Tag: #JudgementAnalysis

INTRODUCTION

Lately, we have seen a remarkable expansion in the occurrence of police barbarities all around the country. Launch by the June 2020 instance of fierce custodial torment and killings of Jayaraj and Bennix in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu. While numerous episodes of police ruthlessness occur routinely, and regularly openly in spaces, not many of them get featured in the media or similarly witness public shock. Then, at that point, as well, once the ­initial period of public shock tides over-soothed through inquiries, captures and examination seldom are police authorities arraigned and indicted for these terrible demonstrations of viciousness. While the law is regularly promoted as an answer for social issues, ­including police torment, custodial brutality, and extrajudicial killings, this article contends that the arrangements of law and their execution are a contributor to the issue.

CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE

Custodial brutality principally alludes to savagery in police guardianship and legal care. Except for assault, death, and torment are two different kinds of custodial brutality. Custodial brutality is not a new peculiarity. Sections 330, 331, and 348 of IPC; Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act; Section 76 of CrPC and Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 were ordered to check the propensity of police officers to turn to torment to separate admissions and so on despite these legitimate arrangements, custodial savagery keeps on happening. Custodial brutality is a term, which is utilized for depicting savagery submitted against an individual by a police authority. In this way, custodial viciousness can be characterized as “a barbaric attribute that springs out of an unreasonable longing to cause enduring when there is no
chance of any reprisal; a silly presentation of prevalence and actual control over the person who is overwhelmed.”

Even though stuffing, ailing health, unhygienic conditions, and absence of clinical consideration are a portion of the elements of death in police and legal guardianship, custodial savagery stays the normal reason for passing’s in penitentiaries and lock-ups. Be that as it may, notwithstanding the Constitutional and Statutory arrangements contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code pointed toward shielding individual freedom and life of a resident, the developing occurrence of torment and passing’s in police guardianship has been upsetting. Experience shows that the most exceedingly terrible infringement of basic freedoms happens throughout examination when the police, with the end the goal of getting proof or admissions, frequently resort to third-degree strategies including torment and procedures of captures by either not recording them or portraying the hardship of freedom simply as “delayed cross-examinations”.

CAUSES OF POLICE ATROCITIES IN INDIA

Despite the way that each section of the general public has a concerned outlook on custodial savagery, throughout the long term it has stayed unabated. It is by all accounts on ascent consistently, disregarding the way that pace of proficiency has expanded and individuals have become mindful with regards to their privileges and obligations. The principal arm of the criminal equity framework that arrangements with individuals in authority are police. It will, accordingly, be important to discover afflictions, which administer this office coming about into maltreatment of the people who are in their care. The fundamental reasons for Custodial viciousness can be gathered in the accompanying classifications: –

CASES AGAINST POLICE ATROCITIES IN INDIA

In D.K Basu v/s State of West Bengal, [(1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610] (1)the Court has laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the police at the time of arrest and detention.

The case of Joginder Kumar v/s State of U.P [1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260] (2) is an example that highlights the wrongful use of arrest power by the police without a justifiable reason and the arrest was not recorded in the police diary.

Interfering of evidence in matters regarding Habeas Corpus where it was seen on a petition where a father desired to take the custody of his minor girl for the accused whereby the accused brought a wrong person misdirecting the court to believe the person to be the same for whom the petition was filed, the court ordered an inquiry under Section 193,196 and 199 to be filed against the respondent. It emphasizes the offense of tampering with evidence. R. Rathinam v/s Kamla Vaiduriam.1993 CrLJ 2661(Mad) (3)

The case of Nilabati Behra v/s State of Orissa & Ors. [1993(2) SCC 746] (4) is a glaring example of death caused by police brutality. In this specific case, the state was held responsible and was ordered to pay compensation to the appellant. This cruel act of police was seen as a blatant violation of the rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The apex court in Bhim Singh Versus State of J & K. [(1985) 4 SCC 677; AIR 1986 SC 494], ordered the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 for detention and illegal arrest of Bhim Singh by the police to avert him from attending the Assembly Session. (3)

References

1. D.K Basu vs. State of West Bengal. lawtimesjournal.in. [Online] https://lawtimesjournal.in/d-k-basu-vs-state-of-west-bengal/.
2. Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994. indiankanoon.org. [Online] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/768175/.
3. Remedies Against Illegal Action by Police. blog.ipleaders.in. [Online] https://blog.ipleaders.in/remedies-illegal-police-action/.
4. Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit … vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993. indiankanoon.org. [Online] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1628260/.

