💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • Supreme Court’s Ruling on Remission

    Why in the News?

    In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that prisoners eligible for remission under state policies must be considered for release even if they do not apply for it.

    This decision comes as part of the suo motu case “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”, initiated in 2021 to address prison overcrowding.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling: Key Takeaways

    • The SC overruled its earlier stance in:
      • Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) – Held that remission was not automatic and required a convict’s application.
      • Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) – Ruled that courts cannot grant remission suo motu.
    • The new ruling recognizes the existence of remission policies in states and holds that:
      • Prison superintendents must initiate remission proceedings for eligible convicts.
      • Failure to consider eligible prisoners for remission violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).

    What is Remission?

    • Remission refers to the reduction of a prison sentence without altering the conviction.
    • It is different from pardon or commutation, which may involve modifying or canceling the sentence entirely.

    Legal Provisions on Remission

    • The power of remission is governed by:
      • Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 432 of CrPC) – Grants state governments the power to remit sentences at any time under specific conditions.
      • Section 475 of BNSS (formerly Section 433A of CrPC) – Prevents remission for life convicts guilty of crimes punishable by death until they serve at least 14 years.
      • Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution – Provide remission powers to the President and Governors at the Union and State levels.
    • Earlier, remission was initiated only when a prisoner applied for it, but the new ruling removes this necessity if states already have structured remission policies.

    Impact of the Ruling on Prison Reforms

    • India’s prison population far exceeds capacity, with a 131.4% occupancy rate (2022 NCRB data).
    • Over 75% of prisoners are undertrials—this ruling may not directly help them, but it could ease congestion by enabling timely release of eligible convicts.
    • The new ruling ensures all eligible prisoners get equal consideration, preventing biases in prison administration.
    • International standards (like UN Nelson Mandela Rules) emphasize prisoner rights and rehabilitation.
    • The judgment upholds fairness and reintegration into society.

    PYQ:

    [2014] Instances of the President’s delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse.

     

  • No fundamental right to reservation, but State can’t deny it without valid reasoning: SC

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Supreme Court stated that reservation is not a fundamental right. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution allow the government to provide reservations, but they do not make it mandatory. However, if the government decides not to give reservations, it must have valid reasons and supporting data to justify its decision.

    What is the legal status of reservation in India?

    Constitutional provisions: 

    • Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
    • Article 16(4) enables the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for SCs and STs.
      • Article 16(4A), introduced via the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, empowers the government to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in public services. This was later modified by the 85th Amendment in 2001 to include consequential seniority.
    • Article 338B gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
    • Article 342A empowers the President to notify the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for any state or union territory, which can only be amended by Parliament.
    • Article 46 states that the State shall promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.

    Judicial precedence: 

    • Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras (1951): The Supreme Court ruled against communal reservations, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(4).
    • Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court capped caste-based reservations at 50%, ruling that reservations should not destroy the concept of equality. It also mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation benefits and stated that there should not be reservation in promotions.
    • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) but stated that any reservation policy must ensure the SC/ST community is socially and educationally backward, not adequately represented in public employment, and that such policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
    • Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from unreserved classes, even if it exceeds the 50% limit on total reservations.

    Under what conditions can the state deny or grant reservations?

    • Based on Quantifiable Data: The State must collect quantifiable data to assess the underrepresentation of backward classes before granting reservations. Example: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required the government to prove inadequate representation before providing reservations in promotions.
    • No Arbitrary Decisions: Reservations cannot be granted or denied arbitrarily and they must be backed by valid reasoning and legal justification. Example: The Supreme Court ruled in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) that reservation policies should be rational and not violate the right to equality.
    • Transparency in Public Employment: The government must clearly specify reservation details (total posts, reserved/unreserved categories) in job advertisements. If no reservation is provided, it must be justified. Example: The Supreme Court struck down a 2010 recruitment process in Palamu, Jharkhand for failing to mention reservation details, deeming it non-transparent.

    How does the Supreme Court balance reservation with equality and fairness?

    • Reservations Are Enabling, Not Mandatory: The Court clarifies that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, meaning the State may grant reservations but is not obligated to do so.
    • Ensuring No Arbitrary Decisions: The State must base its decision on quantifiable data regarding underrepresentation. Arbitrary refusal or granting of reservations is unconstitutional.
    • 50% Ceiling on Reservations: As per the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), reservations should not exceed 50%, ensuring fair opportunities for all, unless exceptional circumstances justify exceeding the limit.
    • Merit and Social Justice Balance: The Court emphasizes that reservation should uplift disadvantaged groups without compromising meritocracy in public employment and education.
    • Judicial Scrutiny to Prevent Abuse: Courts can strike down reservation policies if they are found to be politically motivated, lacking empirical justification, or violating Articles 14 and 16 (equality in public employment).

