List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

The Delhi High Court ruled that two individuals living together in a shared household in a relationship "in the nature of marriage" qualify as being in a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act,2005.  

• Justice Amit Mahajan observed that such relationships fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act.  
• The court set aside a sessions court order that had dismissed the wife's domestic violence complaint, acknowledging her allegations of cruelty and disputes over the legitimacy of her marriage. 

What was the Background of X v. Y Case? 

• Anamika Chandel filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging marriage to Dr. Naresh Chandel on 22nd April 2006 and subsequent domestic violence in their shared household for seven years. 
• Dr. Naresh Chandel contested the marriage claim by producing a Friendship Agreement dated 13th April 2006, which acknowledged his existing marriage to Mrs. Kavita and their child. 
• The respondent also presented evidence showing Anamika's marriage to his brother, Vijay Kumar, on 28th March 2006, supported by a marriage certificate dated 03.04.2006. 
• Anamika countered by claiming an earlier marriage to Dr. Naresh on 25th February 2006, substantiated by a marriage certificate dated 07th May 2014 from Shree Vishno Mata Mandir Samiti. 
• The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed Dr. Naresh's application questioning the maintainability of the complaint. 
• Dr. Naresh successfully appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate's order and dismissed Anamika's complaint. 
• According to Anamika, Dr. Naresh coerced her into showing marriage to his brother Vijay Kumar to avoid bigamy charges, as he was already married to Mrs. Kavita. 
• The marriage certificate of 03rd April 2006 and Friendship Agreement of 13th April 2006 were allegedly part of a conspiracy to protect Dr. Naresh from bigamy prosecution. 
• Both parties were purportedly married to different individuals when their alleged marriage took place on 22nd April 2006. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that domestic relationship under the DV Act encompasses not only marriages but also relationships in the "nature of marriage" where parties share a household. 
• At the initial stage of determining maintainability, the court must consider allegations and factual content on a demurrer basis. 
• Documents presented by the respondent disputing the marriage cannot be accepted as conclusive truth at the preliminary stage without proper evidence. 
• The court noted that the petitioner's seven-year cohabitation in a shared household constitutes a domestic relationship, either as a married couple or in marriage. 
• The defense challenging the domestic relationship status requires evidential examination and cannot be determined at the preliminary stage. 
• The court found the Additional Sessions Judge's judgment was erroneous and restored the complaint to its original number before the Family Court. 
• The court directed the matter to proceed in accordance with law, considering the observations made in the present judgment. 

What is DV Act? 

• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a social beneficial legislation enacted on 26th October, 2006, specifically designed to protect women from all forms of domestic violence and provide effective protection of their constitutional rights. 
• The Act takes a comprehensive view of domestic violence, covering physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse through any act, omission, or conduct that harms or endangers women's health, safety, life, or well-being. 
• It provides concrete remedies by establishing legal mechanisms for women to enforce their rights to residence, maintenance, custody, protection, and compensation when facing domestic violence. 
• The Act considers harassment, threats, or coercion related to dowry demands or other property as forms of domestic violence, making it a broad and inclusive piece of legislation. 
• The preamble of the Act explicitly states that all forms of violence occurring within the family must be addressed and redressed through this statute, making it a holistic legal framework. 
• The legislation serves both protective and remedial functions by not only safeguarding women from ongoing violence but also providing mechanisms for compensation and rehabilitation of victims. 

What is Section 2(f) of DV Act? 

• Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationships. 
• A domestic relationship is legally recognized when two persons live or have lived together in a shared household, and their relationship falls under any of these categories:  
  • Consanguinity (blood relation) 
  • Marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage 
  • Adoption, or  
  • As family members in a joint family. 
• The definition is intentionally broad and inclusive, encompassing not just formal marriages but also live-in relationships that are in the nature of marriage, thereby extending protection to women in various types of domestic arrangements. 
• The key elements that must be satisfied are:  
  • (a) Living together in a shared household at any point in time. 
  • (b) The existence of one of the specified types of relationships between the parties. 

What is Section 12 of the DV Act? 

• Section 12 of DV Act deals with the application of Magistrate. 
• An aggrieved person, Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person can file an application before the Magistrate seeking relief under the DV Act. 
• The Magistrate must consider any domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order on such application. 
• The relief sought may include compensation or damages, without prejudicing the aggrieved person's right to file a separate civil suit for compensation. 
• If a court decree for compensation exists in favor of the aggrieved person, any amount paid under the Magistrate's order shall be adjusted against the decree amount. 
• The decree shall be executable for the remaining balance amount after such adjustment, notwithstanding any provisions in the Civil Procedure Code or other laws. 
• Every application must be filed in the prescribed form and contain specified particulars as required by law. 
• The Magistrate must schedule the first hearing within three days from the date of receiving the application. 
• The Magistrate should strive to dispose of the application within sixty days from the date of its first hearing. 
• The section aims to provide expeditious relief to victims of domestic violence through the judicial process. 
• The provision ensures coordination between civil court decrees and magistrate orders regarding compensation to prevent double benefit while ensuring complete relief to the aggrieved person. 

Source:  Punjab and Haryana High Court  

Why in News? 

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a woman living separately from her husband without a formal divorce can terminate her pregnancy without her husband's consent under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. 

• Justice Kuldeep Tiwari states a purposive interpretation of "change of marital status," allowing the petitioner to qualify for termination.  
• The court considered her allegations of cruelty, maltreatment, and the potential harm to her mental and physical health, permitting the termination of pregnancy at over 18 weeks. 

What was the Background of XXX v. Fortis Hospital Mohali and Others Case? 

• A married woman in her thirties filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy without her husband's consent. 
• The petitioner's marriage was solemnized on 22nd August 2024, after which she allegedly faced cruelty from her in-laws due to insufficient dowry. 
• Her husband allegedly mistreated her and attempted to secretly record their private moments using a portable camera on two occasions in their bedroom. 
• The husband's business had closed down, making him financially dependent on the petitioner and her parents for daily expenses. 
• Approximately 1.5 months after marriage, the petitioner discovered her pregnancy and expressed to her husband that she wasn't mentally prepared for a baby due to their unstable financial situation. 
• The husband allegedly pretended to show love and affection to prevent her from taking contraceptive measures within the required period for abortion. 
• The petitioner faced physical abuse from her in-laws, leading to minor pain and mental trauma, which ultimately forced her to leave and return to her parents' home. 
• On 3^rd December 2024, the petitioner experienced bleeding and was initially taken to Iqbal Nursing Home, then transferred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, where she remained admitted until 6^th December, 2024. 
• The medical summary report from DMC Hospital specifically noted that the petitioner was under stress and was a victim of domestic violence. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that as per Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and Rule 3(B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, the provisions concerning this case relate to pregnancy termination up to twenty weeks and change in marital status. 
• The Court noted that through the MTP Amendment Act 2021, Parliament intended to include unmarried and single women within the Act's ambit, as evidenced by the replacement of the word 'husband' with 'partner' in Explanation I of Section 3(2). 
• The Court recognized the Supreme Court's position that a change in material circumstances can arise when a woman is abandoned by her family or partner, which may place her in a less advantageous position financially and personally. 
• The Court acknowledged the constitutional right to privacy as established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which enables individuals to retain and exercise autonomy over their body and mind, including reproductive choices. 
• The Court observed that while the petitioner does not fall within the purview of "widow or divorcee," her decision to live separately from her husband without legal divorce still qualifies her for pregnancy termination under a purposive interpretation of "change of marital status." 
• The Court determined that forcing an unwanted pregnancy could result in significant physical and emotional challenges, affecting the woman's ability to pursue life opportunities, as noted in the Amandeep Kaur case (2024). 

What is Medical Termination of Pregnancy? 

• Prior to 1971, termination of pregnancy was illegal in India until the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was enacted, which came into force on April 1, 1972. 
• The Act underwent significant amendments in 2020, which became effective in September 2021, extending the maximum gestational age for medical abortion from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. 
• For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, the opinion of a single qualified medical professional is sufficient, while pregnancies between 20-24 weeks require the opinion of two registered medical practitioners. 
• The Act permits termination up to 24 weeks for specific categories including survivors of sexual assault/rape/incest, minors, women whose marital status changes during pregnancy, those with major physical disabilities or mental illness, and women in humanitarian or disaster situations. 
• In cases of fetal abnormalities where pregnancy has exceeded 24 weeks, termination requires approval from a four-member Medical Board established in each state. 
• The 2021 amendments significantly expanded access to safe abortion services while maintaining necessary medical oversight through qualified practitioners and medical boards. 
• The revised law emphasizes protecting vulnerable women by specifically including categories like sexual assault survivors, minors, and those facing changes in marital status during pregnancy. 

What is Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy?  

