Latest news with #AbhayOka
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Maternity leave part of reproductive rights; SC sets aside Madras HC order
SEO-friendly URL ✅ Meta Description ✅ Meta Keywords The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that maternity leave is a component of a woman's reproductive rights, setting aside a Madras High Court order that had denied leave to a woman for the birth of her third child. A bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, 'We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights, and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside.' The case The apex court was hearing a petition filed by a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu, who was denied maternity leave for the birth of her first child from a second marriage. The petitioner argued that she had not availed maternity leave for her first two children, who were from a previous marriage and born before she joined government service. Custody of those children remains with their father. Tamil Nadu's service rules restrict maternity benefits to the first two surviving children, which was the basis of the state's denial. HC first allowed, then reversed the relief The woman had initially approached the Madras High Court, where a single-judge bench of Justice V Parthiban ruled in her favour and directed the state to grant her one year of maternity leave from October 11, 2021, to October 10, 2022, as reported by LiveLaw. The judge had held that the state rule was in conflict with the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, a central law, and therefore void under Article 254 of the Constitution, which states that central law prevails over conflicting state laws. However, the state government challenged the order, and a division bench of the High Court reversed it. The division bench ruled that maternity leave was a statutory—not fundamental—right, and that the central legislation did not apply to government employees, who are governed by their own service rules. The Supreme Court's ruling now reinstates the woman's right to maternity leave, placing it within the ambit of reproductive rights and clarifying that such benefits must align with constitutional protections.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
‘Legal system failed her': SC spares sentence in POCSO case linked to Calcutta HC's ‘control sexual urges' remark
The Supreme Court on Friday decided not to sentence a man convicted under the POCSO Act, 2012, saying the legal process had caused more harm to the victim than the incident itself. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to do 'complete justice,' to show leniency in the case. The decision was based on a detailed report from a court-appointed expert committee. The judgment came after a suo motu proceeding triggered by controversial remarks made by the Calcutta high court while acquitting a 25-year-old man earlier convicted under the POCSO Act. The high court's comments on adolescent sexuality, saying that girls should 'control their sexual urges,' drew widespread criticism, reported LiveLaw. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal on August 20, 2024, reinstated the conviction, and condemned the high court's language as 'objectionable and unwarranted,' violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The convict, previously found guilty under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is now married to the victim, who is an adult, and they live together with their child. 'The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as crime in law the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system, and constant battle to save the accused from punishment,' LiveLaw quoted the Supreme Court bench as saying. 'The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system,' the Supreme Court observed. It added that the victim had been denied the opportunity to make an informed choice due to failures in societal, familial, and legal structures. 'The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her,' the bench remarked. The Supreme Court further recognised the emotional bond the victim has developed with the accused. 'That is the reason we are giving for exercising power under Article 142, not to impose sentence,' Justice Oka said, stressing the unique and deeply personal dynamics of the case. Following the Calcutta high court's suo motu proceedings, the apex court formed a three-member committee, including a clinical psychologist, a social scientist, and a child welfare officer, to provide guidance to the victim and assist her in understanding her rights and options. Based on the committee's confidential report, the Supreme Court determined that sentencing the man would cause further harm to the victim. In earlier hearings, the apex court directed the West Bengal government to ensure access to education for the couple's child and recommended vocational support for the victim after her 10th board exams. Moreover, the top court issued broad directives for nationwide compliance with child protection laws, mandating that the judgment be circulated to all States and Union Territories for review and policy action. The Ministry of Women and Child Development was asked to consider the suggestions made by the SC-appointed amicus curiae and report on further steps.
News18
23-05-2025
- News18
SC Refrains From Sentencing POCSO Convict Married To Victim: 'She Didn't See It As Crime'
Last Updated: The apex court said the victim did not see the act as a crime and endured more trauma from the legal and social consequences that followed. The Supreme Court on Friday decided not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for having sexual relations with a minor girl, who is now married to him. A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime and had suffered more trauma from the legal and social consequences after the man was convicted. 'The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather it was the consequence that followed, which took a toll on her," the bench observed. The court also said the victim faced a constant battle with the police and the legal system to save the accused from punishment. 'The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system," the bench said. The Supreme Court exercised Article 142 of the Indian Constitution – which grants it the power to pass any order necessary to secure complete justice – to not impose any sentence on the man who was accused of sexual relations with the minor girl.