    Way forward: 

    • Data-Driven Reservation Policies: The government should ensure periodic empirical assessment of backwardness and representation to justify reservations, preventing misuse and ensuring targeted benefits.
    • Balancing Merit and Affirmative Action: Strengthen skill development, education, and economic empowerment programs to reduce long-term reliance on reservations while ensuring fair representation in public employment and education.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment.  (UPSC IAS/2016)

  • Doctrine of Pith and Substance

    Why in the News?

    In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, holding that the Centre cannot impose service tax on lottery distributors as the power to tax lotteries falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of state governments.

    Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the Centre’s Plea?

    • Lotteries Are Not a Service but Gambling: The court ruled that the relationship between states and lottery distributors is buyer-seller, not principal-agent, making service tax inapplicable.
    • Exclusive Taxing Power of States: The Constitution grants state legislatures the authority to tax betting and gambling, including lotteries.
      • Parliament cannot override this through residuary powers (Entry 97 – List I) as taxation on lotteries is already covered under Entry 62 – List II.
    • Doctrine of Pith and Substance Applied: The court ruled that the dominant nature of lotteries is gambling, even if marketing and promotion involve service elements.
      • Since the primary focus remains within the State List, the Centre cannot impose service tax on it.
    • Sikkim High Court Ruling Upheld: The SC upheld the 2012 Sikkim HC decision, which declared Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended in 2010) unconstitutional, as it attempted to impose service tax on lottery-related activities.

    What is Doctrine of Pith and Substance?

    • The Doctrine of Pith and Substance helps determine whether a law’s dominant purpose falls within the legislative competence of the enacting government.
    • Key Features:
      • Examines the true nature of a law, rather than incidental overlaps.
      • Resolves Centre-State conflicts over legislative powers.
      • Allows minor encroachments if the primary subject falls within the legislature’s authority.
    • Major Supreme Court Cases Applying the Doctrine:
      • State of Bombay v. FN Balsara (1951): Upheld a state alcohol prohibition law, despite minor overlaps with Union subjects.
      • Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce (1947):  Allowed incidental encroachment as long as the law’s primary focus was within its jurisdiction.
    • Application in Lottery Taxation Case:
      • The Centre’s argument for taxing lotteries under Entry 97 – List I was rejected.
      • The dominant purpose of lottery transactions is gambling, which states exclusively regulate and tax.

    PYQ:

    [2016] The Parliament of India acquires the power to legislate on any item in the State List in the national interest if a resolution to that effect is passed by the:

    (a) Lok Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership

    (b) Lok Sabha by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its total membership

    (c) Rajya Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership

    (d) Rajya Sabha by a majority of not less than two thirds of its members present and voting

     

  • Article 22 of the Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional obligation, not a mere formality. Failure to comply makes the arrest illegal, violating Articles 22(1) and 21, which protect fundamental rights and personal liberty.

    About Article 22 of the Indian Constitution:

    • Article 22 of the Indian Constitution ensures protection to individuals against arbitrary arrest and preventive detention.
    • It has two parts:

    1. Article 22(1) & 22(2) – Protection in Ordinary Arrests:

    • The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
    • The person has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
    • They must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

    2. Article 22(3) to 22(7) – Preventive Detention Provisions:

    • Preventive detention without trial cannot exceed 3 months, unless approved by an Advisory Board.
    • The government may deny disclosure of reasons if it affects public interest.
    • Parliament can extend detention beyond 3 months in special cases.

    Key Highlights of Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment:

    • The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right.
    • Non-compliance violates both Articles 22(1) and 21 (Right to Liberty), rendering the arrest invalid.
    • Grounds of arrest must be clearly conveyed in an effective manner.
    • Providing the grounds in writing is the best practice (as suggested in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India).
    • As per Section 50A of CrPC, the accused’s family or nominated person must also be informed to allow legal representation.
    • Magistrates must ensure compliance. If Article 22(1) is not followed, the arrest is illegal, and the accused must be released.
    • Violation of Article 22(1) is a ground for Bail. Even if statutory restrictions on bail exist, courts can grant bail if fundamental rights are violated.
    • If the accused claims non-compliance, the Investigating Officer must prove that Article 22(1) was followed.