This article is written by Sara Agrawal student at Sinhgad Law College, Pune.

INTRODUCTION

Environmental law can be viewed according to two viewpoints human-centric and ecocentric, previous is human-driven, while the latter is nature-driven. Ecocentrism is a part of the thought that tracks down inherent worth in every single living organic entity. It takes a comprehensive perspective on the Earth, rather than the smaller methodology embraced by anthropocentrism.

THE INDIAN WAY TO DEAL WITH ECOCENTRISM

The Indian legal executive prior was leaned towards anthropocentrism. However, continuously, it has moved more towards ecocentrism. Isa Upanishad expounds on the antiquated Indian underlying foundations of ecocentrism. It plainly says that every one of the living and non-living life forms in this universe has a place with God alone. There ought to be an agreement between various species with nobody over the other. Individuals, in a similar way, are not better than any species. Hence, neither people nor some other species have an authentic right to infringe upon the privileges of some other species.
This way of thinking has been treated as the base for some significant worldwide shows and arrangements, similar to Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources, 1980, The Berne-Convention on Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats,1982, The Protocol to Antarctic Treaty on Environmental Protection, 1998, and so on India is a signatory to this multitude of arrangements and thus regards them. These settlements give significance to various types of verdure for their inherent worth.

INDIAN LEGAL EXECUTIVE: ANTHROPOCENTRISM TO ECOCENTRISM

It is obvious that in the changing occasions’ ecocentric approach has acquired help. Different reasons can be attributed to something very similar. The preeminent being, the information that the conservation of vegetation is the main key to the protection of humankind. All things considered, without the previous, the last option can’t exist. Besides, it has been understood that the enactments that ensure widely varied vegetation are generally conventional. A few animals groups are nearly terminated, as because of their expanding request, they have been abused. Consequently, these particular species require explicit consideration.
The legal executive of India, similar to that of most different nations, was at first more leaned towards Anthropocentrism than Ecocentrism. The Indian legal executive has after some time made an extreme shift to ecocentrism¹. The prominent change has been produced using accompanying milestone decisions:

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, 2012
  On account of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, the creature is referred to as Asiatic wild Buffalo, which are found only in the western and easter ghats of India. The court while clarifying the ecocentric approach, expounded on the need for utilization of the equivalent.
• Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Association of India, 2012
  The topic of Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Association of India was the safeguarding of the imperiled types of ‘Red Sandalwood’, which is found in Andhra Pradesh. For this situation, similar to the past one, the court explained the significance of an ecocentric approach.
• A community for Environment Law, WWFI v. Association of India, 2013
  In Center for Environment Law, WWFI v. Association of India, the court stated the judgment with the use of the ecocentric standard. The court illuminated the inborn worth of every living being, albeit the case was petitioned for saving the Asiatic wild lion. This judgment was established in ecocentric standards since it gave significance to all types of creatures, particularly the individuals who were imperiled, regardless of the way that they were instrumental for human endurance or not. Putting together its judgment concerning the reports of specialists, the court held that Asiatic white lions establish an imperiled species. Keeping this into thought, the development of a second home for them to guarantee their endurance becomes vital.

Likewise, the court prescribed separate enactment be made by the parliament of India for the insurance and tirelessness of jeopardized species. It likewise requested the safeguarding of Asiatic wild lions of the Gir timberland situated in Gujarat. Headings were additionally given for the insurance of other imperiled species. This would be founded on a nature-driven and life-driven methodology, rather than a human-driven methodology. The “Species Best Standard” was to be applied from that point on. Explanations in regards to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 were made. It was explained that untamed life involves a wide range of vegetation, be it wild or tamed. It was likewise featured that all potential endeavors ought to be made to carry out this demonstration in letter and soul. It was additionally noticed that “Logical thinking” needs to outperform whatever other components with regards to redistribution or some other government assistance conspire for these jeopardized species.
These cases are considered achievements because these cases mean a significant change in the Indian ecological statute. Presently, the Indian legal executive gave significance to the inborn worth of all living life forms like people as crucial parts of nature. In this manner building up ecocentrism in India².

