Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2. Independent thoughts v union of India and ors (sex with minor wife is
rape)
A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with
minor (below 18 years) wife is rape.
Justice Deepak Gupta in his Judgment Clarified that Section 198(6) of the
CrPC will apply to cases of rape of “wives” below 18 years.
And cognizance can be taken only under in accordance with the provision
of section 198(6) of the code.
to this end court read down exception 2 to the section 375 of IPC which
defines rape
. Which allowed such a sexual act .the age of consent has been made 18
from 15 in this case
3. Navtejsinghjohar v. union of india and ors
A five-judge SC bench gave a historic, unanimous ruling on Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code, decriminalising homosexuality.
The bench, terming Section 377 as 'irrational, indefensible and manifestly
arbitrary', diluted it to exclude all kinds of adult consensual sexual behavior.
The ruling stated:
The natural identity of an individual should be treated to be absolutely
essential to his being. What nature gives is natural. That is called
nature within. Thus, that part of the personality of a person must be
respected and not despised or looked down upon.”
Shah Bano went to court and filed a claim for maintenance for herself
and her five children under Section 123 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The section puts a legal obligation on a man to provide
for his wife during the marriage and after divorce too if she isn’t able to
fend for herself. However, Khan contested the claim on the grounds that
the Muslim Personal Law in India required the husband to only provide
maintenance for the iddat period after divorce.
Justice Y.V. Chandrachud said in his decision: “Section 125 was enacted
in order to provide a quick and summary remedy to a class of persons
who are unable to maintain themselves. What difference would it then
make as to what is the religion professed by the neglected wife, child or
parent? Neglect by a person of sufficient means to maintain these and the
inability of these persons to maintain themselves are the objective
criteria which determine the applicability of section 125. Such
provisions, which are essentially of a prophylactic nature, cut across the
barriers of religion. The liability imposed by section 125 to maintain
close relatives who are indigent is founded upon the individual’s
obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution. That is the
moral edict of the law and morality cannot be clubbed with religion.”
3. Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the
change of circumstances.
The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member
of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or
member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime
and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose
membership of the House with immediate effect.
16.Independent thoughts v union of India and ors (sex with minor wife is
rape)
A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with
minor (below 18 years) wife is rape.
Justice Deepak Gupta in his Judgment Clarified that Section 198(6) of
the CrPC will apply to cases of rape of “wives” below 18 years.
And cognizance can be taken only under in accordance with the
provision of section 198(6) of the code.
to this end court read down exception 2 to the section 375 of IPC which
defines rape
. Which allowed such a sexual act .the age of consent has been made 18
from 15 in this case.
17.Case brief keshvanandbharti v. state of Kerala
his was a case involving six different writ petition.
The writ petition questioned whether there is any limitation on the power of the
parliament to amend the constitution, particularly the fundamental rights, as
decided in the Golaknath case.
The lead petitioner, His Holiness KesavanandaBharatiSripadagalvaru, the
leader of a math in Kerala, challenged the Constitution (29th Amendment) Act,
1972, which placed the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and its amending Act
into the IX Schedule of the Constitution.
In a seven-six majority, the bench held that Parliament’s power to amend the
Constitution was not explicitly limited, but was limited to not altering or
modifying the basic features or structure of the Constitution. Eleven separate
judgments were pronounced orally in court.
a controversial move, during the pronouncement, Chief Justice Sikri circulated
a paper entitled “View by the Majority”, which set out six propositions
including Proposition No. 2: “Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter
the basic structure or framework of the Constitution”.
18. Euthanasia
The Supreme Court of India in this landmark judgment set forth certain
guidelines, while legalizing passive euthanasia.
The court also made a distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
Active euthanasia means killing a person through the use of a lethal
substance or force.
Passive euthanasia means withdrawing or discontinuing medical
support necessary for the continuation of life.
According to the guidelines set forth by the court, all decisions pertaining to
passive euthanasia must be taken by parents, spouse or other close relatives.
In the absence of the above, a close friend might also be considered.
Common Cause v. Union of India, 2018
The Supreme Court held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right
under the constitution. Consequently.
The court explained that the right to live with dignity includes smoothing the
process of death in case of terminally ill patients or patients in a permanent
vegetative state. Guideline regarding the same was also issued by the court.
The key observations of the court include:
Right to die with dignity does not include active euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia of a person in a permanent vegetative state or
terminal illness is legal. But the same must be done by discontinuing
life support.
A ‘living will’ is legal how are certain guidelines regarding the same
have also been issued.
In the absence of a living will the next of kin of the patient can
approach a suitable High court asking for passive euthanasia.
Guideline for the same has also been issued.