"Apologise": Supreme Court As Cop Gets Husband, Father-In-Law Jailed In False Cases
The Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih also dissolved the marriage since the couple were separated since 2018. The court ordered that their daughter will stay with her mother and the husband and family members will be able to meet her.
In its verdict, the court said the husband had to spend 109 days and his father 103 days in jail due to criminal cases filed by the wife. "What they have suffered cannot be compensated in any way," the court said, ordering the officer to tender a public apology.
"The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and a Hindi newspaper," said the judges.
This apology shall also be published and circulated on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other similar social media platforms within 3 days of the order, the judges said. It would not be construed as an admission of liability and shall have no effect on the legal rights, obligations or consequences arising under the law.
The court also asked the woman "not to use her position and power" or that of her colleagues to initiate any proceedings against the husband and his family. The husband was warned not to use her apology in any manner either.
The woman had filed separate criminal cases against the husband and his family and a parallel one in the family court for divorce and maintenance. Her husband too, had filed tit-for-tat cases. Besides, there were cases filed by third parties.
Both husband and wife had filed an application in the Supreme Court to transfer the cases to their respective jurisdiction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Consensual sex between adolocents aged 16 to 18 years must not be treated as abuse: amicus curiae to SC
Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising has argued that consensual sexual acts by teenagers, aged between 16 and 18, in voluntary relationships cannot be classified as 'abuse' or prosecuted as a crime. The written submissions filed by Ms. Jaising in the apex court is part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena dating back to 2012. The amicus's brief has challenged the age of pegged at 18 years by the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to the extent that it works to criminalise 'consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18'. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Ms. Jaising's submissions said. The senior advocate, who was India's first woman Additional Solicitor General of India, said the exemption for consensual sexual acts between individuals in this age group must be read into the POCSO Act and also Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding provision, Section 63, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Definition of 'child' She submitted that the word 'child' in Section 2(d) of POCSO should not include individuals aged between 16 and 18 who engage in consensual sexual activity. 'Without reading down the statutory age of consent set at 18, it is prayed that the Supreme Court read into the impugned provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' Ms. Jaising reasoned in her submissions prepared with the assistance of advocates Paras Nath Singh, S. Sherwani, Rohin Bhat and R. Sinha. 'No reason to increase age for consent to 18 years' The case in question contains a challenge against the increase of age of consent from 16 yeats to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'The age of consent was static at 16 for 80 years. No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase. The BNS has also kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act,' the amicus curiae submitted. She argued that the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder and told those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court for any further relief. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for those opposing its release, that they can approach the high court if they want to challenge the order by the expert committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to review the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer. While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 'We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,' the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, 'meanwhile nothing.' Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. 'What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?' Bhatia asked. The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay. Sibal said, 'I am not disputing that. In any case he can't screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.' Another counsel urged the bench, 'Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.' The bench, however, did not agree. Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story, and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. 'Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?' he said. Bhatia added, 'All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn't make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.' Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, 'And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.' The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer. A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. 'The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?' he submitted. 'Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,' he added. Bhatia questioned Madani's credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. 'They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?' he asked. Justice Kant said, 'Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?' Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this 'for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.' The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release. Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case. But Justice Bagchi said, 'In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won't put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.' Sibal said 'They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.' 'You have (already) challenged it,' said Justice Bagchi. Sibal said, 'If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).' Justice Kant, however, said, 'No, how can we compel them to make a statement!' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Explained: Why a 53-year-old rape convict will be sentenced as a juvenile
A 53-year-old man will appear before a juvenile justice board in Ajmer for appropriate punishment in a rape case, the Supreme Court of India ruled on July The case involves a 53-year-old Rajasthan man convicted for raping a minor in 1988 and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court, a decision upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in in 2025, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a plea of juvenility, claiming he was only 16 years old at the time of the offense. This claim was based on his school records, which indicated his date of birth as July 1, 1972, making him a minor (under 18 years) when the crime was committed. The Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, noted that the prosecution's case was robust, supported by the survivor's testimony, witness statements, and medical Court accepted his claim of being a juvenile based on his school records, which were deemed reliable evidence under the Juvenile Justice objections from the Rajasthan government counsel, who argued against granting juvenile status after decades, the court cited prior rulings that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after a case's the court set aside the earlier sentence, as it could not be sustained under juvenile justice provisions, and directed the JJB to issue appropriate JJB may send the man to a special home for a maximum of three years, as per the Juvenile Justice are the key provisions of India's Juvenile Justice laws relevant to this case?The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, defines a juvenile as a person under 18 at the time of the are tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, not adult courts. They cannot face adult penalties like life imprisonment or measures, such as counselling or placement in a juvenile home for up to three years, are prioritised (Section 18).At the time of the offense, the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was in effect, defining boys under 16 and girls under 18 as juveniles. However, the Supreme Court applied the beneficial provisions of the 2015 Act, which raised the age to 18 for all is this case significant?The case underscores that juvenility claims remain valid regardless of the time elapsed or the accused's current age. It reinforces the principle that juveniles must be treated differently, even for serious crimes, and highlights the retrospective application of beneficial juvenile justice provisions.- Ends
