1). Supreme Court Directs Haryana to Pay Rs 5 Lakhs to Wrongfully Convicted Individuals in Murder Case
Case Background
In a murder case, the Trial Court had convicted one accused for murder and acquitted the other three. However, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the acquittal. The High Court reversed the acquittal of the three appellants and convicted them for murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants were unjustly kept in rigorous imprisonment for over three months before being granted bail. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the High Court had the power to reverse the acquittal of the appellants in its revisional jurisdiction, and whether the appellants were entitled to compensation for the illegal and unjust deprivation of their liberty.
Court Observations
The Supreme Court bench comprises of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevanemphasized the following key points:
- Excessive Use of Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court noted that the High Court had no power to reverse an acquittal in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court had committed a significant error in convicting the appellants despite the absence of an appeal by the State against their acquittal. The Court explained that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reverse acquittals and that the appellants had not been afforded a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
- Right to Life and Liberty: The Court referred to the landmark cases of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa to affirm that if a person is deprived of their liberty unjustly, they are entitled to compensation. In this case, the appellants were wrongfully imprisoned for over three months, and compensation was ordered.
- Judicial Responsibility: The Court also criticized the public prosecutor's failure to assist the court properly and noted the issue of favoritism in judicial appointments. The Court said that public prosecutors should be appointed based on merit and integrity, not political considerations.
- Court's Duty to Correct Errors: The Court emphasized that judicial mistakes can happen due to workload, but it is the responsibility of defense counsel and public prosecutors to point out errors to ensure justice. The State Government was held responsible for paying compensation for the errors in this case.
Court Rulings/Decisions
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted beyond its powers in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellants in its revisional jurisdiction.
- The appellants were unjustly deprived of their liberty, and the Court ordered the State of Haryana to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakhs each to the three appellants.
- The Court stressed that mistakes by judges should be corrected, and the responsibility for such errors lies with the State Government, which appointed the prosecutor.
Legal Provisions Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): The Court referred to Section 372 and Section 378 of the CrPC, which govern the right of appeal and the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. (Section 413 & 419 of BNSS)
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: The Court invoked the right to life and liberty, stating that it should be protected and that compensation must be awarded if this right is violated without due process.
Significance
This case highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures, especially regarding the revisional jurisdiction of courts. It underscores the importance of ensuring that acquittals are not reversed without proper legal grounds and that individuals are not deprived of their liberty unjustly. The ruling also serves as a reminder that public prosecutors must act with integrity and assist the court in delivering justice. The compensation awarded serves as a recognition of the wrongful imprisonment and as a deterrent against similar errors in the future.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court found that the appellants had been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, and ordered the State of Haryana to pay compensation. The case serves as an important reminder of the need for fair legal processes and the responsibility of the State to ensure justice is served.
Case Name: MAHABIR & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 5560-5561 OF 2024
2). Supreme Court Orders Complete Ban on Manual Scavenging and manual sewer cleaning in Six Metro Cities
Case Background
The case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Dr. Balram Singh to address the ongoing practice of manual scavenging in India. Despite the existence of laws prohibiting manual scavenging, the petitioner argued that the laws remain largely unimplemented. The Court has been issuing multiple orders to ensure compliance, but the problem continues.
Issue of the Case
The main issue before the Court was whether the government had effectively implemented the laws prohibiting manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning. The Court also examined whether there was proper compliance with its previous orders aimed at eradicating this inhuman practice.
Court Observations
Bench of Justices
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar.
Key Observations
- Frustration Over Non-Compliance: The Court expressed its frustration over repeated non-compliance with its orders and stated, "We are fed up of orders. Either do it or face consequences."
- Lack of Clarity from the Union Government: The Court found that the affidavit filed by the Union Government lacked clarity on the eradication of manual scavenging and sewer cleaning.
- Erroneous Data on Manual Scavenging: The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati presented data stating that out of 775 districts in India, 456 districts no longer had manual scavenging. However, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar pointed out that this data was misleading because many districts had not even constituted the required committees to verify this.
- No Clear Guidelines: The Court noted that despite previous directions, the government had not framed clear guidelines to ensure a complete ban on manual sewer cleaning.
