Latest news with #BVNagarathna
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC questions age restriction for surrogacy
NEW DELHI: Questioning the restrictions under surrogacy laws, including age limit on intended parents and surrogate mothers, Tuesday said laws shouldn't frustrate the wish of childless couples, widows and divorcees to become parents through surrogacy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Instead, the laws should frustrate commercial surrogacy. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said present laws seem "harsh" to those wanting to take the surrogacy route to parenthood. The bench is examining provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The laws set age limits for intended parents and surrogate mothers. An intended mother must be aged between 23 and 50, and the intended father between 26 and 55 years. Further, a surrogate mother must be married and between 25 and 35 years of age, have a biological child, and only act as a surrogate once in her lifetime. If couple in their 50s, 60s can adopt, why can't they have surrogate child, asks SC Laws allow single women (widowed or divorced) between ages 35 and 45 to pursue surrogacy. Appearing for the govt, additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the provisions, saying the age bar was needed to ensure a child's welfare and to prevent commercial surrogacy. She said the limits were also set keeping in mind the genetic quality of gametes and urged the court to refrain from passing an interim order. The bench, however, said rationality was lacking in the provision and asked why a single woman could not go for surrogacy. "If she is a widow or a divorcee then she needs it more. Look at the void in her life... Rationality and object are absent. Look how harsh it is," the bench observed. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It said if a couple in their 50s and 60s can adopt, then why can't they have a surrogate child. SC reserved its order on a plea of three petitioners, seeking its approval to go for surrogacy as they are age barred. They submitted that the laws came into force in 2022 but they started the process much earlier as they froze their embryo in 2012 and 2016, and that they should be allowed to pursue. Bhati argued that there were multiple reasons for freezing embryos, and it might not just be for surrogacy. "Crystallisation of rights happens on implantation of the embryo in the uterus and not just on freezing of embryos," the ASG submitted. She said there are a large number of embryos that might have been frozen earlier but they cannot claim exemption from the law. The court, thereafter, reserved its order on the plea but hinted that it would protect only those who initiated the process before the laws came into force. In one of the cases, the wife is 58 years old and the husband is 64. In the second case, the wife is 53 and the husband 56. Multiple petitions have been filed challenging various provisions of the Acts. One of the petitioners submitted that the laws were discriminatory as it barred a single woman from surrogacy. "The restrictions are wholly discriminatory and without any rational or reason behind it inasmuch as the said restriction is not only infringing fundamental rights of the petitioner, but also violative of the basic human rights of an individual to found a family as recognised by the UN and reproductive rights, which have been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21," the plea said.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, Jul 25 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a 'handmaiden and not a mistress of justice" and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind," it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were 'not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….," the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to Rs 14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee (milk products)". However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk." While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity" and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 25, 2025, 20:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Imbalance in tech access may cloud divorce cases
Balancing the right to fair trial and the right to privacy, the Supreme Court recently ruled that secretly recorded conversations between spouses can be admitted in divorce proceedings. The order is consequential in that it settled a question on which various high courts had differed over the years. The top court's clarification came in an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had disallowed admission of confidential recordings as evidence on the grounds of violation of privacy. In deciding the matter, the SC relied on Section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that states a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. However, the section also carves out an exception for proceedings between the spouses. This exception, the court pointed out, allows one spouse to testify to their conversations against the other in a divorce case. In this context, the bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma equated the recording device to an eavesdropper. While the concept of spousal privilege and the efforts of the family courts are intended to protect a marriage, the SC noted that the very act of one spouse secretly recording the other showed the marriage had been damaged. Although high courts have said there is reasonable expectation of privacy within a marriage, the SC balanced the right to privacy with the right to a fair trial. Therefore, if the evidence can be independently verified, it is relevant and falls under the exception, and thus may be admitted.
Economic Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Your Honour, that's misogyny talking
We often witness flashes of patriarchy and misogyny, only to dismiss them as outliers, or view them as symptoms of a society in transition. But when those moments emanate from institutions, we seek remedy - such as the Supreme Court - then it becomes necessary to question them. On Tuesday, while hearing an alimony case, CJI B R Gavai expressed his incredulity that a 'well-educated' woman was demanding a divorce settlement from her husband. His outburst reflects a mindset that cannot fathom the possibility that a woman could have contributed to her husband's wealth and is, thus, a rightful claimant to a share upon the dissolution of their is not the first time that top court judges have made observations that reflect a skewed view. A few months ago, Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim bail to a 23-year-old man accused of rape. By their account, a 40-year-old woman 'is no baby', and her complaint - considered credible by the police - was deficient because 'a single hand can't clap'. Unfortunately, examples of such egregious gender insensitivity veering towards misogyny crop up far too often in the higher stereotypes - more so those rooted in gender - hinder the transformative project of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is guardian of the Constitution, which recognises equality as a right. Not only does the apex court guard the integrity of the Constitution, it also provides a moral compass for society. In 2023, it recognised the need for gender sensitisation, producing a booklet for the legal community with the aim of 'actively challenging and dispelling harmful stereotypes on the basis of gender'. Perhaps it's time for judges to read this publication - so that the courts can live up to their promise.
