List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Delhi High Court in case of Independent News Service Private Limited & Anr v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors court ruled in favor of senior journalist Rajat Sharma, protecting his personality rights against unauthorized use of the "Baap Ki Adalat" trademark and India TV logo.

• The Court restrained Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, who was using the name "Jhandiya TV," from utilizing Sharma's photograph, video, or name in any manner that could violate his personality rights.

What was the Background of Independent News Service Private Limited & Anr v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors ?

• Rajat Sharma has built a significant association with the TV news interview show "Aap Ki Adalat" over many years, establishing it as a recognizable brand closely linked with his name and India TV.
• The plaintiff, (India TV and Rajat Sharma), alleged that the defendant, (Ravindra Kumar Choudhary), unlawfully used trademarks and logos resembling those of India TV and "Aap Ki Adalat."
• Choudhary's "Jhandiya TV" utilized an identical logo and the name "Baap ki Adalat," which closely mirrored the plaintiff's trademarks and show name.
• According to the plaintiff, it leds to public confusion and infringed upon their intellectual property rights.
• The legal dispute revolves around these allegations of unauthorized use of trademarks, logos, and show names.
• Plaintiff claims of trademark infringement, violation of personality rights, and unauthorized use of intellectual property.
  • The plaintiff seeks injunctions to cease the defendant's unauthorized usage and potential damages for the alleged infringement.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff until the next hearing, finding that they have shown a prima facie case and are likely to suffer irreparable harm otherwise.
  • This injunction was issued in a suit filed by the plaintiff and their company.
• The defendant is prohibited from using the plaintiff's name, photos, or videos in any capacity that may violate their personality rights.
• Social media platforms are ordered to remove infringing content, including posts containing specific trademarks.

What is Personality Right?

• Personality rights, also known as the right of publicity.
• It refers to the legal rights of individuals to control and profit from the commercial use of their identity, likeness, name, or other aspects of their personality.
• These rights protect individuals from unauthorized commercial exploitation, such as using their image or name for advertising or promotional purposes without their consent.
  • It is necessary for renowned personalities/celebrities to register their names to save their personality rights.
• Personality rights vary by jurisdiction, but they generally encompass the right to control how one's identity is used in commercial contexts and to receive compensation for any unauthorized use.
  • A large list of unique personal attributes contribute to the making of a celebrity.
  • All of these attributes need to be protected, such as name, nickname, stage name, picture, likeness, image and any identifiable personal property, such as a distinctive race car.

What are the Types of Personal Rights?

• There are two types of personality rights
  • The right to publicity
  • The right to privacy.
• The right to publicity safeguards a celebrity's image and traits from unauthorized commercial use, similar to how trademarks protect brands.
  • This right lasts until the individual's death, after which the court assumes control.
• The right to privacy shields celebrities from unwanted intrusion into their personal lives, such as unauthorized photography or release of private information.
• Both rights are enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to privacy).

What are the Legal Remedies Available to Protect Personal Rights?

• To protect their personal rights, famous people and celebrities may take legal recourse in a court of law.
• In India, the legal remedy available for protecting personality rights is Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 under the right to life and dignity including privacy and publicity.
• Other statutory provisions protecting personality rights include the Copyright Act, 1957.
• According to the Act, moral rights are only granted to authors and performers, including actors, singers, musicians, and dancers.
• The provisions of the Act mandate that the Authors or the Performers have the right to be given credit or claim authorship of their work and also have a right to restrain others from causing any kind of damage to their work.
• The Indian Trademarks Act, 1999 protect personal rights under Section 14, which restricts the use of personal names and representations.

What are the Relevant Cases Involved?

• Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011)
  • The Delhi High Court in its judgment observed that the popularity or fame of an individual will be no different on the internet than in reality.
  • The court had also stated that the name also falls in the category wherein besides it being a personal name it has also attained distinctive indicia of its own.
• Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr, Gautam Gambhir (2017)
  • An Indian cricketer claimed that the use of his name as a tagline for a chain of eateries violated his personality rights and trademark protection due to his fame.
  • The Delhi High Court denied his injunction request, stating there was no evidence of attempted misrepresentation, as the defendant's social media pages did not feature Gambhir's public representations.
  • The court ruled there was no commercialization of Gambhir's name and dismissed the lawsuit, highlighting the need to establish unfair enrichment for a successful personality rights claim.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Naziya Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors., has held that no one can impose restrictions on an adult from going anywhere or staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will as this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Naziya Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the first petitioner is an adult woman aged about 21 years. It is alleged that the second petitioner is an adult man. They have married according to their freewill and wish.
• She married the second petitioner on 17^th April 2024 according to Muslim rites regarding which there is a marriage certificate issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board dated 25^th April 2024.
• Aggrieved with her decision to marry the second petitioner, the woman's uncle lodged an FIR against her husband.
• Thereafter, the Police not only arrested her husband but also took the woman into custody and handed her over to her uncle.
• When the police produced the woman before the Magistrate to get her statement recorded, she categorically said that she had married second petitioner of her own choice and that her husband had been implicated in the case falsely.
• She also expressed an apprehension that she would be done to death as her uncle had been threatening her; despite this, the concerned magistrate directed her to send her to her uncle's home.
• Challenging the FIR, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
• Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned FIR.
• The Court also directed the concerned officers to ensure that her uncle or any other family member does not harm her in any manner.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that both the petitioners are major and have a right to live together or solemnize marriage. Hence, the woman's uncle had no right to lodge the impugned FIR, and therefore, all proceedings taken pursuant thereto were manifestly illegal.
• Even if the petitioners have not married each other, no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish. This is a right which flows from Article 21 of the COI.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

About:

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance 10. Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Case Laws:

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Hirdesh granted divorce on the ground of desertion.

• The Madhya Pradesh this judgment in the case of X v. Y.

What is the Background of X v. Y Case?

• The appellant/wife filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent/husband. The marriage was solemnized on 21^st November 2011.
• The appellant/wife alleged that the respondent/husband had a cruel, aggressive, and short-tempered nature, and he tortured her physically and mentally.
• Two criminal cases were registered against the respondent/husband.
• The respondent/husband was convicted in the second case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his father.
• The Family Court dismissed the appellant/wife's petition for divorce, holding that the conviction in a criminal case does not amount to cruelty, and there was no evidence of cruelty before the registration of the criminal case in 2017.
• The appellant/wife filed an appeal challenging the Family Court's judgment, arguing that the respondent/husband's conviction for murder and life imprisonment amounts to mental cruelty towards her, and it would be difficult for her and her minor daughter to live with him.
• The appellant/wife also claimed that the respondent/husband's arrest and imprisonment since 2017 amounted to desertion of more than two years.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The sole issue considered by the court in this appeal is whether the conviction of the husband in a criminal case under Section 302 of the IPC and his sentence of life imprisonment amount to "mental cruelty" to the wife.
  • The court observed that although there is no provision in the HMA for granting divorce on account of conviction of the spouse for life imprisonment, there is a provision for granting divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
• The court held that due to the aggressive nature of the respondent/husband, his facing trial under Section 307 of the IPC, and his subsequent conviction for murdering his father under Section 302 of the IPC, it would cause constant fear about the safety of the wife and her minor daughter while living with him.
• The court held that the conviction of the husband under Section 302 of the IPC and his sentence of life imprisonment amount to mental cruelty towards the wife, entitling her to get a divorce from her husband.
• The court also noted that the respondent/husband's arrest and imprisonment since 2017 amounted to situational desertion of the wife for more than two years, which is another ground for granting divorce.
• Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court's judgment dismissing the wife's petition, and dissolved the marriage between the appellant/wife and respondent/husband solemnized on 21^st November 2011.

What is Law Related to Divorce Through Desertion?

• About:
  • Desertion is one of the grounds for seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA.
  • It refers to the negation of the essence of marriage, which is living together. When one spouse abandons the other without reasonable cause and against their consent, it constitutes desertion.
  • The concept of desertion is not explicitly defined in the HMA, as it is a dynamic and variable concept that changes with time and societal norms.
• Elements of Desertion:
  • Factum Deserendi: The factual separation or physical withdrawal of one spouse from the other.
  • Animus Deserendi: The intention to desert or permanently abandon the other spouse.
  • Absence of reasonable cause: The desertion must be without a reasonable cause or justification.
  • Absence of consent: The desertion must be against the wish or without the consent of the deserted spouse.
  • Continuous period of two years: The desertion must have persisted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition.
• Types of Desertion:
  • Actual Desertion: When one spouse physically leaves the matrimonial home with the intention of permanently abandoning the other spouse.
  • Constructive Desertion: When the conduct of one spouse is such that it becomes impossible for the other spouse to live with them, compelling the latter to leave the matrimonial home.
• Termination of Desertion:
  • Resumption of cohabitation: If the deserting spouse returns and resumes living with the deserted spouse, with mutual consent and the intention to reconcile, desertion comes to an end.
  • Resumption of marital intercourse: Engaging in marital intercourse can be seen as an intent to reconcile and terminate desertion, provided it is not a casual act.
  • Offer to reconcile: If the deserting spouse genuinely offers to reconcile and return to the matrimonial home, and the offer is not accompanied by unreasonable conditions, desertion can be terminated.
• Reasonable Cause for Desertion:
  • Cruelty or ill-treatment by the other spouse.
  • Adultery or immoral conduct by the other spouse.
  • Refusal to cohabit or perform marital obligations without justification.
  • Demanding the resignation of a working spouse from their job without valid reasons.

What are the Landmark Cases on Divorce Through Desertion?

• Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court explained the meaning of 'desertion' to seek divorce under the HMA.
  • The court said that Desertion for the purpose of seeking divorce under HMA, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause.
  • Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case.
• Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal (2022):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the ramifications of marriage breakdown and the devastating effects felt by women.
  • The court said that a marriage is more than a seemingly simple union between two individuals. Once this amity breaks apart, the results can be highly devastating and stigmatizing.
  • The primary effects of such breakdown are felt especially by women, who may find it hard to guarantee the same degree of social adjustment and support that they enjoyed while they were married.