Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Case Summaries

Hadiya Marriage Case

Leave a comment

           

Facts:-

The petitioner (father )filed a case on the ground that Hadiya (originally Akhila Ashokan) was deceived into marrying her husband, Mr. Shafin Jahan and forcibly converted to Islam. I.e, He alleged that Hadiya had been misled and forced to become a Muslim.

Question of law:- 

  • Does the High Court have the power to annul the marriage of an adult under Article 226?
  • Does marriage being the most crucial decision of life, can be taken only with the active involvement of her parents, and no legal adult consent is necessary?

Held:- 

  • The writ of habeas corpus is ‘a great constitutional privilege’ or ‘the first security of civil liberty.’ It is a remedy against illegal detention, which affects the liberty and freedom of the detainee. In this case, the High Court misused the habeas corpus. When Hadiya appeared before the High Court, she stated that she was not under illegal confinement. The High Court has no power to decide the ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. 
  • Parens patriae is the power of the State to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent or guardian. The State acts as the parent of such an individual. The courts can invoke this role only in exceptional cases where the individual is either mentally incompetent, underage, or has either no parent/legal guardian or abusive one.
  •  The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21. The High Court was wrong in using its powers under Article 226 to annul Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan.

Submitted By: Priya Singh

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/hadiya-marriage-case/

Case Summaries

AYODHYA BABRI MASJID DISPUTE

Leave a comment

Facts:

According to Hindu mythology, Lord Rama was born on the Sarayu river banks, which in present-day is a place identified in Uttar Pradesh. According to Hindu beliefs, a temple stood at the birthplace of Lord Rama, which was demolished in 1528 by Mughal emperor Babur who then constructed the Babri Masjid there. Again in 1992, kar sevaks blazed the mosque to the ground. The disputed land measured 2.77 Acres.

In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit to build a temple on the Ramchabutra. In 1934, some parts of the mosque were damaged due to a struggle between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Then in December 1949, idols of Lord Ram were forcefully placed in the central dome resulting in a desecration of the mosque. A suit is later filed by Nirmohi Akhara in 1959, asking for possession of the site. A lawsuit is filed by Sunni Central Board of Waqf in 1961, claiming ownership.

In 1984, Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) started a campaign for the construction of Ram Mandir at the site. In 1989, the foundations of Ram Mandir were laid down by the VHP after getting permission from the Rajiv Gandhi government. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was destroyed entirely. Hearings in High Court started in April 2002 to ascertain the ownership. On 30 September 2010, it was ruled by the Allahabad HC that the land should be divided into three parts- one third to Ram Lalla Virajman, which was represented by the Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha; one third to the Sunni Waqf Board and the remaining to the Nirmohi Akhara. The case is then taken to the SC by the parties in December. The judgment finally came in November 2019.

Question of law

  • Was the claim of the parties barred by limitation?
  • Who had ownership and title over the property?
  • Law of adverse possession applicable equally to the Hindu and the Muslims?
  • Can idols and idol worship places be considered as juristic entities?

Held

  • Based on the oral and written evidence presented, it was concluded that Babri Masjid was built on Janmaasthan of Lord Ram.
  • The disputed property would be treated as a single composite unit instead of the three portions split by the Allahabad High Court ruling in 2010.
  • A trust would be set up under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Dispute Act with the Board of Trustees or any other suitable body. Its working and management would be determined by the scheme framed by the Central government.
  • The disputed property would be handed to the Trust or the body as per the above clause, and 5 acres of land would be given to the Plaintiff, Sunni Central Waqf Board.
  • The ownership claim of the Shia Waqf Board was rejected.
  • Another piece of land will be given to the Muslims as per article 142
  • The Plaintiff has the right to worship at the disputed property subject to restrictions imposed to maintain peace and order. 

Submitted By: Shreya khandelwal

https://lawmentor.in/2022/03/13/ayodhya-babri-masjid-dispute/

Case Summaries

CJI SEXUAL HARRASSMENT CASE

Leave a comment

FACTS 

The sexual harassment charges were frame against the former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, in late April 2019.

  • A woman who is a former court officer alleged that she was sexually harassed by the former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi (at time of allegations he was the Chief Justice of India) 
  • She wrote a letter to 22 Supreme Court Justices and submitted a document to prove her claims.
  • She also complained that a false case of bribery was filed against her owing to her having resisted the alleged sexual advances.

COMMITTEE

By taking Suo moto cognizance of the matter, On the next day, on 20th April 2019 looking like the matter to be of great public importance, a special three-judge bench was set up by the Supreme Court comprise of the Justices Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, and Deepak Gupta. A court-appointed committee headed by Justice (retired) A.K. Patnaik had stated that the alleged conspiracy to frame Gogoi required further inquiry. 

PANEL

An in-house panel was set up by CJI Ranjan Gogoi comprising S.A. Bobde (the current CJI), N.V. Ramana and Indira Banerjee to look into the matter. This committee had to examine the claim made by Advocate Utsav Bains.

Claims of Advocate Utsav Bains

  • He claims that the allegations made by a former Junior Officer of the Court alleging sexual harassment by the Chief Justice of India are fabricated and motivated by a larger conspiracy to undermine the independence of the judiciary by corporate persons and corrupt political leaders.

Further, Women raised voice for the unfair constituted committee as, that Ramana and Gogoi had a good friendship relation, so Justice Indu Malhotra replaced him.

In a letter penned by the complainant, it was stated that the close relationship shared by Justice Ramana with CJI Gogoi might not allow for an objective hearing of her side. 

The complainant withdrew from the proceedings on the third day, claiming:

  • The investigation wasn’t being conducted in a “fair manner”.as complainant not allowed her lawyer during proceedings.
  • She also raised concerns and protested against not being provided with a copy of the panel’s report.
  • No video and audio recordings were allowed during the proceedings.
  • She was not informed about the committee procedure.

HELD 

  • The supreme court releases the statement which states as “The in-house committee has found no substance in the allegations contained in the complaint dated 19.4.2019 of a former employee of the Supreme Court of India. Please take note that in case of Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India and Another 5 SSC 494, it has been held that the report of a committee constituted as part of the in-house procedure is not liable to be made public.”
  • The in-house panel gave the former Justice Ranjan Gogoi a clean chit.
  • The panel, however, concluded that there was no substance to the sexual misconduct allegations levelled by the woman. 
  • The court also closed the cheating case which was registered against the woman and in June 2019, her husband and brother-in-law were reinstated by the Delhi police.

In an interview to The Wire, the woman said she had “lost everything” ever since she decided to speak up about her allegations. “I was completely disheartened and Shocked. I have lost my job; I have lost everything. My family members have lost their jobs. So, I felt it was a great injustice to my family and me. We were all shocked to learn that they just said there is “no substance”, women said.

Submitted By: Deepanshi Dwivedi