26-October-2020 to 1-November-2020
CONVERSION OF RELIGION JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MARRIAGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE: ALLAHABAD HC
Priyanshi &Anr. v. State of U.P.
The Single Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi while dismissing writ petition filed by married couple for seeking police protection under Article 226, the court noted that facts of the case clearly reveals that the coversion has taken place only for the purpose of marriage as the girl was a Muslim by birth and she has converted her religion to Hinduism, just a month before the marriage was solemnized.
By referring judgement of 2014 in Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., in which it was observed that conversion just for the purpose of marriage is unacceptable.
Landmark case on conversion:
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Court observed, “A conversion of religion by an individual to Islam can be said to be bonafide if he/she is major and of sound mind and embraces Islam by his/her own freewill and because of his/her faith and belief in the oneness of God (Allah) and prophetic character of Mohamed. If a conversion is not inspired by religion feeling and under gone for its own sake, but is resorted merely with object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device adopted for the purpose to avoid marriage or to achieve an object without faith and belief in the unity of God (Allah) and Mohamed to be his prophet, the conversion shall not be bonafide. In case of a religion conversion there should be a change of heart and honest conviction in the tenets of new religion in lieu of tenets of the original religion.”
DEPRESSION IS NOT UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND: SC
Praveen Kumal Pal v. Union of India
By referring to Section 84 of IPC, the apex court observed that Depression does not qualify as ‘Unsound Mind’ for the purpose of entitling a person to claim defence. Justice Nariman said, “Section 84 of the IPC is based on the McNaughton’s Rule…smashing of head should seem like smashing a coconut! That is the level of insanity needed”
SECTION 84: Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
This principle is based on maxim, ‘furiosus nulla voluntus est’ which means, mentally impaired persons cannot validly sign a commit their will.
BOMBAY HC ALLOWED TO WAIVES COOLING-OFF PERIOD TO GRANT DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT
K.K Dhillon v. K.S. Prakash Rao
In view of the woman’s pregnancy from another person, the Bench of Justice Nitin W. Sambre waived the statutory period for granting divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, 2017 has held that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.
Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have rethink so that the court grants divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation
“AN ATTACK ON ANYBODY’S DAUGHTER IS AN ATTACK ON OUR DAUGHTER” KARNATAKA HC
By stating that gang-rape is more dangerous than murder, the Karnataka High Court has recommended capital punishment for gang-rape in addition to the existing provisions of life imprisonment with fine.
“We hereby recommend the Legislature/Central Government to further amend the provisions of Section 376D of Indian Penal Code – Gang rape into capital punishment in addition to the existing provision for imprisonment of life and with fine on par with the provisions of Section 376AB and 376DB of Indian Penal Code keeping in view of definition of ‘Woman’ under Section 10 of Indian Penal Code in order to curb the menace of ‘gang rape’ in the society at large.”
Karnataka High Court
SECTION 376AB (Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age): Whoever, commits rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine or with death.
SECTION 376DB (Punishment for gang rape on woman under twelve years of age): Where a woman under twelve years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life,which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine, or with death.
Y.K SINHA APPOINTED AS NEW CHIEF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISIONER
Former diplomat and Central Information Commissioner Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha is appointed as the country’s Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). The office of the CIC remained vacant since August 27, 2020, with the retirement of Ex-Chief Bimal Jhulka. Prior to this, he has served as a High Commissioner of India to the UK and Sri Lanka. He was also the Ambassador of India to Venezuela and a Minister at the Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi.