concerns.

A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.

11. Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) – 1992

Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally.

The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.

12. Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another versus Union of India) – 1993

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. The act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in October 2015.

13. Power of President's Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) – 1994

Persecution of state governments stalled.

This landmark case had major implications on Center-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.

14. Scam-tainted politicians – 1997

The Jain Hawala case exposed bigwigs.

The Hawala scandal was an Indian political scandal involving payments allegedly received by politicians through four hawala brokers, the Jain brothers. In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest litigation. Many were acquitted, partly because the hawala records (including diaries) were judged in court to be inadequate as the main evidence. The high court decreed that the CBI had not brought on record any material which could be converted into legally admissible evidence.

15. Foundation for a female workforce (Vishaka v State of Rajasthan) – 1997

Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down.

In this case Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a landmark judgment.

16. Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests – 2002

Awarded death sentence for role in 2001 Parliament attacks.

Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather than rule of law.

17. Justice deferred in Best Bakery case – 2003

Miscarriage of justice as a large number of witnesses turn hostile.
The Best Bakery was burned down, killing 14 people on March 1, 2002 as part of the 2002 Gujarat violence. The Supreme court, in a rarest of rare case, ordered a re-trial outside of Gujarat in which nine out of the seventeen accused were convicted by a special court in Mumbai in 2006.

18. State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti - November 2004

Short conviction time of seven months.

This was notable for being the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused was later convicted and sentenced.

19. Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India – 2005

Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.

20. Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) – 2006

Controversial ruling had many opponents.

The Supreme Court in the above case declared that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in spite of medical evidence not proving that it was rape.

21. Priyadarshini Mattoo case - October 2006

14-year-old fight for justice gets results.

In this matter the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to prime accused Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of the 23-year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.

22. Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006

Civil society makes big gains.

A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.

23. Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life – 2007

Conviction under TADA changed under milder Arms Act.

Well-known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The Supreme Court also cited that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year-old actor to be released on probation.

24. Nithari serial murders – 2009

Koli was served with multiple death sentences.

A Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14-year-old girl. The murders believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism. Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

25. Aarushi Talwar murder – 2008

Verdict delivered under unusual circumstances.

A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

26. Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009

Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals.

In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in December, 2013.

27. Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) - September 2010

Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts.

The high court of Allahabad had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated before it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Sunni muslim Waqf board.

28. Child sexual assault not to be taken lightly – 2011

Punishment not enough for child abusers.

The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The Bench directed the accused to serve the remaining period of sentence. In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court observed “Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes”.

29. Vodafone's name cleared in tax battle (Vodafone-Hutchison tax case) - January 2012

Landmark decision on taxability of offshore transactions.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case citing that capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.

30. Clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi – 2012

Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure.

In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.

31. Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra – 2012

One of the most high-profile executions in the country.

The Supreme Court observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging war against India.

32. NOTA Judgment – 2013

The right to reject candidates formalised.

In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any candidate (None-Of-The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.

33. Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) – 2013

Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine.
Novartis’ application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company brands as "Glivec", which is very effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the general public at a much lower heeded

34. Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013

Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.

The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.

35. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Through CBI) - March 2014

Split judgment couldn't reach a decision on sentencing.

August 2015: Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.

36. Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014

Judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex offenders.
Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given the death sentence. The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

37. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014
Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights.

In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other amenities.

38. Section 66A revised (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015

Cracking down on "offensive" online content not easy.

Controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.

39. Yakub Memon sentenced to death (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra and Anr) - July 2015

No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon was convicted and sentenced to execution by hanging in March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts. His conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.

40. Dance bars functional again - October 2015

After a gap of two decades, dance bars open.

The Supreme Court in July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state government to reopen dance bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the Maharashtra Police Act. The resultant ban by the Bombay High Court was stayed.

Supreme Court of India dismisses PIL to rename 'India' to 'Bharat'

The Supreme Court (Bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice AK Sikri) on 10th November 2014 declined to entertain a plea seeking to rename India as Bharat and asked the petitioner to first make an appropriate representation before an authority in support of his plea. The court said that the petitioner can approach it only after making a representation and getting response to it. The case was  W.P.(C) NO. 924/2014 and titled as NIRANJAN BHATWAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND others.

