27-April-2021 to 4-May-2021
THE HON’BLE APEX COURT ISSUED NOTICE IN A PLEA TO EXAMINE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 124A OF IPC
Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. UOI
Recently, the petition filed by two journalists has argued that the Section-124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which provides that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. The plea stated that the restriction imposed by the section is an unreasonable one, and therefore does not constitute a permissible restriction in terms of Article 19(2) of the Constitution as there are also alternative legislations to deal with such matters that includes the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Public Safety Act and the National Security Act. The petitioner further argued that the law declared by Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar,1962, is obsolete in present time and the court should declare the section 124A as unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
COURT’S POWER UNDER ARTICLE 329 PREVAILS OVER HIGH COURT’S POWER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION: ANDHRA PRADESH HC
In the signification ruling, the division bench of Andhra Pradesh High court by refusing to entertain the writ petition seeking to countermand the polling conducted in the Tirupati District on April 17, on the ground of fraudulent polling and booth capturing, the court held that the bar against hearing of election disputes by Courts under Article 329 of the Constitution shall prevail over the High Court’s powers to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution as such bar is not self-imposed by any statutory provision but by the Constitution itself.
Article 329 basically provides for the bar on the interference of courts in electoral matters and Clause (b) of this section states that elections to the Parliament or to the Legislature of any State shall not be called in question before a Court of Law except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for in the law.
THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 IS A SECULAR LAW: PUNJAB & HARYANA HC
Jaspreet Kaur v. State of Punjab
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that even though Muslim Personal law permits marriage upon attaining the age of puberty, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is a secular law and does not make any such distinction in age on the basis of religion.
Also in 2015 the Gujarat High Court in Yunusbhai v. State of gujarat ruled that the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 being a “Special Act” and being a subsequent legislation, in case there is any conflict the Act of 2006 will override the provisions of Muslim Personal Law, Hindu Marriage Act or for that matter any personal law. Religion of the contracting party does not matter as the law is Secular law in nature.
ORAL OBSERVATIONS MADE BY COURTS SHOULD BE REPORTED BY MEDIA IN PUBLIC INTEREST: SC
The Supreme Court while hearing the petition filed by Election Commission of India(ECI) against the oral remarks made by Madras High Court that the ECI was “singularly responsible for COVID second wave” and that its officers “should probably be booked for murder”, said that the media cannot be stopped from reporting the oral observations made by the judges during the hearing of a case. The court while objecting to the prayer by ECI also remarks that,”We wish that the media should report fully what is happening in Court. It brings a sense of accountability. Media reporting would also show that we are dispensing our duties fully”.