“Conversion for the purpose of marriage only” is not appropriate law

Among various institution which are necessary for formation of society marriage is considered to be most important institution which leads to procreation of children. It is considered to be sacred bond which ties people of two families. The Constitution of India also lays down laws for marriage of people belonging to different religion that it grants right to choose partner of choice and is a fundamental right.
Recently a writ petition was filed, seeking a direction for the respondent, not to arrest the petitioners. The couple (Salamat Ansari and Priyanka Kharwar) is of the age of majority, competent to contract a marriage performed Nikah on 19/08/2019 as per Muslim rites and rituals, after Priyanka Kharwar renounced her Hindu identity and embraced Islam. It was also noted that the couple were living peacefully and happily together as husband wife since on year. The FIR was lodged by father of Priyanka Kharwar was prompted by malice and mischief only with a view to bring an end of martial ties, no offences are made out, FIR can be quashed.
The court observed that Priyanka Kharwar’s ae was not in dispute as she was 21. After hearing the arguments the court came to conclusion that the FIR will be quashed. Neither any individual nor a family nor even the state can have objection to the relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together. Every person has right to choose their own partner and no obligation can be imposed on the even by the law.


Prior Information to District Magistrate about conversions for marriage given by religious priest

A Division Bench comprising of Justice Alok Kumar Verma and Sudhanshu Dhulia directed. Thus while granting police protection to inter-religious couples in two cases. Marriage is considered to be important institution of society. It is a sacred bond which ties two families together and leads to procreation of children. Each and every individual has right to choose their own partner without any obligation imposed by any one.
The one case, a Hindu girl had converted to Islam and in other case, a Muslim girl had converted to Hinduism. Objecting to their plea, the state counsel submitted that there was clear violation of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, where prior to such conversion, an application has to be moved before concerned district Magistrate which has presently not been done. It is necessary under to convert religion a declaration in advance prior one month at least in a prescribed form should be given to District Magistrate or Executive Magistrate. Even the priests performing religious ceremony of conversion shall give notice of it to District Magistrate.
Recently the Allahabad High Court declared as bad law the judgement which had held that religious conversions only for sake of marriage are invalid. Thus the Uttrakhand High Court directed the district magistrate to conduct detail inquiry under Uttrakhand Freedom of Religion Act 2018 which mandate religious priests to give prior intimation of conversion to District Magistrate. The law states that prior information of conversion should be notified.


Kerala government moves SC against leasing Thiruvananthapuram airport to Adani Group

The Special Leave Petition was filed against the High court judgement, wherein “ The writ petition was filed on various grounds including absence of public interests the same not being in the interests of better management of Airport entire proceeding including the process of tender was malafide and considered to be in violation of Airport Authority of India Act 1994.”
The plea stated that grant of concession to Adani is in violation of and earlier undertaking by the Ministry of Civil Aviation which had rejected the proposal of State government of form a Special Purpose Vehicle to take over and run the Airport on revenue sharing basis. It was submitted that Adani had no previous experience in managing airport and as a result granting such concession would not be in public interests thus violate the provision of the Airport Authority of India Act 1994. The Kochi International Airport at Nedumbasserry, Ernakulum is operated by it and the sponsored Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) is one of the leading airports the world over.
Kerala government states that the government of India had given and assurance to the State of Kerala that when the decision is taken to induct private sector into management of Thiruvananthapuram Airport, government of India would consult state government towards the acquisition of land to the airport. Thus, the Kerala government moved of airport authority of India to lease out Thiruvananthapuram Airport to Adani enterprise.

Mohammed Ahemd Khan v . Shah Bano Begum

Date : 23rd April,1985
Bench : Chandrachud, Y.V.(CJ), Desai, D.A., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), VenkataramiahVenkatarmiah, E.S. (J), Mishra Rangnath


Facts :
Mohammed Mohamed Ahmedemad Khan, anand advocate, was married to Shah Bano Begum in 1923 and five children were born out of thisout this marriage. In 1975, he drove her out of histhe house. In April 1978, the wife approached a Magistrate’s court under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, asking for maintenance of Rs. 500 per month, stating that her husband’s monthly income was over Rs. 5,000. In November,1978, the husband divorced his wife by pronouncing a triple talaq. He argued before the Magistrate that he was under nowas no obligation to provide any maintenance for her ( as she was no longer his wife) and that he had already paid maintenance to her under the Muhammadan law) at the rate of Rs. 200 per month for about two years. He also deposited a sum Rs. 3,000 in the court by way of dower during the iddat period. In August,1979, the Magistrate ordered him to pay Rs.25 to his divorced wife every month – an amount later described by the Supreme court as “a princely sum of Rs.25 per month”. In appeal, the High Court contending that this amount was “excessive”.