Click below for the Order dated 10.11.2014.

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp

  

PIL in Delhi High Court on Govt departments using email accounts on foreign servers and minors using social networking sites

The Delhi High Court, in a PIL,  is examining, among other things, the aspect of breach, if any, of provisions of Information Technology Act and of rules framed thereunder by internet sites like facebook and google by allowing persons below 18 years to enter into an agreement with these sites. It was pointed out by these sites that if it comes in the knowledge of any person that a child below the age of 13 years has opened such an account,  he may make a complaint to the social networking site who then take appropriate action, after verification, for deletion of that account. In this regard, Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been notified under the IT Act. Rule 3 requires due diligence to be observed by the intermediary. The social  networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut fall within the definition of “Intermediary” as per Rule 2(i) of the said Rules read with Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules applies to them. It was informed that in accordance with Rule 3(1), both Facebook and Orkut have published the Rules and Regulations as also the privacy policy and user agreements for access and usage of their computer resource. Rule 3(2) contains certain other directions as to what should be the content of the Rules and Regulations, terms and conditions and the user agreements. Under Rule 3(4), the intermediary can take action for disabling any such information as mentioned in rule 3(2), both on a complaint in writing from affected persons as well as on obtaining knowledge by itself. By virtue of a subsequent clarificatory notification, it has been clarified that the intermediary shall respond to or acknowledge the complainant within thirty six hours and the same shall be redressed promptly but in any case within 30 days. 

The court vide its order dated 23rd August 2013 directed, after being pointed out Rule 3(11), that intermediaries, including the social networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut, should immediately publish the names of the respective Grievance Officers on their websites alongwith contact numbers as well as the mechanism by which any user or any victim who suffers as a result of access or usage of computer resource by any person in violation of rule 3, can notify their complaints against such access or usage. This order was complied with by these websites, as recorded by the court in its order dated 23rd September 2013 and 30th October 2013.

The court in the said PIL is also looking into the issue of Government departments and officers using email accounts of service providers having servers located outside India and whether this violates provision of Public Records Act, 1993. It was informed to the court by the Government of India that the Government is on the verge of finalizing an E-mail Policy and Govt would ensure that there is complete conformity between E-mail Policy and the said Act with regard to public records.

The PIL will now come up on 26th September 2014. It was filed by shri K.N.Govindacharya and its case no. is Writ Petition (civil) No.3672/2012.

Supreme Court of India directs Central Government to take concrete steps to bring Black Money stashed abroad

In a landmark judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 4th July 2011 directed the Central Govt to take concrete steps for bringing Black money stashed abroad, to India. This order was passed on a PIL filed by noted lawyer Mr. Ram Jethmalani. 

However, instead of complying with the said judgment, the Central Government challenged the said judgment by filing a Review Petition before the Supreme Court. The Govt requested the court to do away with the two retired Supreme Court judges who had been appointed by the Supreme Court to head the Committee of Govt. officers to oversee and implement this task. This Review Petition of the Central Govt has been rejected by the Supreme Court by its Order dated 26th March 2013. 

Read this beautiful judgment in full. 

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm

Supreme Court of India awards highest compensation in medical negligence case

Dear Friends,

The Supreme Court of India has pronounced a landmark judgment on 24th October 2013 on the quantum of compensation to be awarded in cases of medical negligence. This case pertains to Dr.Kunal Saha, a doctor in US, whose wife died due to medical negligence due to medical negligence of the doctors and hospital at Kolkatta about 15 years back. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had awarded Rs.1.34 crore which has been enhanced by the Supreme Court to Rs.6.08 crore. 

The Supreme Court, in this 210 page judgment, referred to several earlier judgments of itself  as well as of foreign courts and beautifully discussed the law of compensation in detail. The Court also advised the medical practitioners to be vigilant in future and to continuously update themselves with latest developments in medical field so that such incidents do not recur.

This judgment, I feel, will go a long way, in furthering the right to good health of the masses and will check the tendency on part of some medical practitioners to take their patients and their work lightly. 

Read the full judgment.

