Latest news with #TheSupremeCourt
News18
2 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
SC Rejects Plea Against Protection To Minor Muslim Girl, Husband: ‘Is It Criminal To Love?'
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan came down heavily on the child rights body for contesting the High Court's order The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging a 2022 Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had upheld the marriage of a 16-year-old Muslim girl to a 30-year-old man and extended protection to the couple and their child. The High Court had earlier ruled that under Muslim personal law, a girl who has attained puberty, or is above 15 years of age, is legally competent to marry a person of her choice, regardless of the minimum age set under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. It also granted the couple, Javed and Ashiana, protection of life and liberty. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan came down heavily on the child rights body for contesting the High Court's order. 'You have no locus to challenge… if two minor children (i.e., Ashiana and her child) are protected by the High Court, how can you challenge such an order? We fail to see how NCPCR can be aggrieved by protection granted to a minor," the bench observed. The court questioned why the NCPCR was pursuing the matter when the girl was already living with her husband and child. 'The girl is living with her husband! And has a child. What is your problem?" Justice Nagarathna asked. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for NCPCR, argued that while protection could continue, the broader legal issue should remain open — whether a girl aged 15 can marry under personal law when it conflicts with secular statutes like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, which sets 18 as the minimum marriageable age. The bench, however, refused to entertain this contention, saying the case before them was limited to the issue of protection of life and liberty. 'If you want to argue that question… then approach in the appropriate case," the court said. 'Romantic Cases' vs Criminal Cases The Supreme Court also dismissed three other similar petitions, warning the NCPCR against conflating consensual relationships with criminal conduct. 'We want to keep these romantic cases separate… these we have to exclude," Justice Nagarathna said, urging the commission to 'take up better causes." Emphasising the need for a nuanced view, the court said: 'Are you saying it is criminal to love? POCSO Act takes care of criminal cases… but there are romantic cases also, where teenagers on the verge of majority run away. Don't read such cases the same as criminal cases. Have to differentiate." Justice Nagarathna also cautioned that misuse of POCSO provisions could push minors into distressing situations. 'A girl elopes with a boy, but her parents file a POCSO case against him to hide the elopement… this is how honour killings are done!" she remarked. view comments 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. Loading comments...
News18
5 days ago
- News18
'If 5-Star Treatment Is Given...': SC's Stern Suspension Warning For Jail Super In Darshan Case
Last Updated: The observation came as the apex court scrapped actor Darshan's bail in the Renukaswamy murder case, citing serious charges, forensic evidence and flaws in the High Court's order The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a strong warning against VIP treatment for accused persons in custody while hearing the Renukaswamy murder case involving Kannada actor Darshan. 'The day we come to know that the accused is provided a five-star treatment, the first step would be to suspend the jail superintendent," the bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala observed. The remark came as the apex court cancelled Darshan's bail, noting that the Karnataka High Court's decision to grant bail reflected a 'mechanical exercise" in a case of serious charges where there was a risk of the accused influencing the investigation. The observation followed the Karnataka government's written submission urging the top court to revoke bail granted to Darshan and other accused. The state cited forensic evidence, including soil samples on the accused's footwear matching the crime scene and Renukaswamy's blood on their clothes, and alleged direct involvement of Darshan and co-accused Pavithra Gowda. It also accused the High Court of incorrectly assessing the nature of the weapons used and dismissing key material during the bail hearing, which it described as an improper 'mini-trial". view comments 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.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Mohit Chauhan on SC's stray dog order: ‘The blame goes to the MCD'
Popular singer Mohit Chauhan has voiced strong criticism of the Supreme Court's recent directive ordering the removal of all stray dogs in the Delhi-NCR region to shelters within eight weeks. Mohit Chauhan has voiced his concerns after The Supreme Court's verdict 'I am really shocked to learn about this. It's not part of our values. Even the Constitution gives animals their right to health and survival, and even Prime Minister Modi has encouraged people to take care of animals. Earlier rulings too, had been in favour of animals. This is an impractical and inhuman decision,' Mohit tells us. On Monday, the Supreme Court gave the verdict, aimed at tackling rising dog bite incidents. As per the ruling, municipal bodies have been ordered to capture, sterilise, vaccinate, and house stray dogs—without returning them to the streets. Mohit, who worls closely with an animal shelter — which takes care of 400 dogs apart from other animals — in the Capital, believes the responsibility for the current crisis lies squarely with civic authorities. 'If municipal committees had done their job, the population wouldn't have skyrocketed. This is a human-created problem. They didn't come from another country—they were adopted and then abandoned by people. There are pedigreed dogs on the streets because people can't take care of them. We feel so sad,' he said said. For Mohit, the numbers make the order impossible to execute