    Relevant Supreme Court Judgments:

    • Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India (2023): SC advised that grounds of arrest should ideally be provided in writing.
    • Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): “Procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
    • DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997): Established guidelines to prevent custodial abuse and ensure due process.
    • Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar (1965): Distinguished between law and order (individual impact) and public order (societal impact).

     

    PYQ:

    [2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1. Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such an accused is locked up in a police station, not in jail.
    2. During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only
    (b) 2 only
    (c) Both 1 and 2
    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • Article 200 of the Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has criticized Tamil Nadu Governor for creating an “impasse” by withholding assent to state bills and later referring them to the President, questioning his handling of state bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Governor has withheld 12 Bills, primarily concerning higher education and the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in State universities.

    Judicial Precursor: Rameshwar Prasad Case (2005)

    • Article 361 provides immunity to Governors from court proceedings for actions taken in their official capacity.
    • However, in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court ruled that:
      • Immunity under Article 361 does not prevent judicial review of the Governor’s actions.
      • If a Governor withholds assent with malicious intent, the decision can be deemed unconstitutional.
      • Governors must provide valid reasons for withholding assent, as they cannot act arbitrarily.

    What is Article 200?

    • Article 200 governs the Governor’s options when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented for approval.
    • It outlines the Governor’s discretionary powers regarding assenting, withholding, returning, or reserving Bills.

    Provisions and Features:

    • The Governor has four options when presented with a State Legislature Bill:
    1. Assent to the Bill: The Bill becomes law.
    2. Withhold Assent: The Governor can refuse approval.
    3. Return the Bill: If it is NOT a Money Bill, the Governor can send it back to the State Legislature for reconsideration.
    • Reserve the Bill for the President’s Consideration:  If the Bill-
      • Violates the Constitution or a Central law.
      • Affects national interests or is ultra vires.
      • Opposes the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
      • Concerns compulsory property acquisition under Article 31A.
      • Endangers the position of the State High Court (mandatory reservation).
    • Article 201 deals with Bills reserved for the President’s approval, granting the President the power to:
      • Assent to the Bill or withhold assent.
      • Return the Bill for reconsideration by the State Legislature.
    • Key Constitutional Debates:
      • No time limit exists for the Governor to act, leading to delays and constitutional challenges.
      • Judicial scrutiny has questioned prolonged withholding of assent, as seen in recent Supreme Court cases.

    PYQ:

    [2014] Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule
    2. Appointing the Ministers
    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India
    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 1 and 3 only

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • What is the SC directive on sacred groves?

    Why in the News?

    On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered Rajasthan’s Forest Department to map all sacred groves using satellite and ground surveys based on their cultural and ecological importance, regardless of their size.

    Note: In Rajasthan, sacred groves, locally known as ‘orans’, are estimated to number around 25,000, covering approximately 6 lakh hectares across the state.

    What are the implications of the December 18 order? 

    • Conflict with the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 – The order contradicts the FRA, which was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights with gram sabhas. Instead, the decision shifts control from communities to the Forest Department.
    • Loss of Community Autonomy – Sacred groves, which have been traditionally protected by local communities, will now be governed by state authorities, potentially disrupting cultural conservation practices.
    • Potential Erosion of Traditional Governance Systems – The transfer of management could weaken customary laws and traditional conservation practices that have preserved these groves for generations.
    • Legal Precedence for Future Cases – By prioritizing the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, over the FRA, this order may set a precedent for other community-managed lands to be taken over by the Forest Department.
    • Impact on Livelihoods and Religious Practices – Communities that depend on sacred groves for religious, medicinal, and cultural purposes may face restrictions under the new classification as ‘community reserves’.

    What did T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India establish about the definition of ‘forest land’? 

    • Broad Definition: The Supreme Court established that ‘forest land’ includes not only areas understood as forests in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in government records, regardless of ownership.
    • Expert Committees: The ruling directed state governments to form expert committees to identify areas that fit this definition of ‘forest land’.

    How are sacred groves traditionally conserved by communities?

