Today’s Legal Updates

Monday, 26th June 2023

Legal Awareness: – CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – X THE SCHEDULED AND TRIBAL AREAS

Article – 244 Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.

  1. The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other than the States of Assam Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
  2. The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the States of Assam Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

Today’s Legal Updates: 

  1. On Monday the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has fined a west Delhi hospital ₹1.5 crores for the error, nearly 15 years after a woman and her husband found out that their twin children had been conceived by a semen sample that was not of the intended biological father (the husband).
    • NCDRC Presiding Member Dr. SM Kantikar passed the order earlier this month, while also expressing concern over the spurt in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) clinics in the country meant to aid infertile couples.
    • the NCDRC order, ART clinics are moving to donor gametes very early and also when not indicated just to increase the success rate of the clinic. ART specialist requires a correct knowledge about the physiology of ovulation as well as reproductive gynaecology. Routine gynaecologists who do not have in-depth knowledge are also opening clinics as they think there is money in it … Moreover mushrooming of the clinics has made rampant unethical practices in our country … One must realise that the infertility patients are stressed both emotionally as well as financially and the incorrect treatment increases this.
    • the NCDRC said, It was not  a case of an error of judgment by the treating doctors during the ART procedure, but it sounds the unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs. They were pointing fingers to each other, and everyone wants to shirk way from responsibility and liability.
    • the order, There is no uniform protocol specifying the sequenced application of intrauterine insemination (IUI) followed by the enrolment of the woman in in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). There is need for non-technological solutions to infertility and the regulation of medical practice. There are challenges surrounding gamete and embryo donation, the use of surrogacy and gestational carriers, the possible deleterious effects of ART, and the need for regulations and laws to govern ART reporting and social inequities.
    • the Commission said, it is uncertain about the quality of sperm about its genetic profile/inheritance. At this stage possibility of inherited genetic disorders is unpredictable. Therefore, in my view the complainants deserve adequate compensation … It is pertinent to note that the delivered twins are female. Certainly, the family genealogy has been irreversibly changed. They may carry the stigma and face difficulties in future.
    • the Commission said, the NCDRC has proposed that there should be a prompt and fixed timeline for accreditation of ART clinics from the authorities. Further, there is a need to make it mandatory for the ART Centres to issue the DNA profiling of babies born through ART procedures.
      • As regards the prayer for compensation, the NCDRC ordered as follows:
        • The Bhatia Global Hospital and Endosurgery Institute, its chairperson and director were ordered to pay ₹1 crore to the couple.
        • The two doctors involved in the pregnancy were directed to pay ₹10 lakhs each.
        • Further, the hospital was directed to deposit ₹20 lakh in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the NCDRC.
    • the NCDRC added, The total awarded amount of Rs. 1.30 Crore shall be kept in the Fixed Deposit (in nationalised bank) in equal proportion in the names of each twin till both attain age of majority. The parents shall be nominee and they are permitted to withdraw periodic interest for the care and welfare of the child.
  2. On Monday the Madras High Court ruled that one’s caste must not play any role in one’s appointment as a temple priest.  (Muthu Subramania Gurukkal v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and ors)
    • Justice N Anand Venkatesh said that the only requirement for one to be appointed as archagars (priests) of temples in Tamil Nadu should be that one is well versed in the Agamic (temple traditions) principles of the concerned temple and that one was adequately trained to perform temple rituals. 
    • the High Court said, At the risk of repetition, it is made abundantly clear that the pedigree based on caste will have no role to play in the appointment of Archaka if the person so selected otherwise satisfies the requirements.
    • the High Court said, The Apex Court has also made it very clear that performance of a religious service is an integral part of the religion whereas the Priest or the Archaka performing such service is not so. It differentiated between the religious portion and the secular portion and held that the religious service by an Archaka is the secular part of the religion and the performance of the religious service is an integral part of the religion. Therefore, the prescription provided by the Agamas gains significance only when it comes to the performance of the religious service. Any person belonging to any caste or creed can be appointed as an Archaka provided he is a well-versed and accomplished person in the particular Agamas and rituals of the temple.
  3. On Monday the Bombay High Court expressed its displeasure over last-minute filings by applicants seeking temporary stay on Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued against them to travel abroad after finalising their itineraries, as it showed how they took the courts for granted.
    • A Division Bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale declared that it was unacceptable that applicants were finalising their itineraries even before approaching courts. 
    • the Bench stressed, This is not a question of whether or not there is a right that is violated. In all these applications, it seems that courts are more or less being taken for granted, that permissions will follow…and, more importantly, that applications will be taken up on a priority basis and even out of turn to permit the applicants to keep to their itineraries. This is not acceptable.