- Challenges in Implementation: The Union Government argued that complete eradication was difficult and needed a phased approach, but the Court emphasized that at least metropolitan cities should not have any excuse for continuing this practice.
Court Rulings and Decisions
- Ban on Manual Scavenging in Six Metropolitan Cities: The Supreme Court ordered that manual sewer cleaning and manual scavenging must be completely stopped in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad.
- Mandatory Compliance Reports: The Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent authority) of each of these cities must file a detailed affidavit by February 13, explaining how and when manual scavenging and sewer cleaning will be stopped.
- Strict Enforcement of Previous Orders: The Court reiterated its October 20, 2023 order, which directed the Union and State governments to ensure that:
- No person should be required to enter a sewer for cleaning.
- Contractors and agencies should not assign sewer cleaning work requiring human entry.
- All states and Union Territories must follow the Union Government’s guidelines to prevent manual scavenging.
- Accountability for False Affidavits: The Court warned that filing false affidavits on compliance would amount to contempt of court.
Legal Provisions Referred
- The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 – Prohibits the employment of manual scavengers and the construction of dry latrines.
- The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Strengthens the ban on manual scavenging and provides for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers.
Significance of the Ruling
- Strict Enforcement of Laws: The ruling reinforces that manual scavenging is illegal and must be eradicated immediately.
- Protection of Human Rights: It upholds the dignity of sanitation workers and prevents the exploitation of marginalized communities.
- Government Accountability: The decision forces state and central authorities to take immediate and clear steps toward implementation.
- Precedent for Future Cases: This ruling could lead to stricter enforcement across other cities and states in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance against manual scavenging, showing its frustration with repeated violations of its orders. By banning the practice in major cities and demanding accountability from local authorities, the Court aims to push for real and immediate change. However, the true impact will depend on the government’s commitment to implementing these directives effectively.
Case Name: DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,|W.P.(C) No. 324/2020
3). Supreme Court Urges Centre to Enact Law Protecting Domestic Workers
Case Background
The case arose from a criminal appeal involving allegations of wrongful confinement and trafficking of a female domestic worker. While hearing the case, the Supreme Court observed the lack of legal protection for domestic workers in India. The Court decided to address the larger issue of exploitation and abuse of domestic workers, highlighting the absence of national legislation to safeguard their rights.
Issue of the Case
The main issue before the Court was whether domestic workers in India were adequately protected under existing laws and whether there was a need for a comprehensive legal framework to safeguard their rights and prevent exploitation.
Court Observations
Bench of Justices
The case was heard by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Key Observations
- Lack of Legal Protection: The Court noted that domestic workers remain unprotected due to the absence of a pan-India law ensuring their rights, fair wages, and workplace safety.
- Exploitation and Vulnerability: Many domestic workers, especially from marginalized communities (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Economically Weaker Sections), are forced to take up such jobs due to financial hardships. They often face low wages, unsafe working conditions, and long hours with no legal recourse.
- International and Past Legislative Efforts: The Court referred to International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines that emphasize protections for domestic workers. It also noted that previous attempts to introduce laws for domestic workers in India had failed.
- Existing Gaps in Indian Laws: The Court highlighted that domestic workers are not covered under important labor laws, such as:
- Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (ensuring timely wages)
- Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (prohibiting gender-based wage discrimination)
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013
- Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (which could protect young domestic workers)
- Partial Recognition Under New Laws:
- Code on Wages, 2019 introduces provisions for minimum wages for domestic workers.
- Social Security Code, 2020 recognizes them as "unorganized workers", but this is not enough to protect their rights fully.
- State-Level Efforts:
- Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have created welfare boards for domestic workers.
- Kerala introduced the Kerala Domestic Workers (Regulation and Welfare) Bill, 2021.
- However, the Court emphasized that a national law is necessary.
Court Rulings and Decisions
- Expert Committee Formation: The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Labour & Employment, along with other ministries, to constitute an expert committee to study the feasibility of a law for domestic workers.
- Six-Month Deadline for Report: The expert committee must submit its report within six months.
- Government to Consider New Law: Based on the committee's findings, the Union Government should make efforts to introduce a national law to protect and regulate domestic workers' rights.
