Month: August 2021

Sujata Sharma Vs. Manu Gupta

Posted on

Case Number

CS (OS) 2011/2006

Equivalent Citation

(2016) 226 DLT 647

Coram 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Decided on

22 DECEMBER 2015

Relevant Act/ Section

SECTION 6 WITHIN THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

Background 

Before the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 women were considered physically and mentally inferior to men. The Indian patriarchal society disregards the Hindu women’s right to property and she or he is formed to suffer inequality and oppression. Women could hold only two sorts of property- Stridhan and Women’s Estate. Over which the feminine had meager powers only. Since they had no absolute powers and rights over the property and couldn’t acquire property from their father, they might not become Karta or play any role within the family property.  

On 9 September 2005, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force incorporating the reforms suggested within the 174th Report of the Law Commission of India. This amendment deleted section 4(2) of the act and paved the way for equal rights for girls. According to the newly amended provision, a lady by birth becomes a coparcener within the same manner as a son. The daughter now has equivalent rights and liabilities as a son. She fully enjoys the rights of the property of her father also as her in-laws.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

In this case, DR Gupta and his sons held a bungalow in Delhi and a few movable properties and shares on a long-term lease. On 1st October 1971, Mr. DR Gupta died leaving behind him the five sons alongside their respective families. Mr. Kishan Mohan Gupta, the eldest son, became the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. At a later time, all the five sons of DR Gupta also died, and therefore the son of the younger brother of Kishan Gupta declared himself as the Karta of the HUF because he was the oldest living member of the said HUF.

The plaintiff challenged him by stating that after her father and her uncles, she is the senior-most member of HUF by the plaintiff, eldest daughter of Mr. Kishan Gupta. 

Arguments

  • Arguments made by the plaintiff

Plaintiff contended that her being a lady can’t be the only reason for disqualification from being its Karta. She further contended that under the new provision, a daughter of a coparcener during a HUF, can enjoy rights to those enjoyed by a son of a coparcener.

  • Arguments made by the defendant

The defendant objected to such claims and contended that the amended section 6 of HSA only grants daughters equal rights to be considered coparceners as those enjoyed by a male member and not extends to management of HUF property. He further argued that since the plaintiff has been married, she can’t be considered as a requisite part of HUF. 

Issues before the Court

Whether the eldest daughter amongst the coparceners of Hindu Undivided family, be entitled as Karta?

9 Cited Judgements

  • Tribhuvan Das Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal  

In this case, the Court held that Karta must be a senior-most member in a HUF.

  • Raghunath Raj Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and others
  • Ram Belas Singh v. Uttam Singh and others
  • Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, India
  • Prakash Nath Khanna v. C.I.T.
  • S.Sai Reddy v. S.Narayana Reddy and Ors 
  • Badshah v. Urmila badshah Godse and another

The decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court held that while women would have equal rights in a HUF property, this right could not be curtailed when it comes to the management of the same property. The court further held that hurdles that prevented a women member of a HUF from becoming its Karta were that she did not have the necessary qualifications of Copartnership. Now, Under Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, this deprivation has been deleted and there is no reason left that Hindu women should be denied the position of Karta in HUF. If the eldest son is often Karta, so can a female member.

Comments

In Prakash v. Phoolwati, the court held that the 2005 amendment will have the prospective effect which means that when the predecessor will die on or after 9 September 2005, then only women can claim to become Karta. But in the given case, the Court held that women have the right to become Karta, even though her father died before the introduction of the 2005 amendment. With due respect, the above judgment is patchy as it does not explain the actual position and role of Karta of HUF. The court only focussed on the proprietary rights and management aspect of the Karta, and other aspects like the socio-religious position of the Karta in HUF are neglected.  But this judgment will create a positive impact on society because it settles an equal place for women.

SITUATION ON GROUND 

Although the proper of being the Karta has been conferred abreast of the daughter, being the senior member of the family, through legislation and judicial pronouncements, she didn’t come to the fore to require up this responsibility. The family, where there are brothers notwithstanding younger than her, consider their sons to be more competent and hand over the responsibility of the family, by holding the title of the Karta. Most of the time Daughters are not even considered a member of their existing family but as a member of her husband’s family. Inconclusive words, the position of classic India or things before the amendment, persists in India Society.

Conclusion 

When the legislature passes the amendment act of 2005, it is very evident that they want to include female members of HUF to inherit Mitakshara co-coparcenary property. Due to unclarity in the provisions of the Amendment act and lack of awareness of the recent amendments, the discrimination continued even nowadays. But this judgment has clarified the legislature’s actual intent by including the management of the HUF property. Hopefully, it would assist in eliminating the gender discrimination, oppression, and negation of the fundamental right of equality of women guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. And over time, strengthen the position of women in the hierarchy of society.   

The case analysis has been done by Megha Patel, a 2nd year Law Student at the Mody University of Science and Technology, Laxmangarh, Rajasthan.

The case analysis has been done by Shubham Yadav, a 4th-year law student from Banasthali Vidyapith.

Latest Posts

Archives

The Never-Ending Controversy Around Section 124A IPC- Sedition

Posted on

Introduction

Sedition laws were enacted in 17th Century England when legislators accepted that only positive opinions about the government ought to be expressed, as negative and coercive opinions were inconvenient to the public authority and government. 