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm

Tainted politicians can no more contest elections in India

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by landmark judgment of 10th July 2013 declared Section 8(4) of Representation of People Act to be unconstitutional. Earlier, the politicians could continue as MPs or MLAs even on conviction, simply by filing appeal. Now, such protection has been taken away. Now, if an MP or MLA is convicted by a court for specified offences, then he will automatically cease to be MP / MLA. Further, the Supreme court interpreting Section 62(5) held that a person in prison or in lawful custody of police is not entitled to vote and hence is not entitled to even contest the election for MP/MLA. 

Read the full Judgment.

Sunil Goel, advocate 

B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm

Supreme Court of India answers presidential reference on 2G and disposal of natural resources by auction

Hi friends.

Those of you who are keenly following 2G spectrum scam must be aware that the President of India had recently sent a Reference under Article 143 of Constitution of India to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for giving opinion on various queries. The main question involved was whether the auction is the only option available to the Govt for disposing natural resources as was seemingly held by 2 Judge bench of Supreme court in its earlier judgment dated 2.2.2012.

The 5 Judge Bench has answered the Reference vide Judgement dated 27th September 2012. The text of this latest judgment is given hereunder for benefit of all my readers. Read the full judgment. 

Sunil Goel advocate 

B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm

Domestic Violence Act : Important information

Dear friends,

You must have seen today's episode of SATYAMEV JAYATE which was focused on women suffering domestic violence. You are now aware that there is a law in India called 'Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005' which is to help women who undergo some sort of violence at the hands of relatives. For the benefit of readers, I am giving here the complete Text of this Act :

THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

[Act, No. 43 of 2005]

PREAMBLE

An Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

Section 1 - Short title, extent and commencement

(1) This Act may be called the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, appoint.¹

1. Enforcement date for the Act as per the notification No: S.O. 1776(E) issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development is 26.10.2006.

Section 2 - Definitions

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

(b) "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child;

(c) "compensation order" means an order granted in terms of section 22;

(d) "custody order" means an order granted in terms of section 21;

(e) "domestic incident report" means a report made in the prescribed form on receipt of a complaint of domestic violence from an aggrieved person;

(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

(g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;

(h) "dowry" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;

(i) "Magistrate" means the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, or as the case may be, the Metropolitan Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the area where the aggrieved person resides temporarily or otherwise or the respondent resides or the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place;

(j) "medical facility" means such facility as may be notified by the State Government to be a medical facility for the purposes of this Act;

(k) "monetary relief" means the compensation which the Magistrate may order the respondent to pay to the aggrieved person, at any stage during the hearing of an application seeking any relief under this Act, to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence;

(l) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the expression "notified" shall be construed accordingly;

(m) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

(n) "Protection Officer" means an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 8;

(o) "protection order" means an order made in terms of section 18;

(p) "residence order" means an order granted in terms of sub-section (1) of section 19;

(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

(r) "service provider" means an entity registered under sub-section (1) of section 10;

(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

(t) "shelter home" means any shelter home as may be notified by the State Government to be a shelter home for the purposes of this Act.

Section 3 - Definition of domestic violence

For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it -

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--

(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes-

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.

(iv) "economic abuse" includes-

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;

(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

Section 4 - Information to Protection Officer and exclusion of liability of Informant

(1) Any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer

(2) No liability, civil or criminal, shall be incurred by any person for giving in good faith of information for the purpose of sub-section (1).

Section 5 - Duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate

A police officer, Protection Officer, service provider or Magistrate who has received a complaint of domestic violence or is otherwise present at the place of an incident of domestic violence or when the incident of domestic violence is reported to him, shall inform the aggrieved person-

(a) of her right to make an application for obtaining a relief by way of a protection order, an order for monetary relief, a custody order, a residence order, a compensation order or more than one such order under this Act;

(b) of the availability of services of service providers;

(c) of the availability of services of the Protection Officers;

(d) of her right to free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987;

(e) of her right to file a complaint under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, wherever relevant;

Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed in any manner as to relieve a police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.

Section 6 - Duties of shelter homes

If an aggrieved person or on her behalf a Protection Officer or a service provider requests the person in charge of a shelter home to provide shelter to her, such person in charge of the shelter home shall provide shelter to the aggrieved person in the shelter home.