- Parens Patriae Jurisdiction: The Court used its parens patriae (guardian of citizens) jurisdiction to take up the cause of domestic workers, as they lack legal protection.
Legal Provisions Referred
- Code on Wages, 2019 – Mentions minimum wages for domestic workers but lacks enforcement mechanisms.
- Social Security Code, 2020 – Includes domestic workers as "unorganized workers," but does not provide specific protections.
- International Labour Organization (ILO) Guidelines – Recommend legal frameworks to protect domestic workers globally.
- State-Level Laws – Welfare boards in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, and the Kerala Domestic Workers Bill, 2021.
Significance of the Ruling
- First Step Towards Legal Recognition: The ruling may lead to the first-ever national law for domestic workers in India.
- Protection Against Exploitation: A legal framework would ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and protection from abuse.
- Government Accountability: The ruling puts pressure on the Union Government to take concrete steps towards protecting domestic workers.
- Empowerment of Marginalized Communities: Many domestic workers belong to disadvantaged groups, and legal recognition would help improve their socio-economic status.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision is a historic step towards ensuring the dignity, rights, and safety of domestic workers in India. By directing the government to consider a national law, the Court has addressed a major legal vacuum affecting millions of workers. The next crucial step will be the formation of the expert committee and the introduction of comprehensive legislation to provide real protections for domestic workers across the country.
Case Name: Ajay Mallik v State of Uttarakhand | SLP(Crl) 8777/2022
4). Forcing Spouse to Convert in Inter-Faith Marriage is Mental Cruelty and Violates Right to Life: Madras High Court
Case Background
The case involved a Muslim husband and a Hindu wife who had married under the Special Marriage Act. The wife later filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that her husband had constantly pressured her to convert to Islam. She also claimed that he abused her caste background (as she belonged to the Scheduled Castecommunity) and eventually abandoned their matrimonial home.
The husband denied the allegations and argued that there was no documentary evidence to prove that he had forced her to convert or physically abused her. He also claimed that the case was filed with malicious intent.
The Family Court granted the wife a divorce, dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The husband then appealed this decision before the Madras High Court.
Issue of the Case
The main issue before the Madras High Court was:
- Does persistently forcing a spouse to convert to another religion amount to cruelty in marriage?
- Can forcing religious conversion violate fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution?
Court Observations
Bench of Justices
The case was heard by a division bench of Justice N Seshasayee (now retired) and Justice Victoria Gowri.
Key Observations by the Court
- Forcing Religious Conversion is Cruelty: The Court held that if a spouse persistently forces the other to convert to their religion, it amounts to cruelty in marriage.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights (Article 21 & 25): Such forced conversion attempts also violate:
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) – Denying a person the right to practice their faith affects their quality of life and dignity.
- Article 25 (Right to Freedom of Religion) – Compelling someone to convert deprives them of their right to profess and practice their religion.
- Effect on Marriage: The Court emphasized that marriage is a sacred institution in all religions. If a spouse is forced to convert in the name of religion just to maintain the marriage, it destroys the very foundation of the relationship.
- Continuous Pressure & Abuse: The Court noted that the husband pressured the wife continuously, even changing her Hindu name to a Muslim name, which caused mental trauma and suffering.
- Desertion by the Husband: The husband had left the matrimonial home and lived with his sister for more than two years, which amounted to desertion.
- Attempt to Reconcile Through Jamaat: When the wife approached the husband's Jamaat for reconciliation, the husband voluntarily signed a consent deed for separation, showing his lack of commitment to the marriage.
Court Rulings and Decisions
- Divorce Upheld: The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
- Forced Religious Conversion is a Form of Violence: The Court ruled that forcing or pressuring a spouse to convert without their consent is a form of mental violence and can be a valid ground for divorce.
- Religious Freedom in Marriage: The Court reaffirmed that both spouses have the right to practice their own religion in an inter-faith marriage.
- Marriage Should Not Be Used for Conversion: The Court criticized the use of love and marriage as a tool for religious conversion, stating that it violates the individual’s belief system and personal liberty.
Legal Provisions Referred
- Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty, ensuring a life of dignity and freedom.