    • Watershed & Ecological Functions: Many sacred groves protect natural water sources, prevent soil erosion, and regulate local climate. Example: Orans (Rajasthan) – These groves support perennial water streams and serve as critical grazing lands for livestock.
    • Strict Protection through Customary Laws & Taboos: Communities impose strict prohibitions on tree felling, hunting, or resource extraction in sacred groves. Example: Sarpa Kavu (Kerala) – These groves are dedicated to serpent deities, and cutting trees is considered a bad omen.
    • Religious & Cultural Practices for Conservation: Rituals, festivals, and community prayers reinforce the spiritual importance of these groves. Example: Devara Kadu (Karnataka) – Annual worship ceremonies maintain local participation in conservation efforts.
    • Community Governance & Management: Local elders, priests, or village councils oversee the maintenance and enforcement of protection norms. Example: Jahera (Odisha, Chhattisgarh) – Tribal communities like the Gonds and Santhals manage these groves as sacred spaces.
    • Role in Biodiversity Preservation: The groves act as biodiversity hotspots, protecting endemic flora, fauna, and medicinal plants. Example: Law Kyntang (Meghalaya) – Khasi communities conserve these forests, which shelter rare orchids and medicinal herbs.

    Way forward:

    • Harmonizing Legal Frameworks – Amend policies to ensure the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, work in tandem, recognizing gram sabhas’ authority in managing sacred groves while ensuring ecological conservation.
    • Community-Centric Conservation – Strengthen traditional governance systems by legally empowering local communities to manage sacred groves, integrating scientific conservation methods with cultural practices.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Examine the status of forest resources in India and its resultant impact on climate change. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • States can sub-classify SCs for quotas: top court      

    Why in the news?

    • In a 6:1 majority ruling on August 1, the Supreme Court determined that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) categories is permissible to extend the benefits of affirmative action.
    • However, the seven-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized that this must be grounded on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” rather than political motivations.

    Why sub-classification is necessary?

    • Addressing Inequality Within SCs: The Supreme Court ruling emphasizes that SCs are not a homogeneous group. Instead, there are significant disparities in socio-economic and educational status among different castes within the SC category.
      • Sub-classification allows for the identification of those who are more disadvantaged and ensures that benefits are equitably distributed among them.
    • Equitable Distribution of Benefits: States have argued that despite existing reservations, certain castes remain grossly underrepresented compared to others.
      • Sub-classification aims to create separate quotas for these underrepresented groups within the SC quota, thereby promoting fairness and equity in the distribution of affirmative action benefits.
    • Legal Precedent and Historical Evidence: The majority opinion of the Supreme Court referenced historical and empirical evidence indicating that specific castes within the SCs face greater oppression and discrimination.
    • Judicial Oversight: The ruling stipulates that any sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” regarding levels of backwardness and representation, ensuring that the process is transparent and justifiable.

    What does the creamy layer principle say?

    • Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: The creamy layer principle refers to the exclusion of the more affluent and advanced members within a backward class from receiving reservation benefits. This principle is currently applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but has been suggested for implementation within SCs and STs as well.
    • Achieving True Equality: Justice B.R. Gavai, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the need for states to identify and exclude the creamy layer among SCs and STs to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are genuinely disadvantaged.
    • Historical reason: The creamy layer principle has been upheld in various Supreme Court judgments (Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992), which have recognized that certain individuals within reserved categories may have advanced socio-economic status and should not benefit from reservations intended for the disadvantaged.

    Way forward: 

    • Data Collection and Analysis: States should prioritize the collection of comprehensive and quantifiable data on the socio-economic status of different castes within the SC and ST categories.
    • Policy Framework for Creamy Layer Exclusion: States should develop clear policies to identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.

  • Muslim Women entitled to seek Alimony, says SC

    PC: Hindustan Times

    Why in the News?

    • The Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
      • The court asserted that any discrimination against Muslim women in matters of alimony under the secular laws of the country would be regressive and against gender justice, equality.

    Story so far:

    • The Supreme Court bench rejected the argument that Section 125 of the CrPC does not apply to Muslims because they have their own personal law.
    • The court ruled that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not override the secular law.

    Key Points of the Judgment

    • Legal Standing: “There cannot be the disparity in receiving maintenance on the basis of the law under which a woman is married or divorced.”
    • Application of Section 125: Justice Nagarathna emphasized, “Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be excluded from its application to a divorced Muslim woman irrespective of the law under which she is divorced.”
    • Role of the 1986 Act: The judgment underscored that rights granted under the 1986 Act to receive maintenance during ‘iddat’ are in addition to, not in derogation of, those under Section 125 of the CrPC.

    Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986:

    Purpose:

    • To protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by, or have obtained a divorce from, their husbands.
    • To provide for matters connected with or incidental to their divorce.