CONCLUSION

Humanity must ensure and protect nature, particularly while expanding ecological exhaustion. Subsequently, rather than regarding ourselves as unrivaled and childishly taking advantage of normal assets, we should invest in our amounts of energy to serve the climate³.

References

1. Are Indian Courts Eco-centric? www.lexquest.in. [Online] https://www.lexquest.in/are-indian-courts-eco-centric/.
2. Anthropocentric v. ecocentric approach to the environment. blog.ipleaders.in. [Online] https://blog.ipleaders.in/anthropocentric-v-ecocentric-approach-to-the-environment/.
3. The Ecosystem Approach betweenEcocentrism and Anthropocentrism. www.academia.edu. [Online] https://www.academia.edu/8004004/The_Ecosystem_Approach_between_Ecocentrism_and_Anthropocentrism.

This article is written by Sara Agrawal student at Sinhgad Law College, Pune.

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1960

Equivalent citation

AIR 1962 SC 605

Bench

Hon’ble Justice K. Subba Rao.

Date of Judgement

November 24, 1961.

Relevant Act(s)

The “Evidence Act, 1872”; the “Indian Penal Code, 1860”.

Facts of the case

K.M. Nanavati is the petitioner. He was an Indian naval Officer then. He was married in the year 1949, to Sylvia in England. They also had three children and had shifted to Bombay, after residing in a number of places. Prem Bhagwan Ahuja was a business who also resided in Bombay along with his sister. He had a business in automobiles. Nanavatis were introduced to the Ahujas through some common friends, the Agniks. Prem Ahuja was not married. The petitioner used to stay out of the station most of the time due to his profession. In his absence, Ahuja and Sylvia became friends, and soon she fell in love with him. This resulted in an illicit relationship between both of them. After a certain period of time, Sylvia began doubting Prem and felt that he would not get married to her. Hence, in 1959, on April 27th, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati about her love for Prem Ahuja. Nanavati was infuriated. He went to his naval base to take a semi-automatic pistol along with six cartridges, on a false pretext. He then arrived at Ahuja’s place, went to his bedroom, and asked him if he is ready to marry Sylvia and take responsibility for the children. Prem denied, as a result of which Nanavati shot him thrice and he died on spot. After this whole course of events, he surrendered himself to the police. As a result, he got arrested. He was committed to the Sessions under the charges of “Section 302” as well as “Section 304” of the “Indian Penal Code”. He was declared not guilty then by the jury by 8:1. The sessions judge disagreed with the jury’s decision, and under “Section 307” of the CrPC submitted the case in the Bombay High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to exercise “Section 307” of the CrPC?
2. Whether the act committed can be considered as an act done in a “heated moment”?
3. Was there any kind of misdirection?

Arguments

Arguments made by the petitioner:
The counsel first mentioned that Nanavati wanted to kill himself. Sylvia calmed him down. Also, it was claimed that Nanavati had gone to Ahuja’s place just to ask him if he would get married to Sylvia or not. While taking the pistol and cartridges from the base, Nanavati told the ship authorities that since he would travel at night, he needed the pistol for his own safety; and he carried it in an envelope. In reality, he was going to shoot himself and not Ahuja.
When Nanavati arrived at Ahuja’s flat, he asked him if he would marry Sylvia, to which Ahuja denied blatantly. A heated argument took place, and Nanavati had just threatened to thrash Ahuja. He then kept the pistol on a table. Ahuja tried to grab the pistol but failed. In the meantime, the argument escalated between two men. Accidentally shots got fired in the scuffle and killed Prem Ahuja. Hence, Nanavati did not kill him intentionally, and it was not premeditated at all. Even if any crime was committed by Nanavati, it would not be murder and could amount to just culpable homicide.

Arguments made by the respondent:
The counsel for the respondent first mentioned that Ahuja had just come out of the washroom and was still in a towel when Nanavati entered. Therefore, there was no brawl between the two, since the towel did not fall off. Sylvia mentioned that they went to the movies, and Nanavati had dropped them. This shows that he was in a calm mind and was not enraged then. Thus, there was no chance of any “sudden provocation”. It was not an accident, because Ahuja’s sister was in the other room and Nanavati did not bother to inform her about the mishap. Instead, he just left.