Issued raised :
The two main questions before a 5-Member Bench of the Supreme Court were:
Whether S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for maintenance of wives, including a divorced wife who has not re-married, applies to Muslims?.
Whether, under the Criminal Procedure Code, if a divorced woman has received the whole amount payable to her “on divorce” under customary or personal law, the maintenance order may be cancelled by the court?. In other words, can it be said that mahr (or dower) payable under Muhammadan law is an amount payable “on divorce”?

Observation :

InAs regards to theregards the first question, the Supreme Court held that under S. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a wife who is not maintained by the husband is entitled to approach the court for maintenance. For this purpose, the word “wife” includes a divorced spouse,which is is not at all relevant in such a casesuch case, as the Code applies to all. In other words of the court, “Whether the spouses are Hindus or Muslims, Christians or Parsis, pagans or heathens, is wholly irrelevant” for S. 125 of the Code. As this section is secular in character, it applies to Muslims also.
In answer to the secondto second question, the court held that it cannot be said that, under MuhammadanMuhmmadan law, dower is an amount payable “on divorce”. Very often, although the dower is fixed at the time of marriage, a part of it (called deferred dower) is payable on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. However, this does not mean that it is an amount payable “on divorce”. Divorce may be a convenient or identifiable time for payment of deferred dower, but such payment is not occasioned by divorce. It would be absurd to say that this amount is payable in consideration of divorce. On the contrary, it is an obligation imposed by Muslim law omnn
on the husband as a mark of respect for the wife. The Supreme court held that the wife did have such a right and observed that even the quranKoran imposes an obligation on a Muslim husband to make a provision for his divorced wife Lamenting Act that Art. 44 of the constitution had remained a dead letter, the then Chief Justice of India, Justice ChandrachudChandradhud, observed as under: “ A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies.

Judgement :
The response to this judgement was prompt, strong and reactionary. Protestors took to the streets, disturbances erupted all over the country and Muslim leaders vowed that they were prepared for any sacrifice to protect their personal law. The government, led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, reacted immediately and Parliament passed the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act, 1986, which effectively nullified the decision of the Supreme court in Shah Bano’s case. The judgement of the court was delivered by Chandrachud, (C.J). women are one such segment. “Na stree swatantram arhatiswatantramarhati” said Manu, the law giver: The womenwomen does not deserve independence. And, it is alleged that the ‘fatal point in Islam is the ‘degradation of woman’(1). To the Prophet, is ascribed the statement, hopefully wrongly, that ‘Woman was made from a crooked rib, and if you try to bend it straight, it will break; therefore treat your wives kindly. The appeal arising out of an appellation filed by a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raises a straightforward issue which is of common interest not only to Muslim women, not only to or Muslim women generally but, to all those who are , aspiring to create an equal society of men and women and, lure themselves into the belief that the mankind has achieved a remarkable degree of progress in that direction. ‘Wife means a wife as defined, irrespective of the religion professed by her or by her husband. Therefore, a divorced Muslim women, so long as she has not remarried, is a ‘wife’ for the purpose of section 125. The statutory right available to her under that section is unaffected by the provision of the personal law applicable to her. It is too well known that “ A Mouhammadan may have as many as four wives at the same time but not more. If he marries a fifth wife when he has already four, the marriage is not void, but merely irregular. The explanation confers upon the wife the right to refuse to live with her husband if he contracts another marriage, leave alone 3 or 4 other marriages. It shows, unmistakably, that section 125 overrides the personal law, if there is anyis any there conflict between the two. Belief Islam does not mean mere confession of the existence of something. It really means the translation of the faith into action. This case was considered to be one of the landmark case.


You tuber asked actor Akshay Kumar to withdraw 500 crore defamation notice

Recently Rizwan Siddique, 25-year-old You Tuber was served a defamation notice of Rs.500 crore by Actor Akshay Kumar for posting content making allegations relating to Kumar in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. Denying all the allegations asking the actor to withdraw the said notice stated that it is based on flawed promise.
The You Tuber defended himself by stating that the content which was posted in his channel against the actor was already all over the public domain and posted on other You Tube channels also. The Advocate JP Jayswal appearing for you tuber stated that, the You tuber has posted videos form other channels believing it to be true. It was also stated that the you tuber also had list of website containing similar content and he posted the videos based on rumour’s. Further Arguing it was also stated that the opposing counsel’s client had faced severe backlash after interviewing and influential politician whereby thousands of people made personal remarks against the actor.
“What made him selectively chose the you tuber to saddle the blame of defamation?” was question posed by the advocate appearing for you tuber. He further stated that the claim of Rs.500 crores was just a publicity gimmick without any proof. The damage of Rs.500 crore was absurd and unwarranted and was made with the client to pressurize the You tuber was the opinion of JP Jayswal. The you tuber was portrayed as innocent by stating that he posted the videos without knowledge and by believing on other you tube channel videos.


NDPS court grant bail to Australian Architect

Paul Bartels an Australian architect was accused of offense under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act by Narcotic Control Bureau. On 11th Nov 2020, a house search of the accused was made by the officers of the NCB. No contraband was recovered from the accused no incriminating material was found.
Paul Bartels was one amongst the many arrests made by the Bureau in relation to its investigation in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda appearing on behalf of accused. Though, the court observed that the maximum punishment for offences applied on accuse would be one year. It also shows that there was no material available with NCB to interrogate the accuse and make any further investigation which would explain that he is not consumer of drugs but his role was as peddler or supplier of drugs. The statements of other co-accused namely Agisilaos Demetriades and Nikhil Rystons Saldhana along with the WhatsApp chats it was observed that these WhatsApp chats and messages were not substantial and sufficient to hold the role of the accused as peddler or supplier of drugs.
The court also noted that co-accused Nikhil Saldhana was enlarged on bail and other co-accused Agisilaos Demetriades, whose role is similar to Paul Bartels in the case was granted bail as well. Thus on the ground of parity the present accused were also required to be released on bail. The court granted him bail and also directed him to furnish bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and also imposed some condition on him.


Attorney General grants consent to initiate contempt against comedian Kunal Kamra

The depiction of the two fingers, with the legend that he means the middle one, is to deliberately insult the Chief Justice of India and which would equally be an insult to Supreme Court of India itself. On November 18, Kamra had shared photo of two fingers on Twitter with a captain that read, “One of these 2 fingers is CJI Arvind Bobde…OK let me not confuse you it’s the middle one.”
Subsequently on November 12 the Attorney General had granted consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Kamra over his tweet about Supreme court. The Attorney General was of the view that the tweet was “highly objectionable”. Though later Kamra said that he does not intend to retract his tweets or apologize for them and that the “silence of the Supreme Court on matters of other’s personal liberty cannot go uncriticised.” The said tweet was grossly vulgar and obnoxious as a result of which it lowers the authority of Supreme Court of India as well as undermine the confidence that the litigant public have in the institution of the Supreme Court of India itself.
The courts have dignity, they are the ones, the framers and makers of law and strive to ensure, peace and harmony in society. The individual of society or any other laymen do not have any authority to pass comments or defame the judges or advocates of the court openly on any social networking websites. They also have respect in the society.


Delhi High Court directs Sameet Thakkar to take down tweets against TV Today network, its management and employees

The plaintiff in the matter, TV Today Network limited filed a suit against the Defendant no. 1 (Sameet Thakkar), who operates a twitter handle ‘@thakkar_sameet’ as also Defendant no.2 – Adhyassi Media and Content Services Private Limited. The allegations of the plaintiff was that the defendant no.1 had, on 15th April 2020, during lockdown period, published 35 tweets on his Twitter handle at one go, making various allegations against the plaintiff’s(TV Today Network Limited), and its top management.

As a result of which Sameet Thakkar continued to publish several tweets using very disparaging and derogatory language against the plaintiff and its management as also news anchors who appear on the plaintiff’s channel Aaj Tak and India Today. It was stated in the plaint that the allegations made by Sameet Thakkar are completely baseless and have also now been picked up by other persons who are retweeting Sameet Thakkar tweets. Hrishikesh Baruah, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff had submitted before the Court. The court observed that the tweets make wild allegations and also use derogatory and defamatory language against the plaintiff, its management and its employees as a result of which its reputation was damaged and also caused personal injury to their family members.

The court restrained Sameet Thakkar from publishing the derogatory statements and abusive remarks. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde directed Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of Thakkar, to withdraw the plea and approach the appropriate forum, that is the Bombay High Court.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India

Indira Sawhney  v.  Union of India


Date               : 16th November, 1992


Bench            :  M Kania, M Venkatachaliah, S R Pandian, T Ahmadi, K Singh, P Sawant, R Sahai, B J Reddy



Facts :

The Mandal Commission was established in India in 1979 by the Janta Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai, with a mandated to “identify the socially or educationally backward classes”. It was headed by Indian Parliamentarian, B . P . Mandal to consider the question of seat reservations and quotes for “backward classes”. It used eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness. In 1980, the Commission gave its Report which gathered dust for ten long years. Ten years later, V. P. Singh, the then Prime Minister of India, announced in Parliament that the government would implement the Mandal recommendations. The announcement of the Prime Minister was followed by a strong and violent reaction of the student community in all part of India, and particularly in the north. The anti-Mandal protest manifested itself not only in rallies, meetings and discussions in the media, but also in the form of attacks on public property, burning of buses and other forms of violent demonstrations. Several writ petitions were also filed in the name of Indira Swahney, a practising advocate of the Supreme Court. All the other petitions were consolidated by the Supreme Court which decided to pass orders in this case – where the points agitated were the same as in the other petitions.

Issues Raised :

The questions raised before the 9-member Bench of the apex court – and the answers given by the majority of the 9-member Bench of the court – can be summarised as follows:

  1. 1 : Whether Art. 16(4) of the Constitution forms and exception to Art. 16(1).
[ Art. 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matter relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state. However, Art 16(4) allows the state to make any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the services under the state. ]

Ans.  1   : The court held that Art. 16(4) is not an exception to Art. 16(1). It is only and instance and an illustration of th4e classification inherent in Art 16(1).


  1. 2 : Would the making of “any provision” by the state under S. 16(4) for reservation have to be only by an act of an appropriate legislature – or could this also be done by an executive order?

Ans.  2   : It is not necessary that such a provision should be necessarily be made by a legislature. It can even be done by the executive.


  1. 3 : What interpretation is to be put on the phrase “Backward classes” in Art. 16(4) and whether caste by itself could identify a class for the purpose of the Art. 16(4).

Ans.  3  : The farmers of the Constitution must have had something in their minds when the word “class” and not the word  “caste”. The expression “backward class of citizens” is not restricted t classes who are situated similarly to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. A “caste” per se cannot fall within the term “backward class of citizens” unless it satisfies the primary test of social backwardness and educational and economic backwardness which are the established and accepted criteria to identify a “backward class”. Also the “creamy layer” in the backward class should not be entitled to benefits of any reservation and such persons should be treated on  par with the “forward” classes. If the creamy layer amongst the backward classes is not excluded, then the benefits of reservation will not reach the really backward among the backward classes.


  1. 4 : If economic criteria by itself cannot constitute a “backward class” whether reservation of posts based exclusively on economic considerations should be valid.

Ans.  4    : A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. Such a class should be socially and educationally backward. Mere economic backwardness cannot be the sole criterion for this purpose.

  1. 5 : Whether the extent of reservations  can exceed 50% of the appointments in a cadre.

Ans. 5     : Ordinarily, the reservation for all classes cannot exceed 50%/. This rule of 50% is to be applied each year. It cannot be related to the total strength of the class category, service or cadre, as the case may be.


  1. 6 : Whether reservation for backward classes, as guaranteed by the constitution , relate only to the initial appointment – or they also apply to promotion as well.

Ans. 6     : Reservation in favour of backward class can only be made in initial stage of recruitment. Such persons must compete with others and earn a promotion like all others. Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Rangachari’s case where the court had held that the policy of reservation would extend to promotions also. The Constitution was thereafter amended to provide for reservation in promotions too.


  1. 7 : Whether the extent of judicial review would be limited or restricted to the identification of the backward classes and the percentage of reservations made for such classes.

Ans. 7      : The action of the government in making reservations for backward classes is a matter of government policy. The judicial scrunity of such action would be the same as in other matters within the subjective satisfaction of the authority.


  1. 8 : Is a reservation policy by definition ant-ment? Can merit be sacrificed in the interests of social justice ?


Ans. 8       :  If reservation are made, some sacrifices  of merit is likely to be made; but this is the price which the country has to pay for achieving social justice. However, the Constitution clearly mandates  that when reservations are made for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, efficiency of the administration should also be maintained, as directed by Art. 335. The condition would equally apply to reservations for backward classes.


Conclusion  :

The Central Government and all the State Governments should, within a period of four months, constitute a permanent body for entertaining, examining and making recommendations on requests received by it for inclusion in the lists of backward classes of citizens. The advice tendered by such a body should be ordinarily binding on the Government. With a period of four months, the Government should specify the bases, after applying the relevant socio – economic criteria, to exclude socially advanced persons and sections – the “creamy layer” – from the ambit of “other backward classes”.


Bakery restrained from using mark of ‘FACEBAKE’

A civil suit was filed by FACEBOOK against bakery called ‘FACEBAKE’, which is selling cakes and articles like watches with the mark ‘FACEBAKE’. It was also informed to the court that the bakery is running a website as well, which is called

Mr. Pravin Anand who appeared for FACKBOOK argued that the defendant’s bakery was degrading the plaintiff’s well-known trademark and causing confusion in the minds of people at large as to source of its products. The court in light of the submissions stated that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case in favour and the balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of plaintiff. Mr. Anand further supported the maintainability of the suit before this court by submitting all the evidences. After hearing the arguments of both the sides it was concluded that the defendant bakery its agents and employees were restrained from using the mark “FACEBAKE” or any other mark, which is deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trademark.

Though our constitution has granted freedom of occupation and trade to everyone but there are certain limitation should be followed and the rules and regulations laid down by the law should also be taken into consideration while carrying out trade or occupation. This case lays down that trademarks of a particular person’s creation cannot be used unless obtained with consent. In the following case such a decision was taken in the best interests of FACEBOOK and it was given full protection in such copyright issues otherwise it would have adverse effect on its legal right.