October 4, 2022

The Lawmatics Bulletin- 1

(9-08-2020 to 16-08-2020) 

  • HIGH COURT ALLOWS RAPE VICTIM TO TERMINATE PREGNANCY

The Delhi High Court has allowed a 16 year old rape victim, who is 22 week pregnant, to undergo termination of the pregnancy after a clinical pshychologist would result in ‘PSHYCHOLOGICAL COMPLICATIONS’. However, Medical termination of pregnancy Act 1971 stipulates a ceiling of 20 weeks for termination of pregnancy, beyond which abortion of a foetus is statutory impermissible.

  • DAUGHTERS HAVE EQUAL COPARCENARY RIGHTS AS OF SONS: SC

A three judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu Woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005. The decision corrects an obvious anomaly in the interpretation of the crucial amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court said,”Since the coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. The judgement has overruled 2015 ruling in Prakash v. Phoolwati, a two judge bench, which held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only to “living daughters of living coparceners” The 174th Law commission report had also recommended this reform in Hindu succession Law. Even before the 2005 amendment, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu had made this change in law. Kerala had abolished the Hindu Joint Family System in 1975.

  • EWS QUOTA CHALLENGE REFERRED TO CONSTITUTION BENCH

The SC has referred to a five judge bench, a batch of petition challenging the 103rd constitution amendment of 2019, that provides 10% reservation for Economically Backward Section(EWS) Quota. The reservation provides a 10% quota in government jobs and educational institutions for EWS, by amending Article 15 and 16 that deal with the fundamental right to equality. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The amendment was challenged on the ground that it violates the SC’s 1992 ruling in, Indra sawhney & ors v. Union of India, which upheld the mandal commision report and capped reservation at 50%. The SC agreed that the case involved substantial question of law, i.e, economic criteria alone cannot be the basis to determine backwardness; the EWS quota exceeds the ceiling cap of 50% set by the court ruling; the rights of unaided private educational institutions. 

  • SUPREME COURT FINDS PRASHANT BHUSHAN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR HIS TWEETS

In the recent decision,The Apex Court found Civil Rights lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt by ‘Scandalising the Court’. The three judge bench said his tweet on photograph of the Chief Justice of India astride a Bike and another on the court’s role in the past six years scandalised the Supreme Court as an institution. The bench fixed the sentence hearing on August 20. The contempt of court act,1971 that punishes with imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine of 2000 or both. 

  • PAY ‘HEFTY’ AND ‘ADEQUATE’ COMPENSATION TO CLOSE MARINES’ CASE: SC

The SC after ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA) in the Enrica lexie case, indicated that it would not allow the closure of criminal trials until compensation is paid by Italy. However, the apex court appreciated the efforts put in by the Republic of Italy to prosecute its marines accused of killing two fishermen off the coast of kerala in 2012, but insisted that it will close their criminal trial in India only after the victims families are heard and paid adequate compensation. The Union Government has declared that it would abide by the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The court granted immunity to the marines and favoured Italy as the appropriate jurisdiction where they could be tried for crime. The PCA, an arbitral tribunal that adjudicates disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), has itself ruled that india is entitled to compensation for loss of life, physical harm, material damage to property and moral harm suffered by the captain and crew members of St.Antony, and mandated negotiations on the quantum.