Judgement

Judgement of the Bombay High Court:
The case came to the Bombay High Court since the Sessions Judge did not agree to the jury’s decision in the Sessions court where Nanavati was declared not guilty. The case was heard by Hon’ble Justice Jaishanker Manilal Shelat, and Hon’ble Justice Naik. They decided that Nanavati should be convicted under “Section 302” of the “Indian Penal Code”, and gave the sentence of life imprisonment. The court mentioned that it was unreasonable on the jury’s part in the Sessions Court to declare Nanavati not guilty. No case was made to reduce the intensity of the event, i.e., from murder to culpable homicide.

Judgement of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court concluded that the concept of “suddenness” was not present in this case. This is because when Sylvia confessed to her illicit relationship with Nanavati, it was serious and grave, but Prem Ahuja was not present on the scene. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since around three hours gap was present between the confession of the wife and the incident, Nanavati had enough time to cool down. Hence, the Apex Court decided in favour of the Bombay High Court’s decision of sentencing the petitioner to life imprisonment. The Court concluded that it was not an act of “grave and sudden provocation”. The Court decided that it was the judge’s duty to instruct the jury as to the legal ramifications. As per the court, the jury was misled due to the judge, which led to an unreasonable judgement by the jury. It was also held by the Court that the Sessions Judge did have jurisdiction to exercise “Section 307” of the CrPC.

Conclusion

This is an important case where the topic of “grave and sudden provocation” was discussed. This case also attracted huge media attention then. The whole nation was shocked by such a “crime of passion”. This case showed that no matter what position an individual holds in society, they would be punished by the law if they commit something unlawful. Another important part of this case was the jury trials. The jury trials were soon discontinued by the Government after this case, due to chances of such misled judgements.

This article is written by Aaratrika Bal student at National Law University Odisha.

Case number

Writ Petition (C) No. 1031 of 2019.

Equivalent citation

AIR 2020 SC 1308.

Bench

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Hon’ble Justice B. R. Gavai.

Date of Judgement

January 10, 2020.

Relevant Act(s)

“Constitution of India”, “The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005”, “The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885”

Facts of the case

The issue came in 2019 when the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a “Security Advisory” and directed the tourists (including numerous “Amarnath yatris”) to return in order to ensure safety. Adding to this, orders were issued to shut down educational institutions. Finally, on 4th August, internet connection, phone networks, and landline connections were cut off too. On August 5th, the President decided to impose “Constitutional Order 272”. As per this order, the provisions of the Indian Constitution would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir. Simultaneously, Section 144 of the CrPC was imposed in order to maintain peace in the valley. Due to such restrictions that were imposed, movements of various journalists were hampered a lot as well. As an outcome of this, the “Kashmir Times Srinagar Edition” could not get distributed on 5th August. The petitioner is the executive editor of the “Kashmir Times” newspaper. The petitioner has also claimed that she had not been able to publish the newspaper since the next day, i.e., 6th August 2019. Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for issuance of a writ for setting aside the orders imposed by the respondents. She claimed that the Internet is an important factor in today’s world. She also claimed for lesser restrictions in the movement of journalists.

Issues

• Whether the Government can claim exemption from producing all orders passed under CrPC Sec 144 and others under suspension rules.
• Whether “freedom of speech and expression” and “freedom to practice any profession, or to carry out any trade” over cyberspace can be considered a fragment of the fundamental rights under “Part III of the Constitution”.
• Was it valid on the Government’s part to restrict internet facilities and to impose restrictions under “Section 144 of the CrPC”?
• Was the petitioner’s “freedom of the press” violated due to the restrictions?

Arguments

Arguments made by the petitioner:
The first argument put forward was that the petitioner could not do her job and get the newspaper published due to the imposed restrictions (on press) from 5th August 2019. Since internet facilities were stopped, the print media got hampered badly. Hence, people’s livelihood got affected due to the restrictions (violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution). The right to speech was violated, due to the cutting down of internet facilities. It was argued that the restrictions made were not at all reasonable or proportional in any sense. The counsel contended that all the restrictions were levied on the premise of the apprehension of some danger to the regulations and law. Also, there is a difference between “public order” and “law and order”. The restrictions imposed and the measures taken were in order to protect “law and order”. Also, these restrictions did not even seem to be temporary, because it had already been a long time since they were functioning. It was argued that the state should have undertaken a less strict alternative in the beginning. Also, the restricting movement was applied over the entire state, and not in specific regions. The petitioners contended that such a restriction all over the state was unnecessary.