    • When last-minute applications are made like this, it is extremely disruptive. Our staff is greatly inconvenienced. Orders are to be drawn up after the order is passed, transcribed almost instantly, sometimes on the dais itself, then corrected, then signed and uploaded and we are supposed to believe that we are required to do this for a greater convenience of the applicants, the disruption to court being irrelevant. We will not entertain such applications when they are made in this manner again.
  4. On Monday the Gujarat High Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against an 86-year-old woman for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while noting the rampant misuse of the provision to harass family members.  (Jyantilal Vadilal Shah & Anr v. State)
    • Justice Sandeep N Bhatt noted that the FIR will cause great hardship to the octagenarian and no fruitful purpose would be served if further proceedings are allowed to continue.
    • the Court remarked, At this stage, a mention is required to be made that the current scenario in the society is that Sections of 498A are being rampantly misused by the complainants and in such cases, all the family members are roped in the complaint only with a view to harass the family members and the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken cognizance of such incidents in number of judgments.
    • the Court held, Even looking at the age factor and the fact that general allegations are leveled in the FIR only to make sure that she is roped in the FIR, continuing these proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law and no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing the same.
    • An FIR was registered in 2016 against the elderly woman and her son on a complaint by the latter’s wife that they were making dowry demands and harassing her. The situation worsened owing to allegations of the son’s involvement in an extra-marital relationship, resulting in the complainant choosing to separate from her in-laws.
    • The complainant-wife stated that her husband physically assaulted her when she confronted him about the alleged affair. Subsequently, she filed an FIR against her husband, her in-laws and the woman involved in the alleged illicit relationship.
  5. On Monday the Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities in admissions to Ayurveda and Unani colleges by the Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) Department in Uttar Pradesh.  (Uttar Pradesh v. Ritu Garg)
    • A vacation bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manoj Misra passed the interim order.
    • the Court said, The Uttar Pradesh government does not take exception to the order granting bail but challenges the CBI probe based on the Supreme Court judgment of Murugesan & Ors as plainly illegal. Issue notice limited to the question of direction of CBI probe by the High Court. The CBI probe order be stayed in the meanwhile.
    • The Court also noted that the High Court had ordered for the CBI probe in a bail order, while invoking its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
    • Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that a CBI probe could not have been ordered by the High Court while deciding on a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC.
    • The Uttar Pradesh Police had earlier filed a chargesheet in the case against 14 persons, including 5 government employees, on various charges.
    • The High Court had taken serious note of the allegations in the case diary, in which a statement of Dr Umakant Singh, the Ayurveda Directorate officer-in-charge, was recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
    • The High Court had opined that it cannot “simply shut its eyes” to such wrongdoings by the authorities for admission to undergraduate and post-graduate courses, thereby depriving eligible students. As such, it had ordered a CBI inquiry into the scam, which it observed had resulted in the admission of unmeritorious students.
  6. On Monday the Delhi High Court commuted the death sentence awarded earlier to a man convicted of kidnapping and murdering a 12-year-old child in the year 2009.  (Jeevak Nagpal v The State)
    • A division bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal modified the trial court order that had sentenced him to death.
    • the Court opined, The Court commuted the death sentence on the ground that the case did not fall in the category of the ‘rarest of rare cases’. The reformation of the convict was still possible in this case.
    • the Court ordered, It is not a case where reformation of the appellant is not possible and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that sentence of imprisonment of life with no remission till 20 years would be the appropriate sentence. The sentence of the appellant is thus modified to rigorous imprisonment for life with no remission till 20 years and to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
    • the judgment stated, though causing death of someone in itself is perversity, however causing death by smothering and inflicting injuries by jack handle though opined to be consistent with intense torture, cannot be held to be a diabolic or seriously perverse manner of committing murder so as to shock the collective conscience of the society and fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.
  7. On Friday the Gujarat High Court directed Gujarat University not to allot any students to any law colleges affiliated to it until June 28. (Shri LA Shah College v. Bar Council of India (BCI))
    • Justice Nikhil S Kariel passed the order in a petition filed by a law college stating that the Bar Council of India (BCI) order de-recognising grant-in-aid institutions associated with Gujarat University was passed without necessary inspection being conducted.
    • the Court order, Till the next date of hearing, the Gujarat University is directed not to allot any students to any of the law colleges affiliated with Gujarat University.
    • the counsel submitted, There is a gap…State government has its own procedure and BCI insists this. Management is torn between the two.
    • The petitioner also compared the fee prescribed by the grant-in-aid colleges amounting to ₹1,700 to that of other self-financed colleges, while arguing that if the former are de-recognised, those who lack the means to afford the fees would suffer.
  8. A new Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has been formed to hear four cases starting July 12.
    • Apart from the CJI, the Bench will comprise Justices Hrishikesh RoyPS NarasimhaPankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra.
      • . Tej Prakash Pathak and ors v. Rajasthan High Court and ors
        • No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the ‘rules of the game’ insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the ‘rules of the game’ stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court.
      • Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
        • Whether in an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, courts can deviate from the agreed procedure of appointing arbitrators?
        • Whether retired employees are rendered ineligible to act as the arbitrators in cases involving their former employers?
      • M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors
        • Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of “light motor vehicle”, could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg?
      • JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway & Anr
        • Whether a person being himself ineligible to be an arbitrator can appoint an arbitrator?
  9. On Monday the Delhi High Court upheld a trial court order sentencing five Uttar Pradesh Police officers to ten years of imprisonment for the custodial death of a 26-year-old youth named Sonu.
    • A Division Bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal also upheld the order sentencing an inspector to three years of imprisonment for kidnapping Sonu in the same case.
    • The Court rejected the police officers’ assertions that the deceased had died of suicide. It found that there were serious discrepancies in the records and that the general diary entries were fabricated and manipulated.
    • the Court found it hard to believe that he committed suicide and then sustained such injuries during the process of being saved by trained police personnel.
    • the order, These discrepancies are glaring and can only underscore the case of the prosecution that all police personnel present at that night belonging to PS Sector-20 (Noida) were somehow stretching themselves hard to disclaim their presence at the time post lodging of Sonu by the accused police team. It is, therefore, completely clear that conduct of all these police officials refusing to acknowledge their presence after the lodging of Sonu or around that time, leads to a conclusion that the situation in the PS at that time was not fine.
    • The Court went on to hold, What had happened to the victim after his arrest/abduction by the accused persons was within the special knowledge of the accused persons and having not provided believable explanation, the (trial) court was right in drawing the presumption that the police was responsible for his abduction, illegal detention and death.
    • the Court concluded, The said sequence of events and evidence on record suggest that the deceased was subjected to custodial torture with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death of the deceased but without any intention to cause the death. Therefore, the act of causing bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, would make the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC Part I and liable for a sentence for RI 10 years.
  10. On Monday the Madras High Court asked petitioners opposing the State government’s decision to let V Senthil Balaji continue as a minister despite his arrest, if there existed any legal provision that enabled the Governor to dismiss a state minister.
    • A Bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu also directed the petitioners to produce official documents or letters to prove that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin had written to the Governor RN Ravi, asking specifically that Balaji be permitted to continue as a State minister despite his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case on 14th June.
    • the petitioners cited Article 164 of the Constitution to claim that the ministers could continue in office only if the Governor supported such decision. In the present case, they contended, the Governor had explicitly recommended that Balaji be stripped of his portfolio, and that he must not be allowed to continue to function as a minister.
    • the Court asked, the Governor had appointed the minister on the advice of the Chief Minister as required under Article 164(1) of the Constitution. While the Governor was free to make recommendations, does any specific legal provision exist under Article 164 that enabled the Governor “to dismiss a minister?
    • The Court then pointed out that there was a distinction between not agreeing with his (Balaji’s) continuation in the Cabinet, and passing a positive order against his continuation.
    • the Court said, Has the Honourable Governor passed any order dropping the Minister? There is a distinction between not agreeing with his continuation & passing a positive order.
  11. On Monday the Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier directive for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into allegations that an election officer had tampered with documents submitted by political candidates while filing for nominations during the West Bengal panchayat polls.  (The District Magistrate of Howrah & Others Vs Kashmira Begam Khan & Others)
    • the bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray has ordered the State police to hold an inquiry, under the supervision of retired Calcutta High Court judge, Justice Debi Prasad Dey.
    • The order was pronounced this afternoon on an appeal filed by the District Magistrate of Howrah and three other officers (appellants) challenging a June 21 order passed by Justice Amrita Sinha, who had called for a CBI inquiry in the matter.
