Maansarovar Law Centre - CLAT COACHING IN DELHI

Hiral P. Harsora v. KusumNarottamdasHarsora Now a complaint of domestic violence can be made against any person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The SC has struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act holding that these words discriminate between persons similarly situated, and is contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Domestic Violence Act. The court also said that the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act, being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. The court set aside the Bombay High Court which had read down the provisions of Section 2(q) of the DV Act and held that the provisions of “respondent” in section 2(q) of the DV Act is not to be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the scheme of the DV Act, and particularly along with the definitions of “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household” in clauses (a), (f) and (s) of section 2 o

Kerala Public Service Commission &Ors. v. The State Information Commission &Anr In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something that public authority keeps it in fiduciary capacity. But the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between public authority and examiners is totally fiduciary relationship. The commission had reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the paper with utmost care, honesty and impartially and similarly examiners have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing the job properly. If we allow disclosing names of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job pr

NeetuBala v. Union of India & Others In a land mark judgment relating to rights of women in uniformed services, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a woman candidate could not be permanently debarred from joining as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps (AMC) on the pretext that she became pregnant during the selection process and added that such an action has no place in modern India.The petitioner, who applied in early 2013 for a short service commission in the AMC was asked to join service in February 2014 after clearing all examinations and medical tests. Unlike other branches, married women till the age of 45 are eligible to join AMC as there is no training in a military academy and candidates join a hospital closest to residence. They are subsequently made to complete a basic in-service course of eight weeks within a flexible time period.However, between the period of her application and joining, the petitioner was in midst of a pregnancy and disclosed this

Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India The Supreme Court directed Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft Corporation to constitute an “In-House Expert Body” which shall take steps to see that if any words or any key words that can be shown in the internet which has the potentiality to go counter to Section 22 of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, should be deleted forthwith.The Court further said that the Expert Body shall on its own understanding delete anything that violates the letter and spirit of language of Section 22 of the 1994 Act and, in case there is any doubt, they can seek suggestions from the Nodal Agency appointed by the Union of India. On 19.09.2016, the Court had directed Google India, Yahoo! India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. to develop a technique so that the moment any advertisement or search is introduced into the system, that will not be projected or seen by adopting the method of “a

Chief Secretary to the Govt, Chennai Tamilnadu v. Animal Welfare Board Stating that there is no connection or association of Jallikattu, a festival involving bull race with the right of freedom of religion in Article 25, the Court said that the Tamil Nadu State Legislature could not have enacted any law like the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 as when a bull is “tamed” for the purpose of an event, the fundamental concept runs counter to the welfare of the animal which is the basic foundation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. There is a frontal collision and apparent inconsistency between the PCA Act and the 2009 Act. Rejecting the argument by the State of Tamil Nadu that every festival has the root in the religion and when Jallikattu is an event that takes place after harvest, it has the religious flavor and such an ethos cannot be disregarded, the court said that it is inconceivable that a bull which is a domestic animal should be tamed for e

  Sri Vasunathan v. The Registrar General In a judgment of its kind, the Karnataka High Court has stepped forward in the evolution of rights available to individuals in India and added ‘right to be forgotten’ amongst the long list of rights. This right is in the context of allowing an individual to request for removal of his/her personal information/data online.  In this case before the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner had prayed for the removal of the name of his daughter from the digital records maintained by the High Court in a judgment passed by the Court to the extent that it is not visible for search engines like Google and Yahoo. The name of petitioner’s daughter appeared in the cause list as well as in the judgment available. There was an apprehension that if a name-wise search is be carried on by anyone on search engines like Google or Yahoo, the judgment of the Court might reflect in the public domain along with her name which would

SanskarMarathe v. The State of Maharashtra through Commissioner of Police, Mumbai & others Hearing a criminal PIL relating to arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and application of charges relating to sedition provided in the Indian Penal Code against him, the Bombay High Court today said, “it is clear that the provisions of Section 124-A of IPC cannot be invoked to penalize criticism of the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on   administration or strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means.” The judgment delivered by the Division Bench also said, Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by

Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India  The Supreme Court directed that the copies of the FIRs unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Reportso that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redresses of his grievances. The Bench clarified that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.

Ratheesh v. State of Kerala It is now from the last decade or two that it has become a matter of common parlance that women lodge a complaint against their paramour for raping on the pretext of promise to marry. Recently, the Kerala High Court too had a similar case to decide upon.  The accused was convicted under Section 376, IPC by the Sessions Court against which he had appealed in the High Court.The case of prosecution was such that under a false promise of marriage, the accused enticed the prosecutrix, took her to a hotel at Ernakulam where he subjected her to sexual intercourse at a room with force and thereafter again on three occasions at her residence also subjected the lady to sexual intercourse on a promise that he would marry her. The stand of the appellant/accused remained that it was a false case registered against him in despair of love. The Court examined the evidence on both the sides and came to the conclusion that whatever transpired between the prosecutrix