The law was initially drafted in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay, a British history specialist. At first, Section 124A was not included in IPC when it was authorized in 1860. Sedition was, in this manner, made an offense in British India since the Government speculated on a Wahabi uprising. Wahabi movement was kind of a revivalist movement that tried to purify Islam by discarding the un-Islamic practices which were introduced into Muslim society through ages. The period of the movement can be marked from the 1820s to the 1870s. Accordingly, in 1870, Section 124A was added to Chapter VI of the IPC, which is dedicated to offenses against the State. 

Sedition is a crime under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which says- ‘whoever by spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India’ shall be punished with life imprisonment.

Three explanations added to the provisions recommend that while “disaffection” will incorporate disloyalty and all feelings of animosity, comments without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, won’t establish an offense. 

Remarkable Sedition Trials Of All Time: 

The penal provision proved to be useful to curb patriot voices and demands for freedom. The extensive rundown of India’s national heroes who were categorized as accused in cases of sedition includes Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, and Jawaharlal Nehru.

The first among the nationalist was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose of 1891. Bose was the editor of the newspaper named Bongobasi. He wrote an article condemning the Age of Consent Bill for posing a threat to religion and for its negative influence on Indians.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the main individual to be convicted for sedition in British India. The British government brought the charge, alleging that the articles conveyed in Tilak’s Marathi paper Kesari would incite individuals to thwart the government endeavors for checking the plague epidemic in India. In 1897, Tilak was alleged by the Bombay high court for sedition under Section 124A and was put behind the bars for 18 months. Tilak was held liable by a jury made out of nine individuals, with the six white jurors casting a ballot against Tilak, and three Indian jurors casting a ballot in support of Tilak. Afterward, Section 124A was given various interpretations by the Federal Court, which started working in 1937, and the Privy Council, which was the highest court of appeal situated in London. 

The Privy Council followed the precedents set down for Tilak’s situation and decided that incitement to violation was not a prerequisite for the crime of sedition and that incitement of feelings of enmity against the government was adequate to set up charge under Section 124A.

Status of Sedition Law after Independence: KM Munshi moved an amendment to eliminate “sedition” that was mentioned in the draft Constitution as a ground to impose limitations on the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, the word “sedition” was subsequently removed from the Constitution when it was adopted on November 26, 1949, and Article 19(1)(a) gave complete freedom of speech and expression. However, Section 124A kept on remaining in the IPC.

In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the first amendment to the Constitution to restrict freedom under Article 19(1)(a) and authorized Article 19(2). The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, repealed the age-old 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure, and eventually, sedition was made a cognizable offense approving the police to arrest without a warrant.

Sedition Law As A State-Protection Mechanism:

  • Area 124A of the IPC has its utility in battling hostility to public, secessionist and terrorist elements. 
  • It shields the chosen government from endeavors to overthrow the public authority through brutality and unlawful means. The continued presence of the government set up by law is a fundamental state of the steadiness of the State. 
  • If the contempt of court welcomes penal section, condemnation of government should likewise invite penal sanction. 
  • Numerous districts in various states face a Maoist insurgency. Rebel organisations essentially run an equal administration. These gatherings transparently advocate the overthrow of the state government by revolution. Against this background, the nullification of Section 124A would be ill-advised only on the grounds that it has been wrongly summoned in some exceptionally publicized cases.

Sedition Law As Colonial Oppressive Tool:

  • Section 124A is a relic of colonial oppression and unnecessary in a democratic government. It is a limitation on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. 
  • Dissent and reasonable criticism of the government are fundamental elements of vigorous public discussion in a democratic government. They ought not to be built as sedition. Right to question, scrutinize and change rulers is basic to a democracy. 
  • The British, who introduced sedition to mistreat Indians, have themselves abrogated the law in their country. There is no explanation, for what reason ought not India to nullify this part. 
  • The terms utilized under Section 124A like ‘offense’ are ambiguous and dependent upon various interpretations of the investigating officers.

Reference To Landmark Judgements:

The problem emerging from different opinions of the High courts was at last settled by the Supreme Court through its judgment in the Kedar Nath case in 1962, which is viewed as the most definitive judgment of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the sedition law. A Constitution bench upholds the legitimacy of the sedition law laid down in IPC, holding that the objective behind the crime of sedition was to prevent the government set up by law from being overthrown by some unscrupulous activities. In Balwant Singh and Anr Vs State of Punjab (1995), the Supreme Court dropped sedition charges against two men who raised slogans for an autonomous Sikh majority State outside a movie hall in the aftermath of the assassination of the former PM Indira Gandhi. The court decided in favor of the accused, calling attention to the fact that acts didn’t add up to sedition since the slogans didn’t prompt any unsettling influence, and was not prone to instigate any violence in the minds of the targeted group.

The Law Commission of India, in its report, distributed in August 2018, additionally saw that while holding the law of sedition was important to secure public trustworthiness, it should not be used as an instrument to check free speech.

Conclusion:

India is the largest democracy globally, and the right to free speech and expression is the heart and soul of a well-functioning democracy. The articulation or thought that isn’t in agreement with the strategy of the government ought not to be considered as sedition. Obviously, it is fundamental to secure public safety and integrity. So, the best option is to choose a mid-way that will actually solve the problem rather than ruthless and baseless arrests and detention.

The article is written by Sayani Das pursuing BBA.LLB (H) from Amity Law School, Kolkata.

The article has been edited by Shubham Yadav, pursuing B.com LL.B. from Banasthali Vidyapith.

Latest Posts

Archives