Rajasthan High Court declare Jain community practice of SANTHARA as unconstitutional and illegal

In a totally unexpected ruling, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court by its judgment dated 10th August 2015 (Nikhil Soni vs Union of India & others D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7414/2006 (Public Interest Litigation) ruled that the practice of Santhara by the Jain Community is akin to suicide and is unconstitutional. The Court allowed the PIL filed by a practicing advocate with direction to the State authorities to stop the practice of 'Santhara' or 'Sallekhana' and to treat it as suicide punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and its abetment by persons under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also directed the Government to stop and abolish the practice of ‘Santhara' and 'Sallekhana' in the Jain religion in any form. The Court further directed that any complaint made in this regard should be registered as a criminal case and investigated by the police in accordance with Section 309 or Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

This judgment has led to much unrest and anger amongst the Jain community. It is hoped and believed that this judgment will be appropriately dealt with by the Supreme Court in coming days on an appropriate appeal or petition being filed in the Supreme Court. 

Here is the link to this judgment....

Mental cruelty by wife is ground for divorce : Supreme Court

This Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 4th July two thousand and twelve in Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal Agrawal vs  Civil Appeal No. 4905 of 2 012 decided that by Mental Cruelty by wife is ground for divorce.

The facts are that the husband filed an application for divorce. The same was dismissed by trial judge. The appeal by 1st appellate court was also rejected. Husband preferred Second appeal to the High Court. High court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed Appeal. Husband approached Supreme Court by way of SLP.

Agreeing with the husband, Supreme Court granted leave and allowed his appeal. Relying on various judgments, the Supreme Court held that the expression 'cruelty' had an inseparable nexus with human conduct or human behavior. It was always dependent upon social strata or milieu to which parties belonged, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that had been conditioned by their social status. Court observed that Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 did not define 'cruelty' and same could not be defined. 'Cruelty' might be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. Mental cruelty was a state of mind and feeling with one of spouses due to behaviour or behavioural pattern by other. Mental cruelty could not be established by direct evidence and it was necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from facts and circumstances of case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment, and frustration in one spouse caused by conduct of other could only be appreciated on assessing attending facts and circumstances in which two partners of matrimonial life had been living. Facts and circumstances were to be assessed emerging from evidence on record and thereafter, a fair inference had to be drawn whether Petitioner in divorce Petition had been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of other. As to what constituted mental cruelty for purposes of Section 13 (1) (ia) of Act, would not depend upon numerical count of such incident or only on continuous course of such conduct but one had to really go by intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and deleterious effect of it on mental attitude necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose - Family members and sometimes relatives, friends and neighbours were most natural witnesses. Veracity of testimony was to be tested on objective parameters and not to be thrown overboard on ground that witnesses were related to either of spouse. Conduct and circumstances made it graphically clear that, Respondent-wife had really humiliated Appellant and caused mental cruelty. Her conduct exposited that it had resulted in causing agony and anguish in mind of Appellant-husband. She had made wild allegations about his character. She had made an effort to prosecute him in criminal litigations which she had failed to prove. Feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, agony and frustration of Appellant-husband was obvious. Cumulative effect of evidence brought on record established a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on part of Respondent-wife to make life of Appellant-husband miserable. Appellant-husband felt humiliated both in private and public life. With this mental pain, agony and suffering, Appellant-husband could not be asked to put up with conduct of Respondent-wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he was entitled to a decree for divorce.

The Court also held that Permanent alimony was to be granted taking into consideration social status, conduct of parties, way of living of spouse and such other ancillary aspects and granted permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakh to the wife.

Click here for the Full text of the judgment:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39378

Supreme Court of India awards Rs.60 lakh as damages to a child who suffered injuries due to negligence of electricity company

In a Judgment passed on 17th December 2014 in the matter of Raman vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.  Civil Appeal No. 11466/2014, the Supreme Court of India awarded compensation of Rs.60 lakh to a child who suffered injuries due to negligence of electricity authority. 

Raman, a 4 year boy in 2011 was electrocuted on 3.11.2011 by coming in direct contact with the naked electric wire lying open on the roof of his House in Panipat. The injuries were such that doctors were left with no other option but to carry out triple amputation by removing both his arms upto arm pit and left leg upto knee as the grievous injuries suffered were not curable. It was 100% permanent disability.

Prior to this tragic incident, the boy’s father along with other neighbours had given representations to the electricity company to remove the iron angle from the vicinity of the residential area, as it endangers the life of around 40 to 60 families which is densely populated, but no action was taken.

The boy’s father filed a writ petition in Punjab & Haryana High Court which directed electricity company to compensate the child. But on appeal by electricity company, the Division Bench reduced the compensation amount. 