Arguments made by the respondent:
The primary argument made by the respondent was that these restrictions were absolutely necessary in order to fight terrorism in the state. They also claimed that general freedom of expression and speech cannot be applied to the Internet, because there are a lot of dangers on this platform. It was argued that it is not possible to shut down specific websites, hence, a total shutdown was the only alternative. They also claimed that the situation was getting exaggerated.

Judgement

The Court held that the “freedom of speech and expression” and “freedom to practise any profession or to carry out any trade” on cyberspace are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) respectively. It was held that any restrictions on the abovementioned rights, would have to be reasonable and in compliance with Articles 19(2) and 19(6) of the Constitution. Hence a “proportionality test” was ordered by the Apex Court. If the restriction to internet access is not found to be proportional then it would cease to exist. It was held that: “the government cannot contend any exception for providing any order before the court which is passed under Section 144 of the CrPC.” No order was issued by the court to provide remedies to those who were already affected, but a lot of principles were laid down for future suspensions. Apart from these, the court dismissed the plea where the petitioner claimed that freedom of the press was violated due to the restrictions, due to lack of evidence.

Conclusion

Internet is an important part of our daily life in today’s world. We are very much dependent on the internet for a lot of things including trade and business. It can be concluded that Internet has become so important that it is being included in Part III of the Indian Constitution. This judgement is very significant because the primary aim of the case was to judge the legality of the restriction of internet facilities. The Apex Court had also introduced a number of principles that would prevent undue misuse of the powers provided to the Government, especially in such cases.

This article is written by Aaratrika Bal student at National Law University Odisha.

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2016.

Equivalent citation

(2021) 6 SCC 213.

Bench

CJI N. V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Date of Judgement

May 7, 2021.

Relevant Act(s)

The “Evidence Act, 1872”; the “Indian Penal Code, 1860” and the “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”.

Facts of the case

Both parties were very much related to each other. There had been clashes going on for a long time between the family of Jayamma (appellant), who is the wife of Reddinaika and the family of Jayamma (respondent), who was the deceased wife of Sanna Ramanaika. An argument took place between the two families in 1998 on September 10. During this argument, Reddinaika was assaulted by Ramanika’s son, i.e., Thippeswamynaika. After this incident happened, the appellants arrived at the respondent’s place on 21 st September to confront them about the actions of Ramanaika’s son. A sum of Rs. 4000 was also demanded by the appellants in order to cover the medical treatment costs. A heated altercation happened, as a result of which the appellant party poured kerosene on Jayamma (who is now deceased) and set her on fire. The appellants were explicitly blamed for the death of Jayamma (respondent). Jayamma’s family members heard her screams and tried to set off the fire. In the meantime, the appellants ran away from the scene. Jayamma was then admitted to a “public health entre”. Jayamma was given pain killers and basic treatment by Dr A. Thippeswamy. A medico-legal case was then sent to the Thalak police station. Jayamma gave her statement and she had implicated the whole appellant party under “sections 307, 504, 114” read along with “section 34” of the IPC. Finally, on September 23, Jayamma passed away. The post-mortem report said that she died due to shock which came as a result of her injuries. The appellants got arrested, but with the help of anticipatory bail, they had to be released. When the matter was presented in the trial court, a number of witnesses turned hostile. The issue then was whether Jayamma’s death was suicidal in nature or if it was homicidal. It was noted by the court that all of this was based on the dying declaration of Jayamma. The accused were not convicted due to a lack of genuineness and evidence (except for the dying declaration). Therefore, the court acquitted the appellants. During the High Court hearing, it was decided that the judgement of the trial court would be reversed. The HC of Karnataka decided that a dying declaration was enough to convict an accused. The Hon’ble court convicted the accused under “section 302” read with “section 34” of IPC.