Section 7 - Duties of medical facilities

If an aggrieved person or, on her behalf a Protection Officer or a service provider requests the person in charge of a medical facility to provide any medical aid to her, such person in charge of the medical facility shall provide medical aid to the aggrieved person in the medical facility.

Section 8 - Appointment of Protection Officers

(1) The State Government shall, by notification, appoint such number of Protection Officers in each district as it may consider necessary and shall also notify the area or areas within which a Protection Officer shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred on him by or under this Act.

(2) The Protection Officers shall as far as possible be women and shall possess such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed.

(3) The terms and conditions of service of the Protection Officer and the other officers subordinate to him shall be such as may be prescribed,

Section 9 - Duties and functions of Protection Officers

(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-

(a) to assist the Magistrate in the discharge of his functions under this Act;

(b) to make a domestic incident report to the Magistrate, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, upon receipt of a complaint of domestic violence and forward copies thereof to the police officer in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction domestic violence is alleged to have been committed and to the service providers in that area;

(c) to make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed to the Magistrate, if the aggrieved person so desires, claiming relief for issuance of a protection order;

(d) to ensure that the aggrieved person is provided legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987(39 of 1987) and make available free of cost the prescribed form in which a complaint is to be made;

(e) to maintain a list of all service providers providing legal aid or counselling, shelter homes and medical facilities in a local area within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate;

(f) to make available a safe shelter home, if the aggrieved person so requires and forward a copy of his report of having lodged the aggrieved person in a shelter home to the police station and the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area where the shelter home is situated;

(g) to get the aggrieved person medically examined, if she has sustained bodily injuries and forward a copy of the medical report to the police station and the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area where the domestic violence is alleged to have been taken place;

(h) to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974);

(i) to perform such other duties as may be prescribed.

(2) The Protection Officer shall be under the control and supervision of the Magistrate, and shall perform the duties imposed on him by the Magistrate and the Government by, or under, this Act.

Section 10 - Service providers

(1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, any voluntary association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860(21 of 1860) or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force with the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women by any lawful means including providing of legal aid, medical, financial or other assistance shall register itself with the State Government as a service provider for the purposes of this Act.

(2) A service provider registered under sub-section (1) shall have the power to-

(a) record the domestic incident report in the prescribed form if the aggrieved person so desires and forward a copy thereof to the Magistrate and the Protection Officer having jurisdiction in the area where the domestic violence took place;

(b) get the aggrieved person medically examined and forward a copy of the medical report to the Protection Officer and the police station within the local limits of which the domestic violence took place;

(c) ensure that the aggrieved person is provided shelter in a shelter home, if she so requires and forward a report of the lodging of the aggrieved person in the shelter home to the police station within the local limits of which the domestic violence took place.

(3) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any service provider or any member of the service provider who is, or who is deemed to be, acting or purporting to act under this Act, for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in the exercise of powers or discharge of functions under this Act towards the prevention of the commission of domestic violence.

Section 11 - Duties of Government

The Central Government and every State Government, shall take all measures to ensure that-

(a) the provisions of this Act are given wide publicity through public media including the television, radio and the print media at regular intervals;

(b) the Central Government and State Government officers including the police officers and the members of the judicial services are given periodic sensitization and awareness training on the issues addressed by this Act;

(c) effective co-ordination between the services provided by concerned Ministries and Departments dealing with law, home affairs including law and order, health and human resources to address issues of domestic violence is established and periodical review of the same is conducted;

(d) pro ols for the various Ministries concerned with the delivery of services to women under this Act including the courts are prepared and put in place.

Section 12 - Application to Magistrate

(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Section 13 - Service of notice

(1) A notice of the date of hearing fixed under section 12 shall be given by the Magistrate to the Protection Officer, who shall get it served by such means as may be prescribed on the respondent, and on any other person, as directed by the Magistrate within a maximum period of two days or such further reasonable time as may be allowed by the Magistrate from the date of its receipt.

(2) A declaration of service of notice made by the Protection Officer in such form as may be prescribed shall be the proof that such notice was served upon the respondent and on any other person as directed by the Magistrate unless the contrary is proved.

Section 14 - Counselling

(1) The Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondent or the aggrieved person, either singly or jointly, to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counselling as may be prescribed.