- Article 25 of the Constitution – Right to freely practice and profess one’s religion.
- Articles 39(e), 39(f), 41, and 42 – Ensure a life with human dignity and protect individuals from being forced into situations against their conscience.
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Allows inter-faith marriages without religious conversion.
Significance of the Ruling
- Protects Individual Freedom in Inter-Faith Marriages: The judgment reinforces that both partners have the right to maintain their religious identity after marriage.
- Sets a Precedent Against Forced Conversion: This ruling establishes forcing conversion as a form of cruelty, which can be a valid ground for divorce.
- Strengthens the Right to Freedom of Religion: The decision safeguards constitutional rights and prevents religious pressure in marital relationships.
- Recognizes Mental Cruelty in Marriage: It highlights that continuous emotional abuse and forced religious conversion can be as damaging as physical abuse.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling is a significant step in protecting individual rights in inter-faith marriages. It clarifies that forcing a spouse to convert amounts to cruelty and violates fundamental rights. The judgment upholds the principle that marriage should be based on mutual respect, not religious coercion. By dismissing the husband's appeal, the Court reinforced that personal freedom and dignity must be preserved in every marriage, regardless of faith.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Case No: C.M.A(MD)No.65 of 2019
5). Compromise in Abetment to Suicide Cases Undermines Rule of Law: Punjab & Haryana HC
Case Background
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently heard a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of a compromise deed between the accused and the complainant. The case involved allegations of abetment to suicide, where the victim had passed away, and the complainant (who filed the FIR) had later agreed to settle the matter.
Issue of the Case
The key legal issue before the court was:
- Whether an FIR for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) can be quashed based on a compromise between the accused and the complainant, given that the victim is deceased and cannot provide consent.
Court Observations
The case was heard by Justice Sumeet Goel, who made significant observations regarding the rule of law, the rights of victims, and the impact of quashing serious criminal cases on society.
- The Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that allowing such quashing based on a compromise would be against the rule of law. Since the victim is deceased, they cannot give consent, and the crime has a wider impact on society.
- The complainant (who filed the FIR) is not the actual victim in cases where a person has died. The true victim is the deceased person, and their family or the informant cannot replace the victim’s voice in the legal process.
- The Court warned that quashing FIRs in serious cases like abetment of suicide based on financial settlements or private compromises would create a dangerous precedent. It would send a message that justice can be "bought," undermining public trust in the legal system.
- Justice Goel emphasized that courts must ensure a fair balance between the rights of the accused and the victim. The judicial process is not just a dispute resolution mechanism between two private parties but serves the broader interests of justice and society.
The Court cited the principle that "The law should speak on behalf of those who cannot", stressing that justice must protect victims, especially when they can no longer represent themselves.
Court Ruling and Decision
- The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.
- The Court clarified that while an FIR for abetment to suicide cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, a petition for quashing based purely on the legal merits of the case is always maintainable and can be considered separately.
- The judgment reiterated that justice should not be influenced by money or power, and courts must protect the sanctity and integrity of the legal process.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 306 IPC: Punishment for abetment of suicide. (Section 108 of BNS)
- Section 34 IPC: Common intention in committing an offense. (Section 3(5) of BNS)
- New Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Corresponding provision for abetment of suicide in the new criminal law.
Significance of the Judgment
- Upholding Rule of Law: The ruling reinforces that serious criminal offenses cannot be settled privately, ensuring that justice prevails.
- Protection of Victim's Rights: The decision highlights the importance of recognizing the deceased as the true victim in such cases, preventing their rights from being ignored.
- Preventing Misuse of Compromise: The Court's decision prevents the misuse of financial settlements in serious cases, ensuring that justice is not compromised for money.
- Ensuring Public Trust in the Judiciary: The ruling reassures society that serious crimes will be dealt with seriously, maintaining confidence in the legal system.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that abetment to suicide is a serious offense that affects not just individuals but society as a whole. The judgment ensures that justice is served for victims who can no longer speak for themselves and prevents the commodification of justice through financial settlements. This ruling sets a crucial precedent for cases involving grave offenses, ensuring that the legal system remains fair, just, and untouchable by money or influence.
Case Name: Earndeep Kaur @ Irandeep Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and another