    • Justice Arijit Banerjee informed, We have set aside portion of the order directing CBI investigation but we have directed the State police to hold an inquiry under the supervision of Justice Debi Prosad Dey … He has declined to accept any remuneration. He said that this assignment amounts to rendering social service in public interest. But the State will provide all logistic support.
    • Justice Banerjee orally informed, However, these allegations have been made of infringement of Constitutional rights of the writ petitioners. Some inquiry is necessary and we have full confidence in the State police. Justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done. Therefore, to dispel any public perception or apprehension of the writ petitioners that fair and impartial inquiry may not be held, we have requested Justice Debi Dey to act as a one-man commission to supervise. That is it.
  12. On Monday the Bengaluru (Urban) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission imposed a penalty of ₹14,750 on Apollo Hospitals for failing to provide an RT-PCR test report on time to a person who was to board an international flight.  (Rajashri L v. The Apollo Hospitals)
    • President M Shobha and member K Anita Shivakumar observed, It’s obviously deficiency of service on the part of OP. Even after collecting money of Rs.750/- towards the test and its report, OP did not provide the required RTPCR report well within the time and also neglected to respond to the complainant and her son when he was about to board the flight.
    • The complainant alleged that she booked the RT-PCR test for her son on December 26, 2021 on payment of ₹750. She informed Apollo that her son was to board an international flight at 1:30 AM on December 27, 2021.
    • a representative of the hospital visited the complainant’s house to collect her son’s swab sample for the RT-PCR test. He assured the complainant that the result would be produced by 6PM on the same day. He said that in the event the result is not produced on time, a full refund would be made.
    • By the time the complainant’s son reached the airport, he had not received the test result. He called the hospital’s customer care number, but his call was not answered. This compelled him to take an RT-PCR test at the airport for ₹3,000.
    • the complainant approached the Commission seeking ₹2 lakh compensation for deficiency of service and ₹1 lakh for the mental agony suffered by her and her family. She also sought ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.
    • it directed the hospital to pay ₹3,750 to the complainant towards the money spent for the tests. It further directed the hospital to pay ₹6,000 to the complainant as compensation towards the mental agony, inconvenience and deficiency in service suffered by her and her family. Additionally, it directed the hospital to pay ₹5,000 towards cost of litigation.
  13. On Monday the Jharkhand High Court directed the State government to pay compensation of ₹5 lakh to a man who was unlawfully detained for four months and subsequently released after being found not guilty of the offence he was arrested for.  (Ajit Kumar v. State & Ors)
    • Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that there was a valid claim for compensation.
    • The petitioner was detained from February to July in 2021 in a false case of murder and rape registered against him. After his release, he moved the High Court seeking compensation and registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the police officials responsible for this misconduct.
    • the order, The liberty and dignity of the petitioner, which are basic to his human rights were jeopardized, as he was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence and this situation invites the public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of the fundamental right, envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for saving the life command, self-respect and dignity.
    • the Court added, The trauma, already faced by the petitioner as well as humiliation in the society that cannot be restored by way of said compensation, however, that compensation will console to the petitioner to forget the past and take the life onwards in future.
    • The Court remarked, If the police officers had been little more careful in discharge of their duties, the petitioner would not have been deprived of his liberty. Police is the main stay of the Administration of the State. It has a duty to ensure that outlaws are firmly dealt with in accordance with law.
    • The cries of the human justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect and the petitioner, who was having a bright career and completed Staff Selection Commission Exam, thus the petitioner was illegally kept in judicial custody between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014 period for a crime, which has not been committed by this petitioner.
  14. On Monday a division bench of the Calcutta High Court adjourned till next week a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning 274 seats in the West Bengal Panchayat polls that were going uncontested, after it was told that an “identical” petition has been filed by a political candidate before a single-judge.
    • A bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta had earlier sought the response of the State Election Commission (SEC) in the matter, after the petitioner claimed that his rights as a voter was being affected as only ruling party candidates were contesting in all 274 seats in a particular block.
    • the Chief Justice remarked, We find the averments in both petitions are identical … The font is also identical. You (petitioner) please come forward, there is a serious allegation that the petition has been set up by a candidate already before them (single-judge).
    • the Chief Justice orally suggested to the petitioner’s counsel, In the meantime you please advice your client.
    • he submitted, I am hurt. I am here for 42 years. I am not yesterday’s baby … Of late, I see a few lawyers are not maintaining the dignity, etiquettes, etc. while arguing the matter in court. It is really hurting me. Calcutta High Court has its own tradition. One should not destroy it.
