Mumbai dance bar: SC quashed Stringent rules

Relief for Mumbai dance bar: SC quashed Stringent rules

In a relief for Mumbai dance bar owners and employees, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed some of the stringent rules prescribed by the Maharasthra government which led to the virtual shutdown of the establishments in Maximum City. A Bench led by Justice A.K. Sikri did away with some mandatory conditions imposed by a 2016 State law, like the installation of CCTV cameras at the dance area as a violation of privacy.

Mumbai dance bar
Mumbai dance bar

The court set aside the condition that only persons of good character would be allowed to run dance bars, saying the term “good character” is too vague. Noting that dance and liquor can co-exist, it said that there is no need to segregate the area where liquor is served to patrons from the dancing area.

The apex court upheld the condition that dance bars should operate only between 6 p.m. and 11.30 p.m

The court also refused to see eye to eye with the State that barred dance bars from within one km radius from educational institutions and religious places in Mumbai. The bar owners had argued that this was not geographically possible in a city that is as chock-a-block like Mumbai. The court asked the State to make the conditions reasonable.

The court, however, stopped patrons from showering money at the performers. It also upheld the condition that dance bars should operate only between 6 p.m. and 11.30 p.m.

The judgment came on petitions filed by women working in Maharashtra’s bars, including dancers and waitresses, against the constitutionality of the 2016 State law containing a rather explicit definition of what is “obscene” in dance.

The Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 was passed by the State Assembly to circumvent a Supreme Court judgment of 2015 which ordered dance bars to be throw open again and classified dance as a profession.

The Bench had earlier expressed its suspicion that this law was just a ruse to “circumvent” the apex court’s order of October 2015. The Act said an ‘obscene dance’ consists of “a sexual act, lascivious movements, gestures for the purpose of sexual propositioning or indicating availability of sexual access to the dancer, or in the course of which, the dancer exposes his or her genitals or, if a female, is topless”.

Legal experts said terms used like “lascivious movements”, etc., was at best vague and exposes the dancer and her establishment to the whims of the authorities itching to crack down on them.

Along with the petition filed by the Bharatiya Bargirls Union, the court had heard petition by the Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (IHRA), challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the 2016 Act.

The bargirls’ union had argued that the 2016 law stigmatises their profession and unreasonably interfered with their free choice of expression through dramatic performances. “The act of tipping or giving gifts as a token of appreciation has been customary and an integral part of traditional dance culture. This decades-old practice is akin to those performing Mujra, Lavani [traditional Marathi song and dance] or Tamasha [traditional Marathi theatre] where performers earn their living through ‘bakshisi’ offered by the audience as a token of appreciation of the performances,” their petition had said.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had criticised the new law for prohibiting liquor in dance bars as “absurd”, “absolutely arbitrary” and indicative of the State’s mentality which is “absolutely regressive by centuries”.

The 2015 order lifting the ban on dance bars came as a relief for women who had lost their jobs and slipped into prostitution and penury due to the clampdown after the Maharashtra State Assembly, in July 2014, circumvented a 2013 Supreme Court decision that upheld that “dancing is a fundamental right”.

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 17, 2019

Ramjanmabhoomi case: SC bench will hear on Jan 10

Ramjanmabhoomi Case: Appropriate SC bench will fix hearing on January 10 

Proposed Rama Temple at Ayodhya
Proposed Rama Temple at Ayodhya

A two-judge Bench of Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Friday posted the volatile Ramjanmabhoomi dispute appeals before the “appropriate bench” for “further orders” on January 10.
In brief moments of a rapid-fire hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi and Justice  S.K. Kaul did not delve into the issue. The appeals were previously heard by benches in the combination of the judges. “This is the Ramjanmabhoomi case? Yes? Listen to the order now… ‘Further orders will be passed by the appropriate Bench on the 10th of January’. Please come on the 10th of January,” Chief Justice Gogoi told the advocates present in the case.

The whole of this week is devoted to hearing miscellaneous matters after the court re-opened post the winter vacations. All the Benches in the court are sitting in combinations of two judges this week. The court would continue to sit in two-judge combinations on miscellaneous days – Mondays and Fridays – every week henceforth. This is one of the reforms introduced by Chief Justice Gogoi to deal with pendency of cases. Hence, Ramjanmabhoomi is posted for January 10, a Thursday, when there would be a three-judge combination bench available.

On October 29 this year, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Gogoi had ordered the appeals to be listed on January 4, 2019 before an appropriate Bench to fix a date for hearing.

The October order had come when the parties had sought an early hearing. At the time, Chief Justice Gogoi had orally told them that the decision when to start hearing the appeals would be in the realm of discretion of the “appropriate bench” before which the matter would come up in January. “We have our own priorities… whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate Bench,” Chief Justice Gogoi had remarked.

Senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for different parties, did not even get the opportunity to make any submission

On September 27, the apex court, in a majority opinion, had declined the plea made by Islamic bodies and individuals to refer the question as to whether prayer in a mosque is an essential part of Islam to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. The majority verdict, in its last paragraph, had further directed the Supreme Court to start hearing the pending from October 29. This direction had triggered questions whether the court intended to deliver a judgment in the appeals before the May 2019 elections.

Supreme court of India
Supreme Court of India

In 2017, when the court had started to hear the appeals after a hiatus of over seven years, senior advocate Kapil Sibal had suggested it to adjourn the hearings to after the General Elections in May 2019.

Allahabad High Court verdict

The Ayodhya appeals are against the September 30, 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court to divide the disputed 2.77 acre area among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the Ram Lalla.

