28th January, 2025

1). Supreme Court Warns States and UTs: Last Chance to End Caste Discrimination in Prisons

Case Background

The Supreme Court initiated suo moto proceedings titled "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India" to address caste, gender, and disability-based discrimination inside prisons.

• This case stems from the Sukanya Shantha judgment, delivered in October 2023, where the Supreme Court declared that caste-based segregation of prisoners under various State Prison Manuals violates fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
• The Court directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to revise their Prison Manuals within three months to remove discriminatory provisions.
• However, since the States and UTs failed to submit compliance reports, the Supreme Court on January 27, 2025, granted them a "one last opportunity" to comply with the orders.

Issue in the Case

The main issue is whether the States and UTs have implemented the Sukanya Shantha judgment by removing caste-based discrimination and revising their Prison Manuals in line with the Court's directions.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter.

• Lack of Compliance: Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar pointed out that despite the Court’s directions, no State or UT had submitted a compliance report within the stipulated three months.
• Role of NALSA: The Court directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to file a joint status report on compliance.
• Acknowledging Developments: The Court admitted an application filed by Dr. Muralidhar detailing the progress made in addressing prison discrimination.

Court Rulings & Directions

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its previous directions and ordered immediate compliance.

1. Revision of Prison Manuals:
   • All States and UTs must revise their Prison Manuals/Rules within three months to remove provisions allowing caste-based segregation.
   • The Union Government must update the Model Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2013 accordingly.
2. Abolition of Caste-Based Segregation:
   • The "caste" column and any reference to caste in prison registers must be deleted.
3. Suo Moto Proceedings Continued:
   • The case will continue as "In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India."
   • On the first hearing, all States and UTs must submit their compliance reports.
4. Revising "Habitual Offender" Definition:
   • The definition of habitual offenders in Prison Manuals should align with State legislations.
   • Any reference to Denotified Tribes (DNTs) as habitual offenders is unconstitutional.
5. Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest:
   • The police must follow the guidelines laid down in:
     • Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
     • Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024)
   • This ensures that Denotified Tribes (DNTs) are not subjected to arbitrary arrests.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 14 (Right to Equality)
• Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination)
• Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability)
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity)
• Article 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labor)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Ending Discrimination in Prisons: This ruling strengthens constitutional safeguards against caste-based segregation.
2. Protecting Denotified Tribes: The Court ensures that DNTs are not arbitrarily labeled as criminals under outdated laws.
3. Accountability of States and UTs: The judgment ensures that all prison laws align with fundamental rights.
4. Police Reforms: The Court reinforces police accountability to prevent arbitrary arrests based on caste biases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has taken strict action against prison discrimination and ensured accountability by directing all States, UTs, and the Union Government to remove caste-based segregation from prison rules. The judgment upholds fundamental rights and reinforces the right to dignity for all prisoners, regardless of caste, gender, or disability.

Case Details: IN RE: DISCRIMINATION INSIDE PRISONS IN INDIA| SMW(C) No. 10/2024

2). Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Confirms Groom’s Conviction Under Section 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act

Case Background

The case involved a man convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The conviction was based on his refusal to cooperate with the wedding reception because the bride's family did not fulfill his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry.

The marriage lasted only three days, and tensions arose right from the engagement ceremony in 2006. The groom's family demanded the dowry before participating in the wedding reception. During the reception, the groom and his father refused to participate in customary rituals and even walked out of the event. The appellant (groom) openly stated that he would return only after receiving the 100 sovereigns. Witnesses, including the photographer, testified that the groom’s family did not even cooperate for wedding photos.

Issue of the Case

• Whether the accused’s actions amounted to harassment and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
• Whether the demand for 100 sovereigns of gold was a violation of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Whether the sentence of three years of imprisonment awarded by the trial court should be upheld or reduced.

Court Observations

Bench of Justices

• Justice K.V. Viswanathan
• Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Ingredients of Offense Established
   • The Court found that the actions of the groom and his family amounted to harassment with the intent of coercing the bride’s family to meet an unlawful demand for dowry.
   • This constituted cruelty under Section 498A IPC and an offense under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Reduction of Sentence
   • The Court considered mitigating factors such as:
     • The case was 19 years old.
     • The marriage lasted only three days.
     • Both parties had moved on with their lives.
     • The appellant was an IT professional and had the potential to contribute positively to society.
   • Given these factors, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in custody instead of the original three-year imprisonment.
3. Monetary Compensation to the Victim
   • The Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000 to the victim for the benefit of her children.
   • The ruling referenced the case of Samaul Sk. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2021 INSC 429), where the sentence was reduced in exchange for compensation to the victim.
   • Unlike in Samaul Sk’s case, where the convict voluntarily offered compensation, in the present case, the Court mandated compensation.

Court Rulings and Decisions

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
• The sentence was reduced to the period already served in custody.
• The appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the victim.
• The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the sentence but keeping the conviction intact.

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Section 498A IPC – Punishes cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a woman. (Section 84 of BNS)
2. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Prohibits demanding dowry before, during, or after marriage.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces strict stance against dowry harassment: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, sending a strong message against dowry demands and cruelty in marriage.
• Considers reformative justice: The Court reduced the sentence considering passage of time and the accused’s potential to contribute to society.
• Emphasizes victim compensation: Even when the sentence was reduced, the victim was compensated for the harassment faced.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for dowry harassment but considered mitigating factors to reduce his sentence. The judgment balances deterrence and reformative justice, ensuring accountability for dowry harassment while allowing rehabilitation of the convict.

Case Name: M. Venkateswaran Versus The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

3). Supreme Court: Husband Presumed Father of Child Born During Marriage, Even if Wife Had Another Relationship

Case Background

The case involved a dispute over the paternity of a child born during a valid marriage. The Respondent, along with his mother, claimed that the Appellant was his biological father, even though the Respondent was born while his mother was married to another man (RK). The Respondent sought a legal declaration of paternity but was unsuccessful in multiple courts, which upheld the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in favor of RK.

Despite this, the family court later revived a maintenance plea under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. against the Appellant, claiming that he was responsible for supporting the Respondent. The High Court upheld this revival, prompting the Appellant to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Issue of the Case

The key legal question was whether a child's legitimacy and paternity were separate concepts and whether the Appellant could be forced to undergo a DNA test to establish paternity, despite the strong legal presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Court Observations

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan examined the case and made the following key observations:

1. Legitimacy and Paternity are Interlinked:
   • The Court rejected the argument that legitimacy and paternity are separate legal concepts. It held that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate and that this legitimacy establishes paternity unless proven otherwise.
   • Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a strong presumption that a child born during the marriage is the legitimate child of the husband.
2. Burden of Proof to Disprove Paternity:
   • The Court emphasized that to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, it must be proven that the married couple had no access to each other at the time of conception.
   • Mere allegations of adultery or simultaneous access by another person do not disprove legitimacy.
3. Access Between Husband and Wife Establishes Paternity:
   • The Court noted that the Respondent's mother and RK were married from 1989 to 2003 and lived together during that time. Since they had access to each other in 2001 (when the Respondent was conceived), the child is presumed to be RK’s legitimate son.
   • Even if the Respondent’s mother had relations with the Appellant, that alone would not rebut the presumption of legitimacy.
4. DNA Test Cannot Be Forced Without Strong Evidence:
   • The Appellant argued that a DNA test should not be ordered because there was no prima facie case to prove non-access between RK and the Respondent’s mother.
   • The Court agreed, holding that a DNA test can only be ordered when there is strong evidence of non-access. Since the Respondent’s mother and RK had access to each other, there was no need for a DNA test.

Court Ruling

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision.
• It held that since the Respondent was born during his mother’s valid marriage to RK, he is presumed to be RK’s legitimate son under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court rejected the argument that paternity and legitimacy are distinct concepts and ruled that paternity follows legitimacy unless proven otherwise.
• The Appellant was not required to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as he was not legally the Respondent’s father.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage unless proven otherwise by non-access. (Section 116 of BSA)
• Section 125, Cr.P.C.: Provides for maintenance to dependents, including children, but only from a legally recognized parent. (Section 144 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment

1. Protects the Presumption of Legitimacy: The ruling reinforces that a child born during a marriage is legally presumed to be the husband’s child, preventing unnecessary paternity disputes.
2. Limits Forced DNA Testing: The decision protects individuals from being forced to undergo DNA tests unless strong prima facie evidence of non-access is provided.
3. Prevents Misuse of Maintenance Laws: It ensures that maintenance claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are directed only against legally recognized parents, preventing wrongful claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed a well-established legal principle that legitimacy determines paternity. It clarified that unless non-access between spouses is proven, a child born within a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate and the husband's child. This ruling strengthens legal certainty in paternity disputes and prevents unnecessary judicial interference in family matters.

