Of turns and U turns by Supreme Court

Befitting the old adage, ‘the King can do no wrong,’ when the king was the sole dispenser of justice, now in our age the Supreme Court has seemingly taken cudgels upon itself to set right everything that is, in its own perspective, wrong and harmful to the society. Going by the plethora of recently delivered judgements by the apex court, despite having the highest regard for this court and the judiciary at large, one cannot resist the urge to say a word or two which may not be in consonance with the apex court verdict.

First, take the verdict delivered on October 13 in a 498 A IPC matter delivered by a three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. In this case, the Court virtually over-turned the judgement delivered on July 27 by a division bench in Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of UP and another, vide Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017 and restored the provision of ‘immediate arrest’ of the accused husband and his relatives in a dowry-linked cruelty.

The earlier judgement cited supra had on the basis of the data from the National Crime Records Bureau had indicated wide spread misuse of Section 498 A by women to get husbands and their relatives arrested and harassed for years.

The court had also issued detailed guidelines including the formation of Citizens’ Committees to probe into the veracity of allegations before any action by the police was initiated. But in the latest judgement the Supreme Court declared that abuse of Section 498 A should not amount to curtailing the ambit of the law as the scope of the section enacted is to protect women from cruelty in matrimonial homes.

Thus, we are back at square one. Earlier, in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another the apex court had virtually banned the immediate arrest of the husband and his relatives and issued elaborate guidelines to the police authorities making it clear that non-compliance of the same would attract disciplinary action.

Second, the apex court’s verdict declaring the marital sex with a wife under 18 years of age illegal and attracting the penal provisions of the POCSO Act. Unfortunately, while presuming that the minor wife is always a victim of the lustful husband’s sexual act, the court has totally ignored the facts that the minor wives too, have quite naturally sexual desire.

The law fixing the marriageable age is one thing while the nature declaring a girl suitable for sex upon attaining puberty is the gospel truth. Further, in the changed times when the right of privacy has been endorsed even by the Supreme Court, forbidding the marital sex with a wife under the age of 18 years of age is in direct contradiction to the judgement on privacy.

As a fall out of this judgement promiscuous sex would increase rampantly and those young couples who could not dare due to social and moral bindings would go in depression. It would eventually benefit the corrupt elements in law enforcing agencies and the carefree, no bounds type of girls to blackmail their married or unmarried counterparts.

Indeed, a more pragmatic approach to the family laws and marital matters is the urgent need of the hour. Mere blind following of the laws in the western countries where altogether different culture prevails, is not going to help our society.

Third, the verdict of the apex court banning the use of firecrackers in Delhi and NCT during the forthcoming Diwali festival on the ground that bursting crackers increases air pollution. One wonders if that is the case then why not also ban the use of crackers throughout the country, especially in the big cities like Mumbai, Kolkatta, Chennai, Hyderabad, Bangaluru etc.? Earlier, a bench headed by the then Chief Justice R C Lahoti too, had issued a ban order on noise pollution, but it is more observed in breach than compliance.

The loudspeakers blaring every day at the highest sound volumes throughout the country and no action is taken on the violators. We are afraid, same would be the fate of the cracker ban edict also.

Then the million-dollar question arises is when the order of the highest court of the land is given a convenient go-by then, what purpose it would serve to pass such an order. In fact, the apex court seems to have taken a serious note of this situation and expressed its concern to the authorities responsible for its implementation.

Last but not the least, the PIL filed by the Indian Young Lawyers’ Association against the State of Kerala and others, vide WP (Civil) No.373 of 2006 seeking declaration of Rule 3 (6) of Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules framed under Section 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 as violative of Articles 14,15,25 and 51 A (e) of the Constitution. The apex Court has referred this matter to the five-judge Constitution bench.

The Court is expected to deliver its judgement on the contentious issue of whether the ban imposed by the management on the entry of females in the age group of 10-50 in the temple of Lord Ayappa at Sabarimalai is legal and Constitutional. As the matter has been sub judice better we keep our fingers crossed but only hope that the verdict is delivered expeditiously.

HC cricket team felicitated

The High Court Advocates Associations of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh States felicitated the Advocates Cricket Team which occupied the runner-up position at the national level championship games.

In the past, the cricket team has won the championship trophy in five out of 13 games. The team with Sunil Goud as Captain was felicitated by Justice C V Nagarjuna Reddy, J Kanakaiah and Dhananjaya, Presidents of High Court Advocates Associations for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh respectively. A large number of lawyers’ cheered up the winning team.