India Today
20-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Even judges keep learning: Supreme Court judge admits past error
Justice Abhay Oka of the Supreme Court observed that learning is a continuous process, even for judges, and they are duty-bound to acknowledge and rectify their mistakes. The court made this remark in an order authored by Justice Oka himself, in which he candidly admitted to an error he had made in a ruling during his tenure as a judge of the Bombay High Oka had taken a different view on a section of the Domestic Violence Act -- which allows an aggrieved woman to seek relief, such as compensation, from a magistrate -- which was later found to be incorrect by a full bench of the same the law, the Supreme Court order mentioned that although High Courts do have the power under the CrPC to quash proceedings in cases filed under Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, they must keep in mind that it is a welfare legislation specially enacted to provide justice to women who suffer from domestic violence. 'Before we part with this Judgment, we must mention here that one of us is a party to a Judgment dated of the Bombay High Court in which the view taken is that a remedy under Section 482 of the CrPC is not available for quashing the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act,2005. This view was found to be incorrect by a full Bench of the same High Court. As judges, we are duty-bound to correct our mistakes in properly constituted proceedings,' the Supreme Court for judges, the learning process always continues,' it court was examining whether the High Court can use its inherent powers to quash cases filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Supreme Court has said that, given the purpose of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, High Courts should act with caution and care when handling applications under Section 12(1).Intervention under Section 482 of the CrPC should be used only in cases of clear illegality or serious injustice, the court InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC relief for Patanjali Foods in customs duty case
In a relief to Patanjali Foods , the Supreme Court on Monday set aside a 2016 Gujarat High Court order that upheld the customs department's decision to encash its bank guarantee (BG) for payment of a differential duty amount. The apex court said that the department had recovered the differential duty amount by 'adopting coercive method i.e. encashment of the BG which were offered as security for the differential amount of duty on orders of the HC. Since retention of such amounts is 'unjust and unlawful,' the same would be refunded within four months, a Bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ordered, while holding that the customs' claim was barred by the 'doctrine of unjust enrichment." It said that the department had recovered the duty amount from Patanjali Foods -owned Ruchi Soya Industries by 'using coercive method. In the facts of the case, encashment of BGs offered as security cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. They could have waited for the outcome by this court (in a case that had a bearing on such custom duty demands). Retention of such amount will carry 6% interest from the dates of encashment till repayment," the judgment stated. Continue to video 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like War Thunder - Register now for free and play against over 75 Million real Players War Thunder Play Now Undo The apex court said that the customs department resorted to 'arbitrary' encashment of bank guarantee. 'It is evidently clear that respondents are holding on to money of the appellant which they are not authorized to do…' said the court. In 2019, Patanjali Foods had acquired Ruchi Soya Industries through a corporate insolvency resolution process . Live Events The case has its genesis from Glychem Industries importing a certain quantity of crude degummed soybean oil of edible grade in bulk at Jamnagar, Gujarat. The customs authorities did not clear the goods on the ground that the company was required to pay higher customs duty on the basis of tariff value fixed for the imported goods in terms of Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Contesting this, Glychem said that the government's notification to fix tariff value had not come into effect at the time of import, thus it was required to pay lower customs duty under Section 14(1) of the 1962 Act. The HC, on appeal, passed an interim order in 2002 for clearance of the goods subject to Glychem furnishing a BG for the difference of duty of customs under Sections 14(1) and 14(2). After Glychem Industries furnished the bank guarantee, its goods were allowed to be cleared. Meanwhile, in 2006 Glychem Industries merged with Ruchi Soya Industries, which also challenged the higher customs duty issue. The HC also dismissed the Ruchi Soya Industries' petition and also vacated the interim order. While the appeal by Ruchi Soya Industries was pending before the SC, the customs department encashed the BG towards the payment of differential duty in 2013. In 2015, the top court ruled that it was not justified and lawful on the part of the department to claim the differential amount of duty on the basis of its notification. As Ruchi Soya Industries was unsuccessful in getting the refund from the customs department, it moved the HC and then the Supreme Court.