On filing appeal by the child through father, the Supreme Court restored the compensation of Rs.60 lakh ordered by the single Judge and also directed in case the child does not survive till 21 years of age, the amount will go to his legal heirs. The Supreme Court, taking a compassionate view, observed : He is virtually dead wood and further, he has to undergo continuous pain and suffering at the time of attending nature's call, sitting, standing, walking and sleeping. He has to face difficulties on all walks of life, which is worse than death. His childhood is lost, the marital status and happiness is lost, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. He has to undergo a great ordeal and agony throughout his life”.

This is a landmark judgment on the issue of damages to be awarded in case of personal injury due to negligence.

Click below for Full Text of Judgment

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42215

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

  

Anti Corruption Branch can arrest Delhi Police officials, rules Delhi High Court

In a landmark judgment, Justice Vipin Sanghi of Delhi High Court in his judgment delivered on 25th May 2015 held that Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi Government has the power to arrest the Delhi Police officials. The Court dismissed the bail application which was filed by Constable Anil Kumar of Delhi Police who was arrested by ACB on charges of corruption.

This judgment assumes significance in the wake of latest turf of war between the Lt. Governor Najeeb Jung and the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi. The LG and the Central government in recent past have been doing things thereby restricting the free working of the Delhi Government. The bone of contention is the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi Act 1991.

Read the Full Text of the Judgment.

Delhi High Court : Adding alphabet ‘A’ before name of candidate in DUSU elections is improper

Delhi High Court : Adding alphabet ‘A’ before name of candidate in DUSU elections is improper

The Division bench of Delhi High Court comprising the Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw delivered a judgment on 20th November 2014 in the appeal LPA No. 566/2014 filed by All India Students Association against single Judge’s order in relation to the elections to Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections.  The Court observed that the practice of candidates changing their names and adding the alphabet "A" before their names prior to DUSU polls to get themselves listed at the top of the ballot paper "is flawed". 

The Court observed : ‘we do indeed find several of the contesting candidates to have prefixed the letters “AAA”, “AA”, “aa”, “A.A”, “AAAA”, “aaa”, “a.a” or a name beginning with the letter “A”, to their names, resulting in such altered / changed name being listed at the top of the ballot paper, the names of LPA No.566/2014 Page 4 of 9 contesting candidates wherein are listed alphabetically and which otherwise would have been listed at the bottom of the ballot paper. The contesting candidates having indulged in such a practice, this Court cannot turn a blind eye thereto.  ……We fail to understand, as to how a student of the university, for the purpose of contesting the election, can be allowed any prefix before his name as entered on the rolls of the university.”

The court further observed : “We are however of the opinion that the practice, if followed by the respondent University of allowing such prefixes to the name for the purposes solely of election, is flawed. The name by which a candidate is allowed to contest the election should be the name on the rolls of the university and which name would be, as aforesaid, the same as the name of such student in the School Leaving Certificate. The name in School Leaving Certificate is generally the name given at birth. Though a change of name is possible but the same entails effecting publication in the prescribed newspapers of such change and thereafter having such change notified / published in the Delhi Gazette. Similarly, the schools also have a procedure for effecting change in name. …. Even if there is procedure prevalent in the university permitting change of name, the same should be permissible after contesting in the election and which are normally held soon after the beginning of the academic session. We are further of the view that once the candidate has so changed his name, even if for the purpose of election, in the ensuing year he/she ought not be permitted to thereafter revert to the original name and should be ready to obtain his University Leaving Certificate/Degree also with such changed name”.

Click on Judgment for the Full Text.

 

Supreme Court of India on black money stashed abroad in foreign accounts

Supreme Court is currently hearing Review Petition of Central Govt filed in the PIL (WP No.176 of 2009) which was filed by noted lawyer Ram Jethmalani for directions to Government to take prompt measures to ensure that  the money stashed abroad in illegal bank accounts is brought back to India. The supreme Court had constituted a SIT for this purpose.

The matter came up on 28th October when the Supreme Court directed Govt to place the names of all such account holders. On 29th October, the Govt gave names of 627 such account holders in sealed cover to Court who then passed it on to SIT for taking appropriate action.  The matter will now be taken up on 3rd December at 3.30 pm.

Here is the text of the Order passed by Supreme court on 29th October 2014 :

“Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, on instructions, would submit that as of now, he is not pressing for any of the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application No. 14 of 2014 filed in Writ Petition (C) No.176 of 2009.

          Placing on record the said statement by the learned Attorney General, I.A. No. 14 of 2014 is disposed of as having become unnecessary for the present.

          Shri Rohtagi, learned Attorney General, has voluntarily had filed two separate sealed covers before each of us, which, according to him, contains the names of those account holders who have their bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva, as received from the Government of France.

         This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, by its order dated 04.07.2011 had constituted a Special Investigation Team (for short 'the S.I.T.'). That S.I.T. has been constituted and is functional as of now.

