The Supreme Court issued over 52,000 judgments, and it is crucial that we are aware of the latest developments in law
Published Date – 11:45 PM, Thu – 4 January 24
By Pavan Kasturi, Archana
As we embark on 2024, it is crucial that every citizen must be equipped with the latest developments in law. Legal awareness is important, the legal maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ means ignorance of the law is no excuse. Simply put, you can’t claim innocence after committing an offence because you did not know the law. The Supreme Court (SC) has issued over 52,000 judgments in 2023, and this article aims to spotlight such significant legal milestones in varied fields of law.
Family, Marital
In Family Law, a landmark judgment in Hindu law is Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun, where the court addressed whether children from void/voidable marriages have entitlement to ancestral or self-acquired property. Section 16 of the HMA, 1955, grants legitimacy to children born from such marriages, and Section 16(3) specifies that a child legitimised under sub-section (1) or (2) would only have rights in the property of the parents, not others. The ruling affirmed the child’s entitlement to the parents’ share in the Hindu Undivided Family but cannot be considered a coparcener by birth, as it would affect the rights of others beyond the parents. Consequently, children now have the right to inherit a share in the property of deceased parents, as allocated in the hypothetical partition of Hindu coparcenary property.
Further, in Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan, the SC held that it had the power to grant a divorce in cases of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’, even if the parties directly approached the SC without appealing a decision from a lower court. Various factors are considered in assessing marital separation, including the duration of cohabitation, the timing and nature of allegations, legal proceedings and attempts at court-mediated resolution. Significantly, a separation period of six years or more is deemed relevant.
Interestingly, in XYZ v Gurumanjunatha, the Karnataka HC dismissed a woman’s petition challenging the Appellate court’s decision to reduce the maintenance and compensation awarded to her by the Magistrate court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court noted that the wife can’t sit idle and can only seek supportive maintenance because she was working before marriage and did not explain her current inability to work.
In the ongoing debate over maternal autonomy and foetal rights, the SC in X v Union of India (UOI) held that termination beyond the 24-week limit is allowed only in cases of an immediate threat to the mother or foetal abnormality. Here, a woman at 26 weeks sought termination due to an unplanned pregnancy, expressing concerns for her well-being. Notably, the court instructed the state to cover expenses and granted the petitioner the post-birth decision, offering the choice between keeping the child and sending for adoption. In Kavita Yadav v Secy, Ministry of Health, the SC ruled that maternity benefits must be provided even if they extend beyond the period of contractual employment. Emphasising that the statute itself envisions the continuation of benefits beyond employment terms, the court clarified that entitlement to medical benefits extends beyond the duration of employment.
Human Rights
In Human Rights, The Supreme Court issued 14 guidelines in Dr Balram Singh v UOI, and directed the Union and State governments to strictly implement the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, putting an end to manual scavenging. Compensation for sewer deaths has been increased to Rs 30 lakh, applicable retroactively from 1993. Dependents yet to receive this amount will be paid accordingly. For sewer victims with disabilities, compensation varies but shall not be less than Rs 10 lakh, increasing to Rs 20 lakh for permanent disabilities.
In Criminal Procedure, the SC ruled that Sessions Courts or High Courts can grant interim/transit anticipatory bail even if the FIR is registered in a different State. In the case of Priya Indoria v State of Karnataka, the court stated that depending on the circumstances, the court in whose jurisdiction the FIR is not filed can consider granting transit anticipatory bail, providing interim protection until the accused approaches the competent court in the state concerned for full-fledged anticipatory bail.
Constitutional Law
Finally in Constitutional law, a highly debated issue of legalising LGBTQ community marriages was settled in Supriyo Chakraborty v UOI, where a unanimous decision emphasised the absence of a constitutionally recognised fundamental right to marry. While acknowledging the Special Marriage Act’s constitutional limitations, the court deemed declaring it unconstitutional counterproductive to legislative intent. The majority opinion maintained that establishing a right to civil union would necessitate distinct rights and obligations, beyond the court’s authority to mandate.
Certain decisions centred on core democratic values. Elections were held in nine States, and with parliamentary elections on the horizon, a PIL (Anoop Baranwal v UOI) challenged the current system of the Election Commission of India (ECI) appointments, expressing concerns about its independence. According to Article 324, the President is to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs), guided by parliamentary law. In the absence of such a law, appointments are currently made by the President based on the Prime Minister’s recommendation.
The court, emphasising the ECI’s role, stated that the President must appoint the CEC and other ECs based on the advice from the PM, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha (LS) and the Chief Justice of India until parliament enacts an alternative. Subsequently, the LS passed the EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, which specifies that the President, on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the PM, Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in LS, would make the appointments. Notably, the CJI was excluded, citing the doctrine of separation of powers.
Besides, a contentious legislative shift replaced criminal laws with new Acts. These new Acts, even though not notified, address issues such as sedition removal, introducing mob lynching as a separate offence and ensuring FIR registration irrespective of the place of the offence. Unfortunately, in both the above-mentioned instances, Bills were passed amid the suspension of 141 members from both Houses. The swift action, lacking extensive discussion, raises concerns about citizens’ rights and warrants reconsideration for the sake of governmental accountability.