Case Name: Ivan Rathinam versus Milan Joseph

4). Objection to Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Must Be Raised Before Filing Defence under Section 16 of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC 

Case Background

The case involved a petitioner engaged in the business of hulling paddy to convert it into rice. The dispute arose regarding dues for Custom Milled Rice deficit for the financial year 2018-19. Based on these dues, recovery certificates were issued against the petitioner on March 4, 2020, followed by another citation on May 29, 2023.

The petitioner initially approached the writ court, which directed him to arbitration. The Executive Director, U.P. State Employees' Welfare Corporation, appointed himself as the arbitrator and passed an arbitral award against the petitioner. Consequently, additional recovery certificates were issued.

The petitioner then challenged this in the writ court, arguing that since the Executive Director had issued the earlier recovery certificates, he was not a competent arbitrator due to a conflict of interest.

Issue of the Case

• Whether the petitioner could challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal after participating in the arbitration proceedings.
• Whether the appointment of the Executive Director, U.P. State Employees' Welfare Corporation as an arbitrator was valid.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava examined the legal provisions and made the following observations:

1. Jurisdiction Objections Must Be Raised Before the Arbitrator
   • The Court referred to Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which states that an arbitral tribunal has the power to decide its own jurisdiction.
   • Under Section 16(2), any objection to jurisdiction must be raised before the submission of the statement of defense.
   • If an issue regarding excess jurisdiction arises later, the objection must be raised immediately during the proceedings.
2. Petitioner Did Not Object During Arbitration
   • The Court found that the petitioner never objected to the appointment of the Executive Director as arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings.
   • The petitioner only raised the objection after the award was passed, which was legally untenable.
3. No Prejudice Was Proved
   • The petitioner failed to show how the appointment of the Executive Director as arbitrator had caused him any legal disadvantage.
4. Objections to Jurisdiction Must Be Raised at the Earliest (CPC Reference)
   • The Court also referred to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which states that jurisdictional objections must be raised at the earliest possible stage.
   • If a party fails to raise jurisdictional objections early, they are considered to have waived their right to object later.

Court Ruling

• Since the petitioner actively participated in the arbitration without raising an objection, he lost the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator later.
• The Court held that a party cannot wait for an unfavorable award and then challenge the arbitrator’s appointment.
• The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.

Legal Provisions Referred

1. Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Objections to arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction must be raised before the submission of the defense.
2. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest, or they are deemed to be waived.

Significance of the Judgment

• Reinforces the principle that an arbitral tribunal has the power to decide its own jurisdiction.
• Prevents misuse of jurisdictional objections as a delaying tactic after an unfavorable award.
• Emphasizes the doctrine of waiver—if a party does not raise objections early, they cannot do so later.
• Encourages efficiency in arbitration proceedings by ensuring that all jurisdictional objections are settled before or during arbitration rather than in later court proceedings.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court upheld the principle that a party cannot challenge the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal after participating in arbitration without raising an objection. The ruling strengthens arbitration by discouraging delayed objections and reinforcing that jurisdictional issues must be resolved within the arbitration framework itself.

Case Name: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024]

5). Amicus Curiae Highlights Legal Misstep in Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants for Maintenance Payments in Kerala High Court

Case Background

The case before the Kerala High Court involved the issue of whether a non-bailable warrant (NBW) can be issued for the enforcement of a maintenance order under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 144(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

A mother and daughter approached the High Court seeking the enforcement of a non-bailable warrant issued against the husband/father for not paying the maintenance amount ordered by the Magistrate. The husband, however, challenged the issuance of the NBW, arguing that it was issued without first issuing a distress warrant, as required under Section 125(3) CrPC.

To resolve this legal question, the Kerala High Court appointed Amicus Curiae Advocate Parvathi Menon A to assist in determining the correct procedure for enforcing maintenance orders under CrPC.

Issue of the Case

The key questions before the Court were:

1. Can a Magistrate issue a non-bailable warrant (NBW) instead of or in addition to a distress warrant under Section 125(3) CrPC?
2. Can a Magistrate issue a non-bailable warrant before sentencing a defaulter to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance?
3. Can a Magistrate issue a non-bailable warrant to enforce the imprisonment sentence for non-payment of maintenance?
4. Can a defaulter sentenced to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance be considered an "escaped convict" under Section 73 of CrPC?