        By our order dated 01.05.2014, we had reconstituted the said S.I.T. and had directed the newly constituted S.I.T. to take forward the orders and directions issued by this Court on 04.07.2011. The said S.I.T. is looking into these matters. In fact, they had filed a Status Report before us on an earlier occasion.

        We do not intend to open the two sealed covers that are placed before each of us by the learned Attorney General, since we have already constituted an S.I.T. to look into these matters. The Registry is hereby directed to hand over the said two sealed covers intact today itself to a responsible officer/person in the S.I.T. with a specific instruction that it shall not be opened by anybody else except by the learned Chairman and Vice-chairman of the S.I.T.

          It is now for the S.I.T. to make use of the documents furnished by the learned Attorney General. We permit the S.I.T. to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and for that purpose to evolve its own procedure after hearing the learned Attorney General or his representative, Shri Ram Jethmalani, party-in-person and his counsel.

          We now request the S.I.T. to furnish before us the latest Status Report as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, by the end of November, 2014.

          We permit both sides to express their difficulties, grievances and other procedure which requires to be adopted before the S.I.T.

I.A.No.15 of 2014:

          Reply, if any, be filed to I.A. No. 15 of 2014 within four weeks' time.

         Call the matter on 3rd December, 2014 at 3.30 p.m.”

Happy Diwali

The Goddess Of Light Is Adorned In Sparkles

And Light This Diwali.

She Wears A Million Stars To Illuminate Our Life.

The Sun And The Moon Are Her Allies

On The Path To Destroy All Evil And

Bring Peace And Happiness To Us.

Let Us Celebrate A Special Diwali This Day!

Sunil Goel

B.Sc, LLB, LLM

38/7 East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026
107, DLF Towers, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi - 110015

M : 9810215488

https://www.facebook.com/sunilgoel71

Member : 

Supreme Court Bar Association

Delhi High Court Bar Association

Guest Faculty, Dte of Training, UTCS, New Delhi

S.G.Solicitors

Government can not give away land at its sweet will in arbitrary manner, held Supreme Court

A bench of Supreme court of India comprising Justices M.Y.Eqbal and P.C.Ghosh in its judgment dated 26th September 2014 in the case of ‘CIDCO vs Platinum Entertainment’ Civil Appeal no. 9264/2014 upheld the CIDCO’s action  of cancelling the land allotted to the respondents allottees by undue favour at the instance of the Minister.

The court held “State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give  largesse  to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers  of the State.  However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on  a sound, transparent and well defined policy which shall be made known to  the public.  The disposal of Government land by adopting  a  discriminatory  and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be  done  in  a  fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or  nepotism  influences the exercises of discretion.  Even assuming that if the Rule  or  Regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual  application  or by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to  be given before such allotment is made”.

The court further observed “we  observe,  that  notwithstanding Regulation 4, as contained in the Regulations, the appellant CIDCO may  take all endeavour to make allotments of plots by open tender or  competing  bids and shall not take any decision for allotment  of  Government  land  at  the instance of the Ministers and High Dignitaries for any purposes whatsoever”.

Click below for the Full Judgment.

Full Judgment

Supreme Court to reexamine JMM MPs bribery case judgment of 1998

A bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Justices T.S.Thakur, R.Banumathi in SLP (Crl) 2758/2014 titled as “Sita Soren vs Union of India through CBI” in its order on 23^rd September 2014 referred the issue of corruption by a MP/MLA to a larger bench. The court said “Since the issue arises for consideration is substantial and of general public importance, we refer these matters to a larger Bench of three Hon'ble Judges to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India”.

The case is that the Election Commission had in April 2012 countermanded the Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand and handed over probe to CBI following allegations of bribery. The CBI in its charge-sheet had accused Sita Soren of receiving Rs 1.5 lakh for proposing nomination and also casting vote in favour of Raj Kumar Agarwal, an independent candidate. She challenged her prosecution claiming immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, which provided that no member of legislature of a state shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him/her in the legislature or any committee thereof. She cited the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case ( in which the apex court granted immunity from prosecution to MPs who took bribe and voted to save the then Congress government of P V Narasimha Rao in Parliament). Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea by coming to a conclusion that since she had not voted for the candidate for whom the bribe was allegedly paid, she was not entitled to immunity from prosecution as in the JMM MPs case the Supreme Court had allowed Ajit Singh's prosecution for not voting even after allegedly taking bribe.

The Supreme Court was of the view that the 1998 judgment in JMM MPs bribery case need a fresh look and hence referred the matter to CJI for constitution of a 3-Judge bench to decide the issue. As per the procedure adopted by the apex court, a two-judge bench can refer a question of law to a three-judge bench, which alone can decide whether such a question merited consideration by a constitution bench. 

In JMM MPs bribery case, a Constitution bench by a 3-2 majority had held that those who took bribe but did not vote were liable to be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act as they would not be entitled to immunity from prosecution granted to MPs under Article 105(2) of the Constitution.