New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has reconstituted its Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee.

“In exercise of powers conferred by Clause 4(2) of the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 and all enabling provisions in this behalf, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has been pleased to re-constitute the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee,” an office order said.

The 12-member committee is headed by top court judge Hima Kohli, who is the chairperson.

The panel also comprises Justice B V Nagarathna, Additional Registrar Sukhda Pritam and senior advocates Meenakshi Arora and Mahalakshmi Pavani.

Advocate and representative of the Supreme Court Bar Association, as stipulated under Clause 4(2)(c), Soumyajit Pani, advocate-on-record Anindita Pujari, advocate Madhu Chauhan, professor Shruti Pandey, senior advocates Jaideep Gupta and Menaka Guruswamy and Leni Chaudhuri, executive director, University of Chicago Centre in India, are the other members of the committee.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union government and top court registry to not “demolish” the Supreme Court building and instead make a new building in another place.

The plea stated that the Supreme Court of India building is one of the important memorial buildings, built after the Independence of India and also currently so many courts, tribunals and government establishments working in private properties on a rental basis may be accommodated there.

The petitioner KK Ramesh contended that the Supreme Court building needs to use another purpose instead of demolishing.

The PIL said that currently the top court has 17 courtrooms and two registrar courtrooms and the Centre is going to demolish the entire building and Rs 800 crore is going to be spent on rebuilding 27 courtrooms with four registrar courtrooms.

“That making the 27 courtrooms with the four registrar courtrooms will not help after 10 years because the fast-growing economy and civilisation, the number of Supreme Court Cases also increasing rapidly. After 10 years, the 27 courtrooms may lead to huge inconvenience for the Indian people,” it added.

Further, the petition said that the Centre did not release the new design of the Supreme Court building and did not discuss with the common people and bar associations about the new building design.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Hindu marriage is not an event for “song and dance”, “wining and dining” or a commercial transaction, the Supreme Court has observed and said it cannot be recognised in the “absence of a valid ceremony” under the Hindu Marriage Act.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said a Hindu marriage is a ‘samskara’ and a sacrament which has to be accorded its status as an institution of great value in Indian society.

In its recent order passed in the matter of two trained commercial pilots, who sought a divorce decree without performing a valid Hindu marriage ceremony, the bench urged young men and women to “think deeply about the institution of marriage even before they enter upon it and as to how sacred the said institution is, in Indian society”.

“A marriage is not an event for ‘song and dance’ and ‘wining and dining’ or an occasion to demand and exchange dowry and gifts by undue pressure leading to possible initiation of criminal proceedings thereafter. A marriage is not a commercial transaction. It is a solemn foundational event celebrated so as to establish a relationship between a man and a woman who acquire the status of a husband and wife for an evolving family in future which is a basic unit of Indian society,” the bench said.

Terming the marriage as sacred as it provides a lifelong, dignity-affirming, equal, consensual and healthy union of two individuals, the bench said a Hindu marriage facilitates procreation, consolidates the unit of family and solidifies the spirit of fraternity within various communities.

“We deprecate the practice of young men and women seeking to acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other and therefore purportedly being married, in the absence of a valid marriage ceremony under the provisions of the (Hindu Marriage) Act such as in the instant case where the marriage between the parties was to take place later,” the bench said.

In its April 19 order, the bench said where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies such as ‘saptapadi’ (taking seven steps by the groom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage.

“We further observe that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character. In the context of saptapadi in a Hindu marriage, according to Rig Veda, after completing the seventh step (saptapadi) the bridegroom says to his bride, ‘With seven steps we have become friends (sakha). May I attain to friendship with thee; may I not be separated from thy friendship’. A wife is considered to be half of oneself (ardhangini) but to be accepted with an identity of her own and to be a co-equal partner in the marriage,” it said.

In Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament or a ‘samskara’ and it is the foundation for a new family, the bench noted, and said, “There is nothing like a “better-half” in a marriage but the spouses are equal halves in a marriage.” Observing that with the passage of centuries and the enactment of the Act, monogamy is the only legally approved form of relationship between a husband and a wife.

“The (Hindu Marriage) Act has categorically discarded polyandry and polygamy and all other such types of relationships. The intent of the Parliament is also that there should be only one form of marriage having varied rites and customs and rituals,” it noted.

The bench said after the Act came into force on May 18, 1955, it had codified the law relating to marriage among Hindus and it encompasses not only Hindus as such but Lingayats, Brahmos, Aryasamajists, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs also who can enter into a valid Hindu marriage coming within the expansive connotation of the word Hindu.

“Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law,” it said.

The top court highlighted that the advantage of marriage registration is that it facilitates proof of factum of wedding in a disputed case but if there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, “the registration would not confer legitimacy to the marriage”.

It noted that under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a man and a woman can acquire the status of being a husband and a wife as per the provisions of the said Act. “The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is not restricted to Hindus. Any man and woman irrespective of their race, caste or creed can acquire the status of being a husband and a wife under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 but under the provisions of the Act (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), there should not only be compliance of the conditions as prescribed under Section 5 of the said Act but also the couple must solemnise a marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act,” it said.

Exercising its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the top court declared the estranged couple were not married in accordance with the law and held the marriage certificate issued to them in absence of valid ceremony under the Hindu Marriage Act as null and void.

It also quashed their divorce proceedings and a dowry case lodged against the husband and his family members.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A nine-judge Supreme Court bench reserved its verdict today on a vexed legal question that whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and consequently, taken over by State authorities to subserve the “common good”.

The question is being dealt with by the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The bench is hearing 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners’ Association (POA) in 1992.

The POA has vehemently opposed Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. Inserted in 1986, the chapter empowers state authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land on which those are built if 70 per cent of the occupants make such a request for restoration purposes.

The MHADA Act was enacted in pursuance of Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and makes it obligatory for the State to create a policy towards securing “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.

The state government, represented in the court by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said the MHADA provisions are protected by Article 31C of the Constitution, which was inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971 with an intention to protect laws giving effect to certain DPSPs.

“…no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV (DPSP) shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy…,” Article 31C reads.

The bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, reserved its verdict after hearing the arguments put forward by several lawyers, including Attorney General R Venkataramani and Mehta.

The POA and others have challenged Chapter VIII-A of the Act, claiming that the provisions of the chapter discriminate against the owners and attempt to dispossess them.

The lead plea was filed by the POA in 1992 and it was thrice referred to larger benches of five and seven judges, before being referred to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.

Mumbai is a densely-populated city with old, dilapidated buildings that house tenants despite having become unsafe due to a lack of repairs. In order to repair and restore these buildings, the MHADA Act, 1976 imposes a cess on its occupants that is paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which oversees the repair and reconstruction of these “cessed buildings”.

There are around 13,000 cessed buildings in Mumbai that need restoration or reconstruction.

However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences between the tenants or between the owners and the tenants on appointing a developer.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)