Supreme Court approves Urdu as second official language of Uttar Pradesh

A Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice of India RM Lodha and Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and SA Bobde by its judgment dated 4th September 2014 in Civil Appeal No.459 0f 1997 dismissed the appeal of the UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which had moved the top court against the state government's move to adopt Urdu as second language claiming that the State Government’s decision had no rationale as there was not much Urdu speaking population in the state.

Uttar Pradesh had adopted Urdu as the second language through the UP Official Language (Amendment) Act, I989, which had added Section 3 to the UP Official Languages Act, 1951. While dismissing the appeal, the top court said that there was nothing in Article 345 of the Constitution which bars the state from declaring one or more of the languages in use in the state, in addition to Hindi, as the second official language. The Sammelan had first challenged the move in the Allahabad High Court and lost in 1996. It had then appealed to the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that State governments have the right to adopt any language as the second language as long as it is in use in the State and figures in the official languages listed in the Constitution. The Court observed that the States reserve this right in addition to having Hindi as the second language. The Court clarified that there is no such impediment to declaring Hindi as an official language even if it is not in use in the state since it is the official language of the country.

Click below to read Full text of the judgment.

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/ca4591997.pdf

Download free Android app for latest and important court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en

Supreme Court : All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage

An important and interesting question came up before the Supreme Court of India in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma Criminal appeal No. 2009/2013 as to whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act and whether the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act. This issue arose out of dispute between a live-in couple where a lady had sought maintenance from a man after the relationship came to an end. The Court was concerned about the rights of the real wife and her children if another woman in live-in relation with the husband is accorded the status of ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. 

In its landmark judgment pronounced on 26th November 2013, a bench comprising Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose held in its detailed judgment that “all live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. The appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage.  Appellant’s and the respondent’s relationship is, therefore, not a “relationship in the nature of marriage” because it has no inherent or essential  characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than “in the  nature  of  marriage” and the appellant’s status is lower than the status  of  a  wife  and  that relationship  would  not  fall   within   the   definition   of   “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV  Act.  If  we  hold  that  the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship  in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing  an  injustice  to  the  legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship.  Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act”. 

Supreme Court traced the history of live-in relationship to the concept of mistress and concubine in historic times. While observing that Live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in India, the Supreme Court left it to the Parliament to amend law for protection of women in such relationship and children born out of it. The court observed that various countries have started recognising such relationship. The court said that a legislation is required as it is the woman who invariably suffer because of breakdown of such relationship. There is no express statutory provision to regulate live-in relationships upon termination as these relationships are not in the nature of marriage and not recognised in law. The Court however said that maintaining an adulterous relation would not come within the ambit of live-in relationship which is to be protected by law. 

Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench said that duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.

Click below to read the Full Text of Judgment

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41007

Download free Android app for latest court decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en