(2) Where the Magistrate has issued any direction under sub-section (1), he shall fix the next date of hearing of the case within a period not exceeding two months.

Section 15 - Assistance of welfare expert

In any proceeding under this Act, the Magistrate may secure the services of such person, preferably a woman, whether related to the aggrieved person or not, including a person engaged in promoting family welfare as he thinks fit, for the purpose of assisting him in discharging his functions.

Section 16 - Proceedings to be held in camera

If the Magistrate considers that the circumstances of the case so warrant, and if either party to the proceedings so desires, he may conduct the proceedings under this Act in camera.

Section 17 - Right to reside in a shared household

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Section 18 - Protection orders

The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from-

(a) committing any act of domestic violence;

(b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;

(c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person;

(d) attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact;

(e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate;

(f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence;

(g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order.

Section 19 - Residence orders

(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order -

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;

(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;

(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;

(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or

(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:

Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.

(3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.

(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly.

(5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.

(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.

(7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.

(8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.

Section 20 - Monetary reliefs

(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include but is not limited to-

(a) the loss of earnings;

(b) the medical expenses;

(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force.

(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

(6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

Section 21 - Custody orders

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent:

Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that any visit of the respondent may be harmful to the interests of the child or children, the Magistrate shall refuse to allow such visit.

Section 22 - Compensation orders

In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent,

Section 23 - Power to grant interim and ex parte orders

(1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.

Section 24 - Court to give copies of order free of cost

The Magistrate shall, in all cases where he has passed any order under this Act, order that a copy of such order, shall be given free of cost, to the parties to the application, the police officer in-charge of the police station in the jurisdiction of which the Magistrate has been approached, and any service provider located within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and if any service provider has registered a domestic incident report, to that service provider.

Section 25 - Duration and alteration of orders

(1) A protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge.

(2) If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.

Section 26 - Relief in other suits and legal proceedings

(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.

(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.

(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.

Section 27 - Jurisdiction

(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or

(c) the cause of action has arisen,

shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

Section 28 - Procedure 

(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Section 29 - Appeal

There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Section 30 - Protection Officers and members of service providers to be public servants

The Protection Officers and members of service providers, while acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21(45 of 1860) of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 31 - Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent

(1) A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) The offence under sub-section (1) shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.

(3) While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may also frame charges under section 498A(45 of 1860) of the Indian Penal Code or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961), as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.

Section 32 - Cognizance and proof

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), the offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

(2) Upon the sole testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that an offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 has been committed by the accused.

Section 33 - Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer

If any Protection Officer fails or refuses to discharge his duties as directed by the Magistrate in the protection order without any sufficient cause, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 34 - Cognizance of offence committed by Protection Officer

No prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Protection Officer unless a complaint is filed with the previous sanction of the State Government or an officer authorised by it in this behalf.

Section 35 - Protection of action taken in good faith

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall He against the Protection Officer for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder.

Section 36 - Act not in derogation of any other law

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

Section 37 - Power of Central Government to make rules

(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--

(a) the qualifications and experience which a Protection Officer shall possess under sub-section (2) of section 8;

(b) the terms and conditions of service of the Protection Officers and the other officers subordinate to him, under sub-section (3) of section 8;

(c) the form and manner in which a domestic incident report may be made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9;

(d) the form and the manner in which an application for protection order may be made to the Magistrate under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 9;

(e) the form in which a complaint is to be filed under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 9;

(f) the other duties to be performed by the Protection Officer under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 9;

(g) the rules regulating registration of service providers under sub-section (1) of section 10;

(h) the form in which an application under sub-section (1) of section 12 seeking reliefs under this Act may be made and the particulars which such application shall contain under sub-section (3) of that section;

(i) the means of serving notices under sub-section (1) of section 13;

(j) the form of declaration of service of notice to be made by the Protection Officer under sub-section (2) of section 13;

(k) the qualifications and experience in counselling which a member of the service provider shall possess under sub-section (1) of section 14;

(l) the form in which an affidavit may be filed by the aggrieved person under sub-section (2) of section 23;

(m) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed.

(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

Sunil Goel advocate B.Sc. L.Lb L.Lm