Court Observations

Arguments by Amicus Curiae

Advocate Parvathi Menon made the following submissions:

1. No Direct Provision for NBW in Section 125(3) CrPC:
   • Section 125(3) CrPC does not specifically provide for the issuance of a non-bailable warrant for enforcing a maintenance order. Instead, it provides for a distress warrant to recover the amount, followed by imprisonment if the amount remains unpaid.
2. General Rule: Distress Warrant First, Imprisonment Later
   • The legal procedure requires that a distress warrant be issued first to recover the maintenance amount, and only if recovery fails, can the Magistrate impose a sentence of imprisonment.
   • A distress warrant is used to attach movable property or recover the amount through the Collector under revenue recovery laws.
3. Exceptional Cases Where Imprisonment Can Be Ordered Directly:
   • If the defaulter has no property or admits inability to pay, the Magistrate may directly proceed to impose imprisonment.
   • This principle was upheld by the Orissa High Court in Rajendra Kumar Pradhan v. Smt. Pramila Pradhan (1993).
4. Non-Bailable Warrant Can Be Issued After Distress Warrant Execution:
   • The Amicus cited the Orissa High Court ruling in Naresh Chandra Panda v. Minarini Panda (2017), where it was held that:
     • A Magistrate can issue both a distress warrant and a non-bailable warrant simultaneously.
     • However, the non-bailable warrant should only be executed if the distress warrant fails to recover the arrears.
5. Lack of a Fixed Time Frame for Distress Warrant Execution:
   • The Amicus highlighted that the delay in execution of distress warrants often prevents maintenance beneficiaries from receiving timely financial support.

Oral Observations by the Kerala High Court

• The Court acknowledged that the current practice across the state is to issue non-bailable warrants for enforcing maintenance orders.
• However, the Court remarked that this practice needs to be discontinued if it is inconsistent with the law.
• The Court stressed the need for an effective system that ensures maintenance recipients get their rightful payments without unnecessary delays.
• The Court also considered whether warrants should be issued sequentially (one after another) or simultaneouslyfor quicker enforcement.

Court Rulings & Decision

• The Kerala High Court did not pass a final ruling yet but took a proactive step by impleading the State Government to examine how the process of enforcing maintenance orders can be made more effective.
• The case was adjourned for further deliberation, and the matter will be reconsidered in two weeks.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 125 CrPC (Now Section 144 BNSS, 2023) – Provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents, and allows enforcement through distress warrants and imprisonment.
2. Section 125(3) CrPC – Specifies that if a person fails to pay maintenance, a Magistrate can:
   • Issue a distress warrant to recover the amount.
   • Impose imprisonment (up to one month per defaulted installment) if the distress warrant fails.
3. Section 73 & 75 CrPC – Deals with the classification of escaped convicts and issuance of warrants. (Section 75 & 77 of BNSS)
4. Orissa High Court Judgments – Clarified that:
   • Distress warrant is the first step in enforcing maintenance orders.
   • Non-bailable warrant may be issued if the distress warrant fails to recover dues.

Significance of the Case

1. Clarifies the Legal Process for Maintenance Enforcement
   • The case will provide clarity on whether non-bailable warrants can be issued directly for non-payment of maintenance.
2. Prevents Misuse of Non-Bailable Warrants
   • If the law does not explicitly allow NBWs, courts may need to change their existing practices to ensure compliance with legal provisions.
3. Ensures Timely Maintenance Payments
   • The Court is considering a more effective system to enforce maintenance orders, which could help beneficiaries (wives, children, and parents) receive their payments without unnecessary delays.
4. Balancing Justice and Enforcement
   • The case highlights the need to balance strict enforcement with fairness, ensuring that genuine defaulters are punished but due process is followed.

Conclusion

• The Kerala High Court is examining the correct legal procedure for enforcing maintenance orders under Section 125(3) CrPC.
• The Amicus Curiae has argued that a non-bailable warrant cannot be issued without first executing a distress warrant unless the defaulter has no property or admits inability to pay.
• The Court has questioned the current practice of issuing NBWs directly and is working on a more efficient system to ensure that maintenance beneficiaries receive their payments without unnecessary delays.
• The case has been adjourned for further consideration, with the State Government now involved in discussions on improving enforcement mechanisms.

This case is significant as it may lead to a shift in how maintenance orders are enforced in India, ensuring both legal correctness and practical effectiveness.

Case Name: S. Mumthas and Another v M. Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Another

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024