The High Court had concluded that Lord Ram, son of King Dashrath, was born within the 1,482.5 square yards of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises over 900,000 years ago during the Treta Yuga. One of the judges added that the “world knows” where Ram’s birthplace is while another said his finding was an “informed guess” based on “oral evidences of several Hindus and some Muslims” that the precise birthplace of Ram is under the central dome. The High Court had relied on Hindu faith, belief and folklore to reach this conclusion.

The Ayodhya appeals were previously heard by another three-judge Bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra (CJI Gogoi’s immediate predecessor), Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer.

On September 27, the Misra Bench, in a majority opinion of 2:1, decided against referring a question of law – whether offering prayers in a mosque is an essential practice of Islam – which arose in the Ayodhya appeals’ hearings to a Constitution Bench.

The majority opinion of September 27, authored by Justice Bhushan and supported by Justice Misra, had ordered the Ayodhya appeals “which are awaiting consideration by this Court for quite a long period, to be now listed in week commencing 29th October, 2018 for hearing”.

Usually, this would entail the appeals returning  to the Bench comprising Justices Bhushan, Nazeer and a new third judge, replacing Justice Misra, who retired on October 2.

It was also found rather unusual for Justice Bhushan, a puisne judge on the Bench, to fix the date of hearing of the appeals as October 29. They say it should have been ideally left to Chief Justice Gogoi, as the master of roster, to decide the next course of hearing.

September 27 had also witnessed the stinging dissent penned by Justice Nazeer, who observed in a separate opinion that the question of what is essential or not in a religion cannot be hastily decided.

Justice Nazeer had held that the question raised on the essentiality of offering prayers in mosques should indeed be examined by a seven-judge Bench before the Ayodhya suit appeals are heard further. Justice Nazeer had concluded that questions raised during the Ayodhya appeals’ hearing about the comment made in the Ismail Faruqui judgment of 1994 require a “comprehensive examination” by a seven-judge Bench.Related image

Speaking for himself and the Chief Justice, Justice Bhushan had objected that references cannot be made to a larger Bench merely because of “questionable observations” made in an earlier judgment.

PM Modi’s remarks

The issue assumed importance as Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday suggested any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process.

Mr. Modi’s comments came amidst heightened demands by Hindutava organisations, including the RSS, for an ordinance for an early construction of the temple. “Let the judicial process take its own course. Don’t weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as government, we are ready to make all efforts,” the Prime Minister said during an interview, broadcast by several TV channels.

Timeline:Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute

The first suit regarding the structure was filed in 1885, when the Faizabad Deputy Commissioner refused to let Mahant Raghubar Das build a temple on land adjoining the mosque. Das then filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the Chabutra on the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid. The legal battle over the title has gone on for over a century.

The case timeline

1949: Idols of Ram Lalla are placed surreptitiously under the central dome.

1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files first suit in Faizabad civil court for rights to perform pooja to Ram Lalla.

1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files a suit for continuation of pooja and keeping idols in the structure.

1959: Nirmohi Akhara files third suit, seeking direction to hand over charge of the disputed site. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board files fourth suit in 1961 for declaration and possession and fifth in 1989 in the name of Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession.

1986: District judge orderes locks be removed. Site opened for Hindu worshippers.

1989: The four suits pending were transferred to the High Court.

1991: U.P. govt. acquires land around the structure for convenience of devotees who attend Ram Lalla darshan.

December 1992: Babri Masjid demolished by a frenzied mob of karsevaks.  Two FIRs filed in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Crime no. 197 deals with actual “demolition of the mosque by karsevaks.” Crime no. 198 named L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others for ‘communal’ speeches before the demolition.

1993: Govt. takes over 67 acres of land around the area, seeks SC’s opinion on whether there existed a Hindu place of worship before the structure was built.

October, 1993: CBI files a composite charge sheet and accuses Advani and other leaders of ‘conspiracy’

1994: Case goes back to Lucknow Bench of HC, suits heard again from 1996.

May 4, 2001: Special Judge S.K. Shukla drops conspiracy charge against 13 accused, including Mr. Advani and Kalyan Singh. Bifurcates Crimes 197 and 198.

May 20, 2010: Advani, others absolved of conspiracy charges

Allahabad HC upholds May 4, 2001 special court order, dismisses the CBI’s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others.

September 30, 2010: Allahabad HC awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board.

February, 2011: CBI moves Supreme Court. Argues that “the actual demolition of the Babri Masjid and the continuous assault on media persons form a single connected transaction and can well be a concerted conspiracy”.

May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute.

December 25, 2014: Oldest litigant in Babri Masjid case passes away

Mohammad Farooq, a resident of Ayodhya, was one of the seven main litigants from Muslim side in the 1949 Babri Masjid case.

March 6, 2017: SC indicates it may revive conspiracy charge and order a joint trial of crimes 197 and 198.

March 21, 2017: Suggesting an out-of-court rapprochement among rival parties in the 68-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar advised peace negotiations instead of a pitched court battle, even offering help to settle the fight amicably.

March 23, 2017: A Supreme Court Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Rohinton Nariman posted for detailed hearing the CBI appeal against the dropping of the criminal conspiracy charge against veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani and other top party leaders after two weeks.

April 6, 2017: The Supreme Court indicated that it will use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the Babri Masjid demolition related trial in Rae Bareilly against top BJP leaders L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi to Lucknow, where a CBI court is hearing conspiracy and other serious criminal charges against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks” for the actual act of razing down the 15th century mosque.

April 19, 2017: The Supreme Court revived conspiracy charges against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 others in the 25-year-old Babri Masjid demolition cases.

May 30, 2017: L.K. Advani Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

August 8, 2017: Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court that they would settle for a masjid located in a “Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram.” They tell the Court that the Babri Masjid was a Shia waqf (endowment) and their Sunni counterpart, who have been at the frontline of the 70-year-old title dispute, were mere interlopers led by “hardliners, fanatics and non-believers” who do not want an amicable settlement with the Hindu sects involved.

August 11, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.

December 5, 2017: The Supreme Court refuses requests by appellant parties belonging to the minority community to defer the hearing in the Ramjanmabhoomi–Babri Masjid land dispute till after July 15, 2019 — that is, post the next general elections.

February 8, 2018: The Supreme Court conveys its clinical approach to the 70-year-old dispute, exhorting the parties on either side of the fence to treat it merely as a “land issue”.

March 23, 2018: Almost 24 years after the Supreme Court said a mosque has no “unique or special status” and is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and namaz, Muslim parties involved in the Ramjanmabhoomi title dispute wants the apex court to first re-consider its stand before going ahead with the hearing in the Babri Masjid case. In 1994, the Supreme Court observed that “Muslims can offer prayer anywhere, even in open”.

July 6, 2018: Uttar Pradesh government accuses Muslim appellants of trying to “delay” the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute hearing in the Supreme Court, saying religious sentiments of a large population are involved in the case.

September 27, 2018: A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority opinion of 2:1, declines to refer the question if a “mosque as a place of prayer is an essential part of Islam” in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid appeals to a seven-judge Bench.

October 29, 2018: A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, orders the Ayodhya dispute appeals to be listed in January 2019 before an appropriate Bench to fix a date for hearing. When parties sought an early hearing, the court says the decision when to start hearing the appeals would be in the realm of discretion of the “appropriate Bench” before which the matter would come up in January.

January 4, 2019: The Supreme Court says that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

-MICROSTAT, NEW DELHI , JANUARY 04, 2019

Judgment on Section 497 of IPC- Dr.Shubhra Parmar

Judgment on Section 497 of IPC: Towards a Progressive Society

 By- Dr.Shubhra Parmar

About the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India has given new interpretation of section 497 of IPC on historic day of 27 September 2018 and declared section 497 of IPC as unconstitutional. The monumental judgement in the history of India has been given by the five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and consisting of Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. The recent judgement of Supreme Court has overturned last three judgements related with section 497 of IPC. According to the new ruling adultery regarding the male is not a crime.

Indian Perception

Our Indian society in the world is recognised by our Indian  values, tradition, culture and customs. Marriage is one of the important culture of Indian society. The new ruling creates a threat for marriage. The society, feelings, emotions, ideologies related with sexuality and sexual desires are changing these days due to pressures and complexities of life. The new relationships among the indivImage result for section 497 of ipcidual in the society will create complexities, expectation and confusions. These problems and challenges of life is  diluting the strength of husband-wife’s trust and companionship. It is a kind of marriage reversal concept. It will badly and negatively effects our children and parents. It will finish the nourishment and nutrition of family very soon. It will lead to emotional, mental and physical unnecessary stress and insecurity for both the partners. Sometimes these other relationships creates disturbances and  an emotional blackmailing with lots of negative consequences. Section 497 declares adultery is not a crime but adultery was a ground for divorce under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. I think at this level Indian society need more reforms and amendment in this regards for further improvements in the relationship issues because these days India is going through transitional phase.

Indian Society Towards Gender Neutral Laws

This new judgement is just a initial step towards a revolutionary transformation, progressive and developed society.  This ruling is emerging with western values of individuality, individual freedom, liberty and giving decision making right in sexual relations. The society welcomes the new ruling on section 497 of IPC. The brings justice, freedom, liberty and equality between male and female in the society. The new judgment creating space for the new definition of morality, humanity, dignity and equality to women. This explores the new possibility of gender neutral laws in India which will give a chance to people for more open, tolerant and transparent society.

Conclusion

If we analyse it completely we can say that somewhere it lead to mental- emotional peace and sexual satisfaction for the individual. People will become more open and truthful. Till date, in Indian society women do not have any right to speak out her desire. Women have never spoken and expressed themselves till date, but now they have the power of expression with legitimacy. Every individual has a perception and choice for sexual desire and right to choose a partner. Now it does not matter that the person is male or female. If suppose many people are genuinely truthful to their wife so they will and those who are not till date they will never be truthful to anybody in any relationship. So by this way we can say that nature of a particular person will not change, whether the law is there or not. While looking through the judgment we need to study the practical aspect and future implication of the matter. This ruling may lead to more transparent and long term positive relationships among the individuals. This ruling also helps out in changing the patriarchal mindset of the dominant males in the society. Women will no more considered as the  property status for men. It will also bring revolutionary change on dependency of women on men and develop the culture of independent decision making  practice of Indian women.

(Writer is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Bhagini Nivedita College, University of Delhi, Delhi)

Justice Ranjan Gogoi sworn in as Chief Justice of India

Justice Ranjan Gogoi sworn in as Chief Justice of India

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was on Wednesday sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He succeeds Justice Dipak Misra. President Ram Nath Kovind administered the oath to the 63-year-old Justice Gogoi at a brief ceremony in the Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Darbar Hall. Justice Gogoi will have a tenure of a little over 13 months and retire on November 17, 2019.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi after being sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India at Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi, October 3, 2018
Justice Ranjan Gogoi after being sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India at Rashtrapathi Bhavan, New Delhi, October 3, 2018 

Ranjan Gogoi (born 18 November 1954) is the current Chief Justice of India succeeding Dipak Misra and took the oath of office as the 46th Chief justice of India on 3 October 2018. His father Keshab Chandra Gogoi was Chief minister under the Indian National Congress regime in the state of Assam in the year 1982. He is the first person from Northeast India and first Assamese to become Chief Justice of India.

Career

Justice Gogoi was enrolled at the Bar in 1978 and practised at the Gauhati High Court of which he was made a Permanent Judge on 28 February 2001. He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 9 September 2010 and became its Chief Justice on 12 February 2011. He was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 23 April 2012. On 3 October 2018, He took the oath of office of the chief justice of India, thus succeeding Dipak Misra.

Significant Judgments & Orders

Dismissal of appeal by Reliance Communication

A bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, dismissed the appeal of Reliance Communication, challenging the Gujarat government’s demand notices seeking to levy Rs 13-crore property tax on cell towers and telecom equipment installed on rooftops and building terraces in the state.

On Coconut Oil Packaging

In the case on whether coconut oil packaged in “small containers” be classified as edible oil or hair oil for the purpose of taxation, the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi were unable to arrive at a consensus to put this issue to rest. According to Justice Gogoi, Coconut oil would fall under the category of edible oil regardless of the size of its packaging while according to Justice Banumathi coconut oil, when it is packaged in small containers, would be classified as hair oil, regardless of whether it has been labelled as edible oil by the manufacturers.

On Arbitration

A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R. Banumathi, has observed that in the absence of arbitration agreement, the court can refer parties to arbitration only with written consent of parties either by way of a joint memo or joint application and not on oral consent given by their counsels.[13]

On Re-assessment of Income of Amitabh Bachchan for the year 2002-03

On May 2016, the bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice PC Pant quashed a 2012 Bombay High Court order that dismissed CIT’s power to re-assess income of Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan that he allegedly had from the popular TV quiz show, Kaun Banega Crorepati.

In October 2002, Bachchan filed returns showing income of Rs 14.99 crore for 2002-03. On March 31, 2003, he filed revised returns, declaring total income for 2002-03 in which he claimed expenses at 30% ad hoc amounting to Rs 6.31 crore, showing his income at Rs 8.11 crore. In March 2005, Income Tax Department determined the actor’s income at Rs 56.41 crore for the assessment year 2002-03.

Dismissal of advocate Kamini Jaiswal’s petition seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe

The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi on JANUARY 24, 2018 dismissed Advocate Kamini Jaiswal’s petition seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the incidents of attacks on then JNU student union leader Kanhaiya Kumar 15 and 17 February 2016, at Patiala House Court while he was escorted to courtroom in a sedition case.

On Govindaswamy vs State of Kerala 

23-year-old Soumya, an employee of a Kochi shopping mall, was assaulted by one Govindaswamy in an empty ladies’ coach of Ernakulam-Shoranur passenger train on February 1, 2011. She was allegedly pushed off from the slow-moving train, carried to a wooded area and subsequently raped. She succumbed to injuries at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, on February 6, 2011. Govindaswamy was awarded death sentence under section 302 IPC for committing murder by a trial court and the order was upheld by Kerala high court on December 17, 2013.

On 15 September 2016, the Apex Court Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit set aside the death penalty awarded for the Offence of Murder (S.302) and sentenced Govindaswamy to a maximum of Life imprisonment for Rape (s.376 IPC) and other offences of causing bodily injuries.

However, to hold that the accused is liable under Section 302 IPC what is required is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act of the accused is likely to cause death. The intention of the accused in keeping the deceased in a supine position, according to P.W. 64, was for the purposes of the sexual assault. The requisite knowledge that in the circumstances such an act may cause death, also, cannot be attributed to the accused, inasmuch as, the evidence of P.W. 64 itself is to the effect that such knowledge and information is, in fact, parted with in the course of training of medical and para-medical staff. The fact that the deceased survived for a couple of days after the incident and eventually died in Hospital would also clearly militate against any intention of the accused to cause death by the act of keeping the deceased in a supine position. Therefore, in the totality of the facts discussed above, the accused cannot be held liable for injury no.2. Similarly, in keeping the deceased in a supine position, intention to cause death or knowledge that such actions may cause death, cannot be attributed to the accused. We are, accordingly, of the view that the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be held to be made out against the accused so as to make him liable therefor. Rather, we are of the view that the acts of assault, etc. attributable to the accused would more appropriately attract the offence under Section 325 IPC. We accordingly find the accused-appellant guilty of the said offence and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for commission of the same…

…While the conviction under Section 376 IPC, Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 447 IPC and the sentences imposed for commission of the said offences are maintained, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside…

Following the judgement of setting aside the death sentence of the accused in the said Govindaswamy vs State Of Kerala case, Justice Rajan Gogoi and his bench were severely criticized by members of the public, political leaders including Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, Law Minister of Kerala, A.K. Balan, Senior CPI(M) leader V. S. Achuthanandan, media members and legal luminaries including Supreme Court lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj and Supreme Court Justice (retd) Markandey KatjuJustice (retd) Katju had called the Supreme Court’s September 15 verdict a “grave error” not expected of “judges who had been in the legal world for decades”. The blog dated September 17 had castigated the Bench for believing “hearsay evidence” that Soumya jumped off the train instead of being pushed out by Govindaswamy. In the blog, Justice (retd) Katju had written,

Even a student of law in a law college knows this elementary principle that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

In response, the SC bench led by Justice Rajan Gogoi decided to convert that blog by Justice Markandey Katju into a review petition and asked him to personally appear in court to debate. On November 11, 2016, he appeared in the court and submitted his arguments. The Court then dictated the order rejecting the review petition and issued contempt of court notice to him stating that “Prima facie, the statements made seem to be an attack on the Judges and not on the judgment”. On January 6, 2017, The Supreme Court has accepted Justice Markandey Katju’s apology and closed the contempt proceedings against him.

On people who are originally inhabitants of the state of Assam

On 5 December, 2017 , while disposing off a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1020 of 2017, Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha & Others Versus Union of India & Others clubbed with similar other petitions seeking clarification as to the meaning of people who are originally inhabitants of the state of Assam , a term which appears in a schedule to the Citizenship (Registration Of Citizens And Issue Of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 pertaining to special provision as to manner of preparation of National Register of Indian Citizen in state of Assam, the bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi & Rohinton Fali Nariman observed that

The exercise of upgradation of NRC is not intended to be one of identification and determination of who are original inhabitants of the State of Assam….. Citizens who are originally inhabitants/residents of the State of Assam and those who are not are at par for inclusion in the NRC.

The National Register of Indian Citizens or in short the NRC, at its root, comprises of all the Local Registers of Indian Citizens containing details of Indian citizens usually residing in a village or rural area or town or ward or demarcated area (demarcated by the Registrar General of Citizen Registration) within a ward in a town or urban area.

The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card) Rules, 2003 were amended in November 2009 and March, 2010 for preparation of National Register of Citizens by inviting applications from all the residents in Assam for updation of the old National Register of Citizens (NRC) 1951 in Assam based on relevant records. In order to undertake updating of NRC in all districts of Assam, pilot projects for updating of NRC in two blocks (one each in Kamrup and Barpeta districts) were started in June, 2010. Subsequently, pilot projects were stopped due to law and order problems. A second attempt to update the register for Assam was made by the Government of India through issuing a Gazette Notification in December 2013.

On 17 December 2014, the bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi & Rohinton Fali Nariman mandated the Government of India to complete the finalization of final updated NRC for the entire state of Assam by 1st January 2016.

-MICROSTAT, NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 03, 2018

Supreme Court decriminalizes homosexuality

SC decriminalizes homosexuality, says history owes LGBTQ community an apology

The Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality with a prayer to the LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) community to forgive history for their “brutal” suppression.

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra unanimously held that criminalisation of private consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly unconstitutional.

The court, however, held that Section 377 will apply to “unnatural” sexual acts like bestiality. Sexual acts without consent continues to be a crime under the Section.

In four concurring opinions, the Bench declared the 156-year-old “tyranny” of Section 377 as “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”.

People celebrate after the Supreme Court verdict of decriminalising gay sex and revocation of Section 377, in New Delhi on September 6, 2018.The prayer for forgiveness came from Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the Constitution Bench. “History owes an apology,” she reached out to the rainbow spectrum.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud called Section 377 “Macaulay’s legacy”, which continued for 68 years despite a liberal Constitution because of the manifest lethargy of lawmakers. He said the Section shackled the human instinct to love. It had been a reason for tragedy and anguish. “It is difficult to right a wrong by history. But we can set the course for the future,” he wrote in his separate opinion.

‘It is just a step’

Justice Chandrachud said decriminalisation of homosexuality was just a step. This case was about people wanting to live with dignity. Citizens cannot be pushed into obscurity by a colonial law.

Section 377 discriminates against a minority solely for their sexual orientation. It violates the right of the LGBTIQ community to “equal citizenship and equal protection of laws”. The court held that bodily autonomy is individualistic. Choice of partner is part of the fundamental right to privacy.

The Bench set aside the 2013 judgment of the court in the Suresh Koushal case.

Legal experts said this was a much-needed self-correction of a past judicial wrong committed on the LGBTQ community. The verdict would become the foundation for members of the community to seek individual rights like.

The 2013 judgment upheld Section 377 and set aside the reprieve won by the LGBTQ community through the Delhi High Court verdict of 2009, which decriminalised homosexuality. It had cast the community back into the shadows as “unconvicted felons”.

The court declared that once a nine-judge Bench has declared privacy to be a part of the fundamental right to life, nothing could stop the Supreme Court from upholding bodily autonomy and sexual orientation as fundamental rights too.

‘LGBTQ community possesses equal rights’

The CJI, in his separate opinion shared with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, held that the LGBTQ community possesses equal rights as any other citizen. Any societal repression of their innate and biological sexual orientation is against the fundamental right to free expression. Homosexuality is their order of nature.

The CJI said the community needs the rainbow of hope for the sake of humanity. They should be allowed to live with dignity and without pretence about their identity. This verdict is the beginning of a journey towards greater dignity, equality and liberty.

‘Fundamental right to live with dignity’

Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, in his separate opinion, held that homosexuals have a fundamental right to live with dignity. They are entitled to be treated as human beings and should be allowed to imbibe the spirit of fraternity.

Justice Nariman embraced the ”Yogyakarta” Principles, which recognise freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity as part of human rights, saying they “animate” the right to equality and equal protection by laws.

Justice Chandrachud said medical science should stop being a party to the stigmatisation of homosexuals by “trying to cure something that is not even a disease”. Medical professionals and counsellors should tweak their own attitude. Stigmatisation seriously affects members of the LGBTQ community.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out how variations in sexual orientation have become a reason for blackmail on the Internet. Quoting Lenoard Cohen, he described how “shadows of a receding past” still controlled the quest of LGBTQ community for fulfillment.

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 06, 2018

Supreme Court orders floor test tomorrow in Karnataka

Supreme Court orders floor test tomorrow in Karnataka

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that a floor test be conducted in the Karnataka Assembly on Saturday at 4 p.m. for BJP’s B.S. Yeddyurappa, who was sworn-in on Thursday as Chief Minister, to prove his majority.

Mr. Yeddyurappa cannot take any major decision before the floor test, the court said. The pro-tem Speaker will take decisions in accordance with the law on floor test.

Supreme CourtThe court also said no Anglo-Indian MLA can be nominated to the Assembly.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the post poll Congress-JD(S) combine against the decision of Governor Vajubhai Vala to invite the BJP to form a government and to nominate an Anglo-Indian member to the Assembly.

Yeddyurappa recommends to Governor to convene House at 11 a.m.

Chief Minister Yeddyurappa, who attended an emergency cabinet meeting along with Chief Secretary Ratna Prabha, has decided to recommend to Governor Vajubhai Vala to convene the Assembly at 11 a.m. on Saturday.

Among others present at the meeting was Legislative Assembly Secretary N Murthy.

The other recommendation made from the State government are the names for the pro-tem speaker. Sources said eight-time MLA R V Deshpande of Congress, seven-time MLA Umesh Katti of BJP and six-time MLA Vishweshwar Kageri of BJP were recommended to the office of the Governor. The name of the pro-tem Speaker will be announced by Mr. Vala later.

Meanwhile in Goa, Congress MLAs led by CLP leader Chandrakant Kavlekar met Governor Mridula Sinha at Raj Bhavan on Friday, reports our Goa correspondent Prakash Kamat. They had a letter seeking to be invited to form government, as the largest party with 16 MLAs.

In Bihar, Amarnath Tewary tells us that Tejaswi Yadav along with RJD, Congress, HAM(S) and CPI-ML MLAs have set off to the Raj Bhavan to meet Governor Satya Pal Malik to stake claim to form government in the State as being single largest party.

Mr. Yadav, who went inside to meet the Governor along with three other MLAs, said Mr. Malik had heard them seriously. “We’ve submitted the support of 111 MLAs of the single largest party and block. The Governor said he would think over it and let us know about his decision,” said Mr. Yadav. “If we get invited I would like to say we’ll pass the floor test comfortably. A lot of JD(U) MLAs are in touch with me…we’d easily get the magic figure of 122 MLAs to form the government,” he added.

“We welcome the Supreme Court order. Now BJP has been exposed in the country,” he said.

Last year, in the Goa Assembly polls, the BJP had had come second with 13 seats while the Congress had emerged as the single largest party with 17 seats. However, with some swift political manoeuvring, the BJP struck a post-poll alliance to form the government.

During the 2015 Assembly election in Bihar, the RJD was in a grand alliance with Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal-United (JD-U) and the Congress. Though the RJD had 80 MLAs, nine more than Mr. Kumar’s party, it gave the CM’s position to the JD(U) as part of a pre-poll understanding. However, Mr. Kumar switched sides last July and formed the government with the help of the BJP’s 53 MLAs.

Governor acted as per Modi, Shah directions: Siddaramaiah

Former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah says the Governor’s conduct indicates that his decision is as per directions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah. “Giving 15 days to prove majority is unprecedented in the history of independent India,” he says. “It shows his collusion with the BJP.”

Who is the pro-tem Speaker?

The floor test will be conducted by a pro-tem Speaker.

The pro-tem Speaker performs the duties of the office of the Speaker from the commencement of the sitting of the Assembly till the election of a Speaker.

The pro-tem Speaker will be the senior-most MLA, that is, the one with the most number of terms as a member of the House. If there is a tie, the one with the earliest tenure will be chosen.

No official announcement has been made yet about who the pro-tem Speaker is.

Our stand vindicated: Rahul Gandhi

Congress president Rahul Gandhi says, “The Supreme Court’s order on Karnataka floor test vindicates our stand that Governor acted unconstitutionally.”

Confident of proving majority, says Yeddyurappa

Mr. Yeddyurappa says he is confident of proving his majority in the Assembly.

BJP’s Shobha Karandlaje says, “The party will abide by the Supreme Court order and “we are confident of winning the floor test tomorrow.” She adds that many of the MLAs who do not want the JD(S)-Congress combination are in touch with them.

SC has given a historic verdict: Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Soon after the apex court order, Mr. Singhvi told journalists outside the court, “It is a historic verdict. Many important directions have been given, one of them being that floor test has to be conducted at 4 p.m. tomorrow under a pro-tem speaker.”

Supreme Court orders floor test

The Supreme Court orders  that a floor test be conducted tomorrow (Saturday) at 4 p.m in the Karnataka Assembly.

It says all MLAs will vote tomorrow. Pro-tem Speaker will decide what manner the floor test should be held.

Mr. Yeddyurappa should not take any major policy decisions in the meantimes, says the court.

Rohatgi opposes immediate floor test

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who is appearing for Mr. Yeddyurappa, says:

 “I am disputing the signatures of Congress members. A floor test will show how many signatures they really had. The Governor never received a signed letter.

“I dont think floor test should be held tomorrow. Pro-tem speaker has to be appointed, etc. People should be given a reasonable time. Not tomorrow. Not fair. I have to also get my flock. Their people are locked up, not mine.”

Floor test an inevitability, says Singhvi

Mr. Singhvi states that conducting a floor test is an “inevitability.”

He says: “But B.S. Yeddyurappa declares he is the single largest party in his May 15 letter to Governor even before EC declares the election.

“B.S. Yeddyurappa says ‘I with an unknown X’ which he does not name ‘will form a majority.’ He had to say ‘I with A,B,C have crossed majority mark.

”Congress-JDS specified 117 with all details. Can you say the Governor applied his mind by giving B. S. Yeddyurappa the opportunity to form a government?

”Yeddyurappa tells the Governor, ‘give me some time. I have 104. Give me a small window, with that I will ‘manufacture’ a majority’.”

Floor test on Saturday an option, observes SC

Justice Sikri says, ” Ultimately this is a number game.”

He adds: “An alternative is floor test and tomorrow itself. We don’t give time for anybody.

“The issue has to be decided. Let us have the floor test and issue on question of law will be decided later here.”

Congress-JD(S) an unholy alliance: Mukul Rohatgi

Hearing in Supreme Court begins on a  petition was filed by the Congress and the JD(S) against the decision of the Governor to invite the BJP to form a government.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi reads out the May 15 letter saying since there is no pre-poll alliance and as single largest party, the BJP can form a govt.

“The Congress-JD(S) is an unholy alliance. The Sarkaria Commission is only guidelines. Finally it is the Governor’s discretion to form a stable and popular government. We are the single largest party with additional support.”

Advance date for floor test?

What could possibly happen today?

Supreme Court of India. File

The court wants to check whether Mr. Yedyurappa gave sufficient material to the Governor for the latter to have reasonably felt that the BJP leader is the best option and not the post poll Congress-JD(S) combine.

One of the possibilities is that the court would advance the date for a floor test and leave the party with the most number of members to form a government. The BJP has 104 members while the Congress and the JD(S) jointly have 117 members, which is well past the majority mark.

Congress MLAs housed at Park Hyatt in Hyderabad

Congress MLAs are currently being housed at Park Hyatt in Hyderabad.

Congress MLAs are currently being housed at Park Hyatt in Hyderabad.

The Congress, with fears about poaching by the BJP, on Friday brought its  Karnataka MLAs to Hyderabad.

Sources said they were being accommodated in two five star hotels – Taj Krishna and Park Hyatt – which are owned by a senior Congress leader.

Where are the MLAs?

Meanwhile, suspense continues regarding the whereabouts of the Congress and JD(S) MLAs.

Party national Secretary General Kunwar Danish Ali confirmed to that all 37 MLA elects would travel by road to Kochi on Thursday night itself. But conflicting reports say they left Kochi and are currently at Hyderabad.

-MAY 18, 2018

Supreme Court rules; Judge Loya died of natural causes

Judge Loya died of natural causes, rules SC while dismissing pleas seeking probe into his death

Judge B.H. Loya died of natural causes three years ago and there is “absolutely no merit” in the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions alleging foul play in his death, the Supreme Court concluded on Thursday.

The Supreme Court foreclosed any future questions on Judge Loya’s demise, saying its verdict spelt the end of any further litigation on the circumstances surrounding his death.Supreme Court
Conclusion based on three aspects

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud based its conclusion on three aspects: One, the “indisputable” written statements given by the four judges and colleagues of Judge Loya to the Maharashtra police; two, there is nothing wrong when friends and colleagues share the same room at the guest house, Ravi Bhawan; and three, Judge Loya had called his wife on November 30, 2014, telling her he was staying at Ravi Bhawan.
The statements by the judges were made to the police, which launched a “discreet enquiry” in 2017 after articles appeared in a magazine raising suspicions about Judge Loya’s death in Nagpur in November 2014.

Articles appeared in a magazine raised suspicions about Judge Loya’s death in Nagpur in November 2014. 

The verdict traces the journey of Judge Loya and his fellow judges to Nagpur to attend a wedding, their itinerary there and how they stayed in one room in Ravi Bhawan.

Judge Loya, at the time of his death was the CBI Special Judge hearing the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was an accused. Mr. Shah was discharged from the case by Judge Loya’s successor in office.

PILs a “vituperative assault on judiciary”

Justice Chandrachud, who wrote the verdict, described the PILs as a “vituperative assault on the judiciary”. He said they were an example of misuse of judicial process and time when hundreds of litigants are waiting for their personal liberty.

Justice Chandrachud observed that the petitioners used the Supreme Court and their PILs as platforms to malign the Bombay High Court judiciary and the judicial officers who were with Judge Loya at the time of his death. At one point, the petitioners even wanted to “cross-examine” the judges who were with Judge Loya on their statements that said he died of a cardiac arrest.

Justice Chandrachud at one point wondered on the irony of why the petitioners first approached the Bombay High Court if they had no faith in its judges.

The judgment said the PILs were a “serious attack on the judiciary” and an attempt to “seriously scandalise” judges.

The PILs were an attempt to satisfy personal agendas and score over political rivals. The aura created by the petitioners that the PILs were meant to protect the independence of the judiciary – by seeking a probe into the death of Judge Loya – was a mere “facade”. The truth was that the petitioners wanted to sensationalise the death of a judge. The PILs were only a “veiled attempt to destroy the credibility of judiciary” with “scurrilious” claims.

‘Attempt to undermine public faith in judiciary’

To claims by petitioners that “one man” (Amit Shah) was controlling the judiciary was nothing but an attempt to undermine public faith in the judiciary and credibility of judicial process, the judgment said.

Justice Chandrachud said the petitioners should not use the courts to settle political scores. “Political rivalries should be settled in that great hall of democracy… Rule of law should not be reduced to a charade,” he observed.

The apex court said the petitioners’ claims and aspersions amounted to criminal contempt. But Justice Chandrachud said the court did not want to initiate contempt proceedings as judicial process should not be respected out of fear of contempt, but it is to be based on moral authority.

The verdict referred to how two of the judges on the apex court Bench, Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud, were even asked to recuse from hearing the Loya PILs as they were from the Bombay High Court and knew the judicial officers who were with Judge Loya.

Justice Chandrachud said they both decided to not “abdicate their duties” as they only answer to their judicial conscience and higher values.

“Industry of vested interests”

Justice Chandrachud described how PIL litigation had been brazenly misused to become an “industry of vested interests”.

The court flagged the avalanche of PILs entering the Supreme Court and the High Courts, creating arrears and severely taking a toll on court work.

The court dismissed the Loya PILs, holding that there was no reasonable suspicion to show that Judge Loya’s death was unnatural.

-NEW DELHI, APRIL 19, 2018

Supreme Court; Allocation of cases is CJI’s prerogative

 Supreme Court: Allocation of cases is CJI’s prerogative

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a high constitutional office entrusted with the duty to constitute Benches and allocate cases for the smooth dispensation of justice by the Supreme Court, the court held in a judgment on Wednesday while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Asok Pande for a transparent and codified procedure for constitution of Benches and allocation of cases in the court.
Supreme CourtThe office of the CJI is an institution in itself, the judgment by a Bench,  also comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar, observed.

Pronouncing the judgment on behalf of the Bench, Justice Chandrachud said, “There cannot be a presumption of distrust against the Chief Justice of India in his exclusive prerogative, granted by the Constitution, to set up Benches and allocate cases to judges.”

Second declaration

This is the second time the court has declared the CJI as the master of roster. On both occasions, Chief Justice Misra headed the Benches.  This time, the court said the question should be put to rest finally with Wednesday’s judgment.

Mr. Pande’s petition came up for hearing almost immediately after the Supreme Court’s number two judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, attacked the Chief Justice of India’s discretionary powers to constitute Benches and allocate cases.

A Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed a PIL plea seeking framing of guidelines for allocation of cases

“Unfettered power is being exercised by the Chief Justices in the matter of formation of Benches, and so, the same is liable to be regulated through specific Rules,” the petition contended.

It said specific provisions should be incorporated in the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 that the three-judge Bench in the Chief Justice of India’s court should consist only of the Chief Justice of India and the court’s two senior-most judges. That is, in the present scenario, Chief Justice Misra and Justices Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi.

The petition demanded that the Constitution Bench of the court should consist of the five senior most judges — the CJI, Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — or a combination of the three senior-most and two junior-most judges. That would be the CJI, Justices Chelameswar and Gogoi followed by Justices Navin Sinha and Deepak Gupta.

Justices Chelameswar and Gogoi – who is the next in line as CJI under the seniority norm, Lokur and Kurian, at a press conference held on January 12, accused the recent trend of CJIs selectively allocating cases to preferred Benches.

“Subject-wise roster” of cases

Subsequently, Chief Justice Misra published a “subject-wise roster” of cases to be handled by the Supreme Court judges. However, the roster did not ease criticism. As proof, Justice Chelameswar, responding to a question why all the important cases continue to be heard by Chief Justice Misra, responded rather drily: “He is the master of roster… If he [CJI Misra] has the energy to do the entire work, let him do it”.

Mr. Pande’s petition follows an earlier petition filed by former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan for a declaration that the authority of the CJI as ‘master of roster’ should not be reduced to an absolute, singular and arbitrary power.

Mr. Bhushan had specifically asked the Supreme Court Registry not to place his petition before a Bench of which Chief Justice Misra is a part of.

NEW DELHI, APRIL 11, 2018

Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia

Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia 

The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia, or withholding treatment essential to life for a terminally-ill patient on Friday. Following is the procedure fixed by the Supreme Court which is to be adopted for making and executing of an Advance Directive or “living Will” by a person for withdrawal of medical treatment if he is suffering from an incurable disease with no chance of recovery to prevent pain and suffering

Supreme CourtWho can execute the Advance Directive and how?

It can be executed only by an adult of a sound and healthy state of mind. It must be voluntarily executed and without any coercion or compulsion. It shall be in writing clearly stating as to when medical treatment may be withdrawn or no specific medical treatment shall be given which will have the effect of delaying the process of death that may otherwise cause pain and suffering.

What should it contain?

It should clearly indicate the decision relating to the circumstances in which withdrawal of medical treatment can be resorted to. It should mention that the executor may revoke the authority at any time. It should specify the name of a guardian or close relative who, in the event of the executor becoming incapable of taking a decision, will be authorised to give consent for withdrawal of treatment.

How should it be recorded and preserved?

The document should be signed by the executor in the presence of two attesting witnesses and countersigned by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC). The witnesses and JMFC shall record their satisfaction that the document has been executed voluntarily and without any coercion. The JMFC shall preserve one copy of the document in his office and shall forward one copy to the registry of the jurisdictional district court for being preserved. The JMFC shall inform the immediate family members of the executor, if not present at the time of execution. A copy shall be handed over to the competent officer of the local Government.

When and by whom can it be given effect to?

In the event, the executor becomes terminally ill with no hope of recovery and cure of the ailment, the treating physician shall ascertain its authenticity from the jurisdictional JMFC.

If the physician is satisfied that the instructions need to be acted upon, he shall inform the executor or his guardian /close relative about the nature of the illness, the availability of medical care and consequences of alternative forms of treatment and the consequences of remaining untreated.

The hospital shall then constitute a Medical Board consisting of the head of the treating department and at least three expert doctors with at least twenty years experience who, in turn, shall visit the patient in the presence of his relative and form an opinion whether medical treatment should be withdrawn or not.

If Medical Board certifies that the instructions be carried out, the hospital shall inform the collector about the proposal. The collector shall then immediately constitute another Medical Board comprising the Chief District Medical Officer and three expert doctors. The board shall examine the patient and may allow withdrawing treatment after ascertaining the wishes of the executor or his family members if the patient is not in a position to communicate.

The board shall convey the decision to JMFC before allowing to withdraw the treatment. The JMFC shall visit the patient and, after examining all aspects, may permit to implement the directive.

What if permission is refused by the Medical Board?

If permission is refused by the Medical Board, it would be open to the executor or his family members or even the treating doctor or the hospital staff to approach HC. The court shall take a call on the plea at the earliest.

-TNN | March 09, 2018