    Key Provisions:

    • Maintenance:
      • During Iddat Period: A Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her husband during the iddat period (a waiting period after divorce).
      • Post-Iddat Maintenance: If she cannot maintain herself after the iddat period, she can claim maintenance from her relatives who would inherit her property on her death. If no relatives are available, the State Wakf Board is responsible for her maintenance.
    • Mehr (Dower): The woman is entitled to the payment of mehr (dower) that was agreed upon at the time of marriage.
    • Return of Property: The woman is entitled to all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives, friends, husband, or any other person.
    • Rights of Children: The Act also provides for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage until they reach the age of two years.
    • Application to Magistrate:
      • A divorced woman, or someone acting on her behalf, can apply to a Magistrate for an order under the Act.
      • The Magistrate has the authority to make orders for payment of maintenance, mehr, and return of property.

    Criticisms and Issues:

    • Limited Scope: Critics argue that the Act’s provisions are limited to the iddat period and do not ensure long-term maintenance.
    • Dependence on Relatives: Post-iddat maintenance depends on relatives, which might not always be practical or feasible.
    • Role of Wakf Board: The effectiveness of the Wakf Board in providing maintenance has been questioned due to administrative and financial constraints.
    • Violation of Right to Equality: The MWPRD Act has been criticized for creating discriminatory practices by limiting the maintenance period for Muslim women compared to women of other communities, thus violating the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

    Context and Historical Perspective:

    • Shah Bano Case (1985): The court referenced the landmark Shah Bano case, which affirmed Muslim women’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
    • Danial Latifi Case (2001): It highlighted subsequent interpretations ensuring that the 1986 Act does not deprive Muslim women of rights under Section 125.
    • Rejection of Restrictions: The court rejected restrictive interpretations that could hinder gender justice and emphasized the importance of providing adequate maintenance, not minimal amounts, to destitute Muslim women.
    • Continuation of Section 144: The judgment noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which has replaced the CrPC, retains the older provision on alimony under Section 144.

    Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

    Purpose:

    • Maintenance Orders: Section 125 of the CrPC provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.

    Key Provisions:

    • Eligible Persons:
      • Wife: Includes a divorced wife who has not remarried.
      • Legitimate and illegitimate minor children.
      • Adult children are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormalities.
      • Parents: Includes both father and mother who are unable to maintain themselves.
    • Conditions:
      • The person liable to pay maintenance has sufficient means.
      • The person liable has neglected or refused to maintain the eligible person.
    • Order: The Magistrate can order a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the eligible person.
    • Maximum Amount: There is no fixed maximum amount; it is determined by the Magistrate based on the circumstances.

    Significance:

    • Social Justice: It aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring that dependents are provided for.
    • Secular Applicability: It applies to all religions and is not specific to any particular religion.

    Implications and Legal Precedent

    • Equality under Law: The judgment reinforces the principle that Muslim women have the same legal recourse as women of other faiths under Section 125 of the CrPC.
    • Additional Remedies: It affirmed that provisions like the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, do not exclude rights under Section 125.

     

    PYQ:

    [2020] Customs and traditions suppress reason leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?

    [2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice?

    (a) Article 19
    (b) Article 21
    (c) Article 25
    (d) Article 29

  • Supreme Court lays out 7 Sub-Rights of Right to Property

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court’s ruling safeguards landowners from arbitrary government acquisition, emphasizing adherence to Article 300A, ensuring the constitutional right to property and sub-rights compliance.

    Procedural Sub-Rights under Right to Property

    These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge:

    1. Right to Notice: Individuals must be informed about the intention to acquire their property.
    2. Right to Be Heard: Affected individuals have the right to voice objections.
    3. Right to a Reasoned Decision: The government must justify the acquisition with a reasoned decision.
    4. Public Purpose Justification: Acquisitions must serve a demonstrable public purpose.
    5. Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation: Landowners are entitled to fair compensation for their property.
    6. Right to An Efficient and Expeditious Process: Acquisition procedures should be efficient and adhere to set timelines.
    7. Right of Conclusion: The process concludes with the physical transfer of property; failure to take possession renders the acquisition incomplete.

    Back2Basics: Right to Property in India

    • The Right to Property was initially a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, included in Part III (Articles 19 and 31).
    • Through the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, this right was removed from the list of fundamental rights. It was reclassified as a constitutional right under Article 300A.

    About Article 300A:

    • Article 300A was introduced to the Constitution, stating that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
    • Legal Framework: This implies that the government can still acquire private property, but this acquisition must be done through a law that justifies the acquisition and provides for fair compensation to the affected parties.

