Legal News

Open Imagination

HUSBAND IS NOT THE MASTER OF WIFE, SAYS SC WHILE STRIKING DOWN 158-YEAR-OLD ADULTERY LAW

The Supreme Court of India on September 27, 2018 struck down a 158-year-old penal provision in the Indian Penal Code that made adultery a criminal offence. The decision was taken by a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The bench unanimously held Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offence of adultery, as unconstitutional and arbitrary. The top court said that Adultery can be a civil wrong and a ground for divorce but it cannot be a criminal offence. The court said Section 497 is violative of right to equality and right to equal opportunity to women and disallows them from making their own choices.

08th, January 2019
Open Imagination

POLITICAL CANDIDATES CANNOT BE DISQUALIFIED ON BASIS OF CRIMINAL CHARGES: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court ruled on September 25, 2018 that candidates cannot be disqualified from contesting elections merely because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case. The ruling was delivered by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which was chaired by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprised Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The bench also directed the legislature to consider framing a law to ensure decriminalisation of politics.

08th, January 2019
Open Imagination

AYODHYA LAND DISPUTE: SC DECLINES TO REVISIT ITS 1994 JUDGMENT AND REFER IT TO LARGER BENCH

The Supreme Court on September 27, 2018 declined to refer the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgment that mosques are not integral to Islam to a larger constitution bench. In the majority verdict, the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that the present case on Ayodhya land dispute shall be decided on its own facts and the Ismail Farooqui judgment would have no impact on it. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the majority judgment on behalf of himself and the CJI, said that the court has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the 1994 judgment.

08th, January 2019