Tag: #recentnews

-Report by Anurag Sinha

As part of a petition contesting the blood donor standards, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has filed an affidavit challenging the guidelines’ outright restriction on transgender people, gay males, female sex workers, and others donating blood.

It has been reported that the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC, an organisation made up of medical and scientific professionals) is responsible for determining which groups of people are barred from being blood donors and that this conclusion is grounded in data from scientific studies.

The affidavit begins by arguing that the petition’s concerns are within the purview of the executive and must be evaluated from the perspective of public health rather than individual rights.

Facts:

The Public Interest Litigation by a member of the Transgender community. Thangjam Santa A lawsuit against Singh, represented by lawyer Anindita Pujari, was filed in federal court “Under the auspices of the Central Health Ministry, the National Blood Transfusion Council and the National Aids Control Organization released their 2017 Guidelines for Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral in October.

Guidelines clauses 12 and 51 exclude transgender people, gay males, and female sex workers from donating blood since they are a high-risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS. The Ministry now claims in its affidavit that there is sufficient information to show “HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C diseases pose a threat for transgender people, men who have sex with males, and female sex workers. It claims that the petitioners haven’t contested the exclusion of people at risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, or Hepatitis C infections, but rather the inclusion of transgender people, gay males, and female sex workers in the ‘at risk’ category. The affidavit responded to the challenge by citing the following academic papers in an effort to back up its assertion that the named persons were, in fact, at risk.

Two gay men from Hyderabad have filed a new public interest litigation (PIL) with the Supreme Court of India, arguing for the legalisation of same-sex marriage in India under the Special Marriage Act of 1954.

Our Chief Justice DY. Chandrachud will preside over a Supreme Court bench today.

Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, the petitioners, have been in a relationship for over a decade. Because of the epidemic, both couples and their families were reminded of life’s fragility. They were both infected with COVID during the second wave. As soon as they felt well, they made plans to celebrate their 9th anniversary with family and friends by having a wedding-cum-commitment ceremony. In December 2021, they conducted a commitment ceremony when their loved ones gave their approval to their partnership.

Plaintiff’s Contention:

Petitioners argued that the Special Marriage Act violates India’s constitution because it treats same-sex couples differently than those of the opposite sex by denying them the legal protections, social recognition, and legal standing that come with marriage. The petitioners state that the Indian Supreme Court has historically upheld the freedom to marry anyone regardless of caste or religion. The constitutional movement towards same-sex marriage is an extension of this trend. As the Supreme Court has already ruled in the Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy cases that LGBTQ+ people have the same rights to equality, dignity, and privacy as any other citizen, the Petitioners contend that the right to marry the person of one’s choice should also apply to LGBTQ+ people.

Judgement:

The Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act, and Hindu Marriage Act have all been challenged in nine separate cases before the Delhi High Court and the Kerala High Court, all seeking to recognise same-sex marriage. The Ministry’s Deputy Solicitor General told the Kerala High Court earlier this month that preparations are being made to have all writ petitions transferred to the Supreme Court.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/400UmAJ

-Report by Tannu Dahiya

Bombay High Court while hearing the petition on 27th February 2023 in the case Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. State of Maharashtra directed the police to carefully look into the matter and must find whether an offence has been made or not before arresting a person. 

Facts

The facts of the case are as follows:

In Writ petition no. 21880 of 2022

The complainant is a resident of Kothrud, Pune. One fine day while browsing on Twitter, he came across a video which was uploaded by the petitioner on his account wherein he was seen standing in front of the bungalow of Mr Chandrakant Patil, Minister of Higher and Technical Education and Cabinet Minister, Maharashtra State and Palak Mantri (Guardian Minister), making objectionable remark against him which has created disharmony in the communities and has provoked the sentiments of people belonging to Dr. Ambedkar and Phule’s community.Hence he registered an FIR against him alleging offences punishable under Sections 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) of the IPC, on 11.12.2022.

In the 2nd writ petition no. 21886 of 2022

Here the complainant is a resident of Wajre, Pune. He is an active social worker of the BJP. He mentioned that Mr. Chandrakant Patil mentioned about Dr. Ambedkar and Mahatma Phule in his speech which was misinterpreted by the petitioner.It is alleged that the petitioner by uploading the video had created an negative opinion of the said Minister and had also promoted enmity among the different groups in society. 

Petitioner’s contentions

The petitioner seeks to quash both the FIR against him. 

Mr Desai learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence as alleged has been disclosed against the petitioner in both the FIRs. The FIR was made with a political motive and the sole intention was to harass the petitioner who is also a member of the Congress Party. He was also arrested and kept in custody for two days without any justification. He was falsely framed in this case as he questioned one of the sitting cabinet members of the state. By lodging, this complaint his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is clearly violated. Hence the learned counsel pleads that both FIRs should be quashed and set aside. He also relied on the judgements made in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & AnrBalwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 

Respondent’s contentions

Dr Saraf learned Advocate General opposed the petition claiming that the sections have been rightly invoked by the police. He submits that the video posted by the petitioner has created an atmosphere of enmity between different groups in society. He also argues that the Police were correct in every manner to register the FIRs as it is their duty to maintain public peace and tranquillity. 

Judgement

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are the same, they are heard together. The court made observations regarding different cases. In the Manzar Sayeed Khan case the Apex court held that it was not only the words of the book which should be for provoking the charge. It is the language of the book which decides its intention. 

In Balwant singh case, held that the appellants have committed an offence under Sections 124A and 153A of the IPC, for raising anti-national slogans after Indra Gandhi’s assassination.  In this case, the Court had accepted that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence

under Section 153-A and the spoken or written words must have an intention of creating public disorder for disturbance of law and order or affect public “tranquillity”, in order to commit an offence. Having considered the provision of law, the court held that no offence has been committed in this case and the FIRs are quashed and set aside. 

The reasons stated for this are that the petitioner in the video can be seen just commenting on the speech of the Minister which is clearly his opinion and he has the right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under the Constitution. There is clearly no intention of the petitioner to create public disharmony and disturb the public “tranquillity”. The court asked the police to apply their mind before arresting a person as arrest makes a serious impact on the person as well his family’s reputation and mental health. 

The law cannot be used as a tool to harass people and stop them from expressing their views and raising their voices which the Constitution guarantees them. Hence the petitions are disposed of accordingly. The court also directed the state Government to pay Rs25000/- for the unjustified arrest made within four weeks of the order. 

Citation: C. W. P no. 21880 of 2022
               C. W. P no. 21886 of 2022

-Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The honourable Supreme Court of India on Monday (27^th of February, 2023) while allowing an appeal matter (SIRAJUDHEEN versus ZEENATH & Ors.) observed that “merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter.” 

FACTS

The original matter concerned a civil suit filed by one of the sisters who were involved in an agreement regarding their father’s property. The primary cause of action arose because of a fraudulent or coercive sale deed executed between the original plaintiff and the present appellant which as per the former’s claim was signed under the misconception that it was an agreement of a completely different subject matter but later found out to be a sale of her portion or share in the partitioned property. The trial court dismissed the suit while the High Court in the appeal is not satisfied by the evidences and was confused to appropriately provide relief and hence remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for further incorporation of evidences. The respondents in that matter happened to be aggrieved by the same and filed the present appeal before the apex court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The counsel for the appellants primarily contended the fact that the honourable High Court was just in remanding the matter back to the Trial Court whereby giving the original plaintiffs another opportunity to adduce further evidences. This fact was a point of contention since it was their obligation while filing the initial suit and such ignorance should not be and cannot be made ground for furthering a matter which is already predisposed off. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent/ original plaintiff’s counsel tried to convince the apex court of the vitality of the stance of the High Court while remanding the matter. They highlighted the merits of the case that since the document/ sale deed was void, it was appropriate on part of the High Court to provide such an opportunity to the aggrieved parties to submit further documents in favour of supporting the same.

JUDGEMENT

The honourable apex court while pointing out some of the errors committed by the High Court while deciding the aforementioned appeal observed that

“the High Court has not at all referred to the findings of the Trial Court and it is difficult to find from the judgment impugned as to why at all those findings were not to be sustained or the decree was required to be reversed”.

The fundamental factor that the honourable Supreme Court of India emphasised was that the High Court was unable to provide just and proper reasons for remanding the matter back to the Trial Court when the latter had already concluded the same. Thus the lack of particular evidences which was expected by one party to be submitted but was not cannot be a just reason to remand the matter back to a court which had already concluded the matter on the basis of already provided evidences. This was the stance of the apex court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KFGFCl