Issues

1. Was it right on the High Court’s part to reverse the decision taken by the trial court?
2. Was it successfully established that Jayamma’s death was not suicidal, and instead was homicidal in nature?

Arguments

• Argument made by the appellants:
  The appellant’s side claimed that the decision taken by the trial court was well structured, unlike that of the High Court which was vague and confusing. It was also contended that the High Court failed to examine the conclusions of the trial court. Thus under “section 378” of the CrPC “, it failed to discharge its obligation”. They claimed that a decision should not be taken just on the basis of a dying declaration and that the motive of the appellants could not be established. Hence, the acquittal is incorrect.
• Argument made by the respondent:
  The learned counsel contended that in cases of death from 100% burn injuries, the dying declaration can be considered enough for a conviction.

Judgement

After a thorough investigation, the Supreme Court found that some modifications had been done in the dying declaration and that the HC of Karnataka had unnecessarily depended a lot on just the dying declaration. The Court also concluded that since Jayamma was in a lot of pain she might have not been in a state to give a proper statement before dying. Hence, the Apex Court decided to acquit the appellants in the present case. The Court also mentioned that high accuracy had been maintained in the dying declaration which was unlikely for an individual who was in such physical condition and also Jayamma was not that literate to describe the whole situation with such details. Jayamma was alive for almost 30 hours, but the authorities did not contact the Executive Magistrate to record the statement of the patient. Hence, the apex court was not convinced enough to accept the dying declaration as the sole piece of evidence to convict the appellants. The Court also pointed out the fact that it was not a family member who had complained to the police, instead it was the doctor. Thus, this also questions the homicidal nature of death. Apart from these, it was also held that it was unfair on the High Court’s part to exercise “section 378” of the CrPC, that too when the trial court gave a right decision.

Conclusion

This is an important judgement that primarily talks about the usage of dying declaration as the sole piece of evidence in any case. A point that should be noted here is that it took so many years to serve justice to Jayamma and her family. During this course of time, the family had to go through a lot. There are so many cases in India that are pending, and the party that suffers the most in these cases are one of the parties. Also, it is not fair to assume that the investigation done by lower courts is inadequate or incorrect. The Supreme Court had given a very detailed and reasonable judgement in this case. This judgement is one of the most significant judgements of 2021.

This article is written by Aaratrika Bal student at National Law University Odisha.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Delhi High Court on 3rd June 2021 quashed the Writ of student which claims a clause of CBSE Examination bye-laws to be unconditional.

Petitioner’s Contention

A Petitioner who is a minor child files a writ petition through her father. Her petition states that there has been an error in the recording of her parent’s name and which one of the bye-laws of the CBSE Examination doesn’t allow so. She mentions that her parent’s names have been recorded incorrectly as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. In her birth certificate, their name has been recorded the as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav. It was stated in the petition if she is not been allowed to correct this error then it will lead to the violation of the fundamental right to education and she will also not be allowed for higher education. In the appeal, the constitutionality of the bye-law has been challenged by the petitioner.

Respondent’s Contention

Respondent is contented by the counsel that C.B.S.E. is an autonomous and independent body and so will not be compliant to the writ jurisdiction. As CBSE is an autonomous society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The counsel of Respondent has also mentioned that the C.B.S.E is not entitled with either the power or resources to verify the details of every candidate independently and they have to rely upon the records which are given to them by the schools. It should that there has been an error on behalf of the parents.

Judgment

In the judgment court, Justice Manmohan held that the parents of the petitioner consciously and consequently choose to fill in their names as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav and Mamta Yadav in the school records. And the petition cannot deal with the challenge of the constitutionality of the bye-laws as petitioners are the ones who are at fault as they have repeated this mistake on many occasions. It held that the change of names shouldn’t be permitted as they chose to fill those names on their wish and account. The court also stated that the grounds of challenging the constitutionality are increasing nowadays even though the Petitioner is a default themselves. So the court quashed the following Writ Petition by saying that the petitioner’s parents are at fault.

What were the issues in the above case?

• Whether the Writ can be issued against CBSE?
• Whether the current petition can challenge the constitutional validity?

When can constitutionality be challenged?

The constitutional validity of any Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz

• Lack of legislative competence
• Violation of any of the fundamental rights

Explain Article 226

• Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.