    Current Legal Status

    • Not a Fundamental Right: The Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right, which means it cannot be directly enforced through the Supreme Court or High Court under Article 32 or Article 226. However, it remains a constitutional right.
    • Protection under Law: Any person deprived of his property under any state enactment can approach a High Court challenging the legality of the act under Article 300A.
    • Legal Recourse: Affected individuals have the right to legal recourse if they believe that the acquisition was not justified or that the compensation was inadequate.

    Recent Judgment: Human Rights 

    • Case Background: The judgment supported a Calcutta High Court decision that dismissed an appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regarding the acquisition of private land.
    • Court’s Order: The Corporation was ordered to compensate with ₹5 lakh for costs within 60 days.
    • Human Rights Perspective: The right to property is not only protected as a constitutional right but has also been recognized as a human right by a “Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar”.

    Legal Interpretations and Clarifications

    • Justice Narasimha clarified that the phrase ‘authority of law’ in Article 300A extends beyond the state’s power of eminent domain.
    • It necessitates a proper legal framework for property acquisition.
    • The ruling underscored that mere possession of eminent domain power and the provision of compensation do not justify compulsory acquisition if due processes are not followed.

    PYQ:

    [2021] What is the position of the Right to Property in India?​

    (a) Legal right available to citizens only

    (b) Legal right available to any person

    (c) Fundamental Right available to citizens only

    (d) Neither Fundamental Right nor legal right

  • Hindu Marriage not valid without requisite Ceremonies: SC

    Why in the news?

    • The Supreme Court recently emphasized the sacredness of Hindu marriage, stating it is not merely a social event but a ‘samskara’ and a sacrament of significant value in Indian society.
    • The court’s observations came in response to a case involving two commercial pilots seeking a divorce decree without a valid Hindu marriage ceremony.

    About Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

    Details
    Enactment Passed by the Parliament of India on May 18, 1955.
    Purpose Amendment and codification of laws related to marriage among Hindus and others.
    Applicability
    • Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and others NOT governed by Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jewish laws.
    • NOTE: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 applies to all citizens of India, irrespective of religion, faith, or belief.  It facilitates inter-religious and inter-caste marriages.
    Conditions for Marriage Section 5 specifies conditions including age, mental capacity, consent, and absence of prohibited relationships.

    Features of the HMA
    Guardianship for Marriage Section 6 outlines the persons entitled to give consent for a bride’s marriage.
    Solemnization of Marriage Section 7 recognizes customary rites and ceremonies for Hindu marriage.
    Registration of Marriage Section 8 allows for the registration of Hindu marriages for facilitating proof.
    Ceremonies for a Hindu Marriage
    • Explains the special varieties of ceremonies that may be done to solemnize a Hindu marriage. Ex. ‘Saptapadi’
    • It acknowledges each conventional and court-registered marriage.
    Restitution of Conjugal Rights Section 9 permits application for restitution of conjugal rights if one spouse withdraws without excuse.
    Judicial Separation Section 10 provides for judicial separation based on certain grounds.
    Nullity of Marriage and Divorce Grounds for voidable marriages and divorce specified in Sections 11-13.
    Mutual Divorce Section 13B allows mutual divorce by consent of both parties.
    Alimony and Maintenance Sections 24-25 enable spouses to seek maintenance and alimony post-divorce.
    Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 Proposed amendments for easier divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
    Judicial Review Supreme Court rulings on divorce petitions and exercise of powers under Article 142.

    Essence of Hindu Marriage: Supreme Courts’ Observations

    • Denouncement of Unrecognized Marriages:
        • The Supreme Court denounced the practice of seeking marital status without a valid ceremony.
        • Emphasized that marriage is a lifelong commitment and not to be treated lightly.
    • Sacred Character of Hindu Marriage:
        • Hindu marriage is termed as a ‘sacrament’ with a sacred character.
        • It symbolizes the unity of two individuals into a dignified, equal, and consensual union.
    • Institutional Importance:
        • Viewed as a vital institution for procreation, family consolidation, and fostering fraternity within communities.
    • Adherence to Rites and Ceremonies:
        • The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage must adhere to the rites and ceremonies prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act.
        • For instance, the ‘saptapadi’ ceremony is essential for validity.
    • Role of Marriage Registration:
      • Marriage registration aids in providing evidence of the wedding.
      • However, it does not confer legitimacy if the marriage is not solemnized according to the Hindu Marriage Act.

    PYQ:

    [2020] Customs and traditions suppress reason leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?

    [2015] Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizen a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy.