i. Ram Janambhoomi cases to be heard in January – The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul will be hearing the Ram Janambhoomi cases on January 4, 2019. As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment, which had partitioned the land equally among the three parties. The Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasbha had filed a petition requesting early hearing which was denied by the Court earlier this year. Further the Court had refused to reconsider the observations made in a 1994 judgment (Ismail Farooqui) as to whether a mosque is essential to Islam or not.

ii. BJP challenges order to stay Rath Yatra – The BJP has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court restraining it from holding the Rath Yatra in the State of West Bengal. While a single judge bench had granted them permission, the division bench overturned the decision as it considered more than 30 intelligence reports which indicated that the Yatras would hurt communal peace in the state. The division bench sent the order back to single bench with a direction to reconsider the intelligence reports. The petition by the party on the other hand argues that the restriction violates the fundamental rights of the party guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21. The rally was completed in time and no incidents were reported. [Bharatiya Janata Party West Bengal v State of West Bengal, Diary No. 48112 of 2018]

iii. Review petition filed in the Supreme Court against the Aadhaar judgment – A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Others, the judgment which had upheld the validity of Aadhaar. The petition challenges the validity of the provisions which were upheld in the earlier decision. The petitioner claims that his arguments in the interim application were not considered and has reiterated some of them. The petition highlights that Section 2(k) prohibits disclosure of information related to income, but at the same time a person is required to link their Aadhaar with their PAN card, which is neither a benefit nor a service.

iv. The MHA surveillance order challenged – Petitions before the Supreme Court have been filed arguing that the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs authorising the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW), Directorate of Signal Intelligence (For service areas of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Assam only) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi to intercept information stored on any computer device. The petition argues that the government has not given any reasons as mentioned under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act. Section 69 also provides that a person in charge of the computer device is required to provide all requisite assistance, failing which he or she can be jailed for 7 years. The order treats all citizens as criminals and is in the violation of right to privacy.

v. Persons belonging to aboriginal tribes have inalienable right to their property – The Chhattisgarh High Court held that while aboriginal tribes have a right to development, their right to the land is also inalienable and the land cannot be sold for recovery of loan without permission from the Collector. The MP Land Revenue Code bars transfer of land belonging to aboriginal tribes. The Code does not define the term transfer, but the Court held that the sale of property for the recovery of loan is covered under the term. It would essentially deprive the land owner of their property, which is barred by the Code. The lower court had given the judgment against the plaintiff and the higher court set it aside. [Joseph v Dhaneshwar, Second Appeal No. 197 of 1993, date of judgment: 13.12.2018]

vi. Man convicted of rape after 21 years – The Bombay High Court has convicted a 41 year old man of committing rape on a minor girl. The trial court had acquitted the man in 1996, against which the Maharashtra government had appealed. Importantly, the bench noted in the judgment that the absence of any injury marks on the body of the victim does not indicate consent on her part – it simply reflects lack of resistance, which cannot again be construed as consent. The Court also criticised the lower court for taking a callous attitude to the determination of the age of the victim. While the trial court had come to the conclusion that the girl was 16, the High Court found that the age of the girl was 11 years at the time of the incident. Further the Court has asked the state to locate the girl and dispense the requisite compensation under the NALSA compensation scheme. [State of Maharashtra v Macchindra, Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 1997, dated 22.12.2018]

Other developments –

i. Death Penalty for aggravated assault of Children approved by Cabinet – The Union Cabinet has approved amendments to the POCSO. The amendments impose death penalty for aggravated assault against children and fines against persons who would not delete pornographic material or report the same. Attempting to inject hormones in children to make them attain sexual majority earlier has been made an aggravated assault under the Act. The amendment also aims to protect children in times of distress and natural calamity. The Act, according to the press release “is expected to discourage the trend of child sexual abuse by acting as a deterrent due to strong penal provisions incorporated in the Act”.

ii. Triple Talaq Bill passed in the Lok Sabha: The Lok Sabha passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill or the Triple Talaq Bill which makes the husband using the triple talaq method to dissolve his marriage as a crime. The motion to adopt the Bill was supported by 245 members and opposed by 11 members. The earlier Bill has also been passed by the Lok Sabha but had been stuck in the Rajya Sabha. The government then brought about an ordinance to make the act an offence. Eventually, a bill to replace the ordinance act was introduced this year in December which was passed.
(IPA Service)