• A registered medical practitioner will not be guilty of any offense under IPC or other laws if they terminate a pregnancy in accordance with the Act's provisions. 
• For pregnancies up to 20 weeks, a single registered medical practitioner can perform the termination if they form an opinion in good faith about the required conditions. 
• For pregnancies between 20-24 weeks, at least two registered medical practitioners must form an opinion in good faith, and this applies only to specific categories of women prescribed under the rules. 
• Termination is permitted if continuing the pregnancy would risk the woman's life or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health, or if there's substantial risk of serious physical/mental abnormality in the child. 
• When pregnancy occurs due to contraceptive failure, the mental anguish is legally presumed to constitute grave injury to the woman's mental health. 
• In cases of pregnancy due to rape, the anguish is legally presumed to constitute grave injury to the woman's mental health. 
• The length restrictions don't apply when termination is needed due to substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board. 
• Every state/UT must constitute a Medical Board consisting of a Gynecologist, Pediatrician, Radiologist/Sonologist, and other notified members. 
• The woman's actual or foreseeable environment can be considered when determining health risks. 
• For women under 18 or those with mental illness, written guardian consent is required. For all other cases, only the pregnant woman's consent is necessary for termination. 

What are the Landmark Judgments on MTP Act? 

• X v. Principal Secretary case (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court's interpretation that the expression "change of marital status" should be given a purposive rather than restrictive interpretation, and the terms "widowhood and divorce" are not exhaustive of the category.
    
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009):
  • The Supreme Court held that the right to terminate pregnancy conferred to women under the MTP Act relates to the Constitutional right of women to make reproductive choices under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 

Source: Kerela High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P Krishna Kumar directed the State Government to provide reservation to transgender persons.                          

• The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Kabeer C v. State of Kerela (2024). 

What was the Background of Kabeer C v. State of Kerela & Anr. Case?  

• The petitioners in this case were transgender persons. 
• They sought for the relief of mandamus directing the Government of Kerela to provide reservations to transgender persons in education and public employment. 
• These writ petitions were filed in light of the declaration of law laid down in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Othrs (2014). 
• The petitioners in this case were aspirants of public employment and in none of the public employment notifications a reservation was made for transgenders and hence they have filed the writ. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that ordinarily this Court will not interfere in the policy domain of the Government in cases involving fundamental rights, the judicial role in enforcing the same is imperative. 
• The continued inaction by the Government, despite clear legal and constitutional obligations, leaves this Court with little choice but to consider issuing appropriate directions to ensure compliance with the constitutional and legal mandate. 
• The law declared by the Supreme Court is essential to ensure that transgenders are treated equally along with other gender groups. 
• In pursuance of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 enacted by the Parliament, the Government of Kerela also framed rules to effectuate the goals and objectives of statutory provisions. 
• The Court observed in this case that education is a fundamental human right and our Constitution provides equal rights as a part of fundamental rights. 
• The Court granting the relief in favour of petitioners held that the Government cannot delay the implementation of reservation for transgender persons and must implement the measures to provide reservations within six months.

Who are Transgender Persons?

• The transgender community is a diverse group of individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. 
• Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of their own gender, which may be male, female, a combination of both, or neither (non-binary). 
• It's important to recognize that transgender people are a diverse group with varied experiences, identities, and backgrounds. 
• They face unique challenges related to societal stigma, discrimination, and access to healthcare, among other issues.

What are the Guidelines laid down by the Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)? 

• In the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Othrs (2014) the Court laid down the following guidelines: 

What are the Legislations Governing Transgender Persons in India? 

• The legislation enacted by the Parliament in this regard is The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. 
• Transgender is defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act as the one whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth. It includes transmen and trans-women, persons with intersex variations, gender-queers, and persons with socio-cultural identities, such as kinnar and hijra. 
• The Salient features of the Act are as follows: 
  • Non-discrimination: Prohibits discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, and public facilities, and affirms rights to movement, property, and office.  
  • Certificate of identity: Grants the right to self-perceived gender identity and requires district magistrates to issue certificates without medical exams.  
  • Medical care: Ensures HIV surveillance, access to medical care, sex reassignment surgeries, and therapy with insurance coverage.  
  • National Council for Transgender Persons: Established to advise the government and address grievances.  
  • Offences and penalties: Punishes offences like forced labor, abuse, and denial of rights with imprisonment (6 months to 2 years) and fines.

What are the Important Cases Regarding Protection of Rights of Transgender Persons? 

• R Anushri v. The Secretary TNPSC and Others.(2024) 
  • The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to establish separate criteria for transgender individuals in employment and education, criticizing the state's continued confusion in categorizing transgender individuals. 
  • The court ruled in favor of a transwoman who was denied certificate verification despite qualifying, emphasizing the need to recognize transgender individuals as a special category and provide them with equitable opportunities.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):  
  • On 6^th September 2018, a five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices Rohington Nariman, D Y Chandrachud, A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra partially decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC. 
    • Section 377 of IPC criminalizes Unnatural Offences. 
  • The provision was decriminalized to the extent it was criminalizing homosexual relations. 
  • The bench found it violative of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.