KANOON KI SAMAJH
NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE:-
SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY VS. UNION OF INDIA(09.01.2018)
Citizens or persons are bound to show respect as required under executive orders relating to the National Anthem of India and the prevailing law, whenever the national anthem is played or sung on a specified occasion.
COMMON CAUSE (A. REGD. SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA (09.03.2018)
Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right.
Passive Euthanasia is a condition where there is a withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally-ill patient) and a living will is also legally valid.
NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE. (06.09.2018).
(RELATED PROVISION 377 IPC)
Section 377 criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults. (i.e Person above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Article 14,15,19, and 21 of the constitution of India.
SHAKTI VAHINI VS. UNION OF INDIA (27.03.2018)
The court, in this case, held that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. Moreover, any communal body that commits, or attempts to commit, any crime in the name of honour against such a couple will be held liable under the Indian Penal Code.
The court also laid down certain preventive, remedial and punitive measures that must be implemented by the governments to safeguard the said right of the individuals.
Right to choose Life Partner is a Fundamental Right.
Honour killing is an offence under the Indian Penal Code.
SECTION 498A IPC:-
SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR & ANOTHER VS. UOI MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE (14.09.2018)
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking directions to create an enabling environment for married women subjected to cruelty to make informed choices and to create a uniform system of monitoring and systematically reviewing incidents of violence against women under Section 498A of IPC including their prevention, investigation, prosecution and rehabilitation of the victims and their dependents.
The apex court in the present case modified the directions and held that creation of a third agency and the powers conferred on it were impermissible.
The Court held that the directions with respect to Family Welfare Committees and their duties are not in accordance with any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Further, the offence of cruelty is a non-bailable and cognizable offence but due to the direction making it impossible to arrest before the report of such committee has made this ineffective. Thus the direction given in Rajesh Sharma case has been modified.
The direction with respect to the constitution and duties of Family Welfare Committee has been declared impermissible and the directions pertaining to the settlement has been modified to include that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Misuse of section 498A, the supreme court has modified the much controversial directions that were issued by the supreme court in Rajesh Sharma and others versus State of UP & Another in 2017.
Kumar Rahul Anand
KANOON KI SAMAJH.