    • the Court was told, In so far as the 274 seats concerned, in the gram panchayat covered, there were 241 seats for which nominations were submitted by 259 candidates. Of these 15 candidates withdrew nominations while 3 nominations were rejected at the stage of scrutiny. In the panchayat samitis concerned, 30 nominations were submitted and all the nominees were declared winners as there were no opposing candidates, In the zilla parishad concerned, there were 3 seats for which 9 nominations were filed and 6 withdrawn.
    • the SEC submitted, In 2018, 23,619 withdrawals had taken place as against 1,33,673 nominations, the percentage of withdrawals being 17.67 percent, the SEC said. On the other hand, the withdrawal rate this year was down to 9.03 percent (2,28,158 nominations were filed against which withdrawals were 20, 612).
  15. On Monday the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed HSBC Bank to pay ₹15 lakh to a man and his wife for mental agony and harassment caused to them after their cheques were dishonoured despite there being sufficient balance in their bank account.  (Anil Milkhiram Goyel and Anr v. HSBC Limited)
    • Presiding Member Dr Inder Jit Singh observed that there was nothing on record to show that the bank could classify the complainants as high-risk customers, requesting them to update their KYC every two years as per Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines.
    • the order, We find that OP’s action of freezing the joint SB A/c of complainants on the grounds of KYC of any of the complainant having not been renewed and/or non-deposit of any outstanding amount in any of the two loan accounts, which have since been settled much earlier, which resulted in declining of ATM transaction and subsequent dishonour of cheques despite complainants having balance in the said joint SB A/c, was unjustified and had adversely impacted the reputation of the complainants, and had exposed the complainants to the possibility of criminal action on account of dishonour of cheques.
  16. On Monday the Supreme Court’s Justice KV Viswanathan recused from hearing petitions relating to the money-laundering case registered against the directors of the Gurugram-based realty group M3M.
    • A vacation bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and KV Viswanathan directed that the matter be placed before an appropriate bench on Tuesday
    • The top court was hearing a batch of pleas, including challenges to a recent Delhi High Court order that had refused to interfere with the arrest of Basant and Pankaj Bansal in a money-laundering investigation related to a bribery case against a former judge.
    • The Bansals were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 14 and sent to five days of custody by a special court in Haryana’s Panchkula.
    • Justice Viswanathan remarked, Like I was telling my brother judge, when in doubt (recuse)
  17. On Sunday the Gauhati High Court stayed the upcoming elections to the executive committee of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).  (Assam Wrestling Association and anr v. Wrestling Federation of India and anr)
    • Justice Nani Tagia passed the interim order in a plea alleging the failure to affiliate the Assam Wrestling Association with the WFI, which meant that the former could not participate in the elections.
    • The Court has ordered the WFI not to proceed with the polls that were earlier scheduled on July 11 as per a notification dated June 13.
    • The petitioners have prayed that the Assam Wrestling Association be granted affiliation to the WFI, as per earlier assurances and recommendations of the erstwhile executive committee.
    • the resolution to grant affiliation to the Assam Wrestling Association was passed by an executive committee meeting in 2014 under the chairmanship of tainted former WFI Chief, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
    • Singh presently stands accused of sexual harassment by various female wrestlers. After a criminal complaint was lodged by the Delhi Police in the matter, the Supreme Court recently closed the proceedings before it, which had alleged police inaction in the case.
    • The police recently filed its chargesheet in the case, implicating the Kaiserganj Member of Parliament for the offences of outraging a women’s modesty, criminal intimidation, making sexually coloured remarks, and stalking.
  18. On Monday the Kerala High Court urged the State government to seriously consider the need for including safe sex education in the curriculum of schools and colleges.
    • Justice PV Kunhikrishnan underscored that safe sex education is the need of the hour to avoid this type of embarrassment for the parents.
    • the judgment, Nobody can blame the parents. But we the society are responsible for this. Sibling incest may occur in a family system that does not provide a safe environment for its members. But it may also happen because of the lack of knowledge about safe sex. I am of the considered opinion that the Government should seriously think about the necessity of proper ‘sex education’ in schools and colleges  A good family atmosphere is necessary for the society. To attain this, every citizen of this country should join together without pelting stones at such unfortunate people.
    • the Court highlighted, As I said earlier, this happened because of the lack of knowledge about safe sex. Minor children are in front of ‘internet’ and ‘Google search’. There is no guidance for the children.
    • the Court observed, In light of the above orders, I think no further order is necessary. The Child Welfare Committee will take necessary consequential steps in accordance with the law. The protection of the newborn child is the duty of the state. These types of causalities shall not be there in our society in the future. The embarrassment of the parents and the victim girl cannot be imagined.

For Legal Support Contact: –

Adv. Shiv Kumar (Delhi High Court and Subordinate Court Delhi)

contact no: – 9608762166, Mail:- shiv@legalprudent.in

Adv. Aishwarya Dorwekar (Bombay High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Rajeev Nayan (Patna High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Vishal Yadav (Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Adv. Manpreet Singh Bajwa (Punjab and Haryana High Court)

Contact: – Live Advocate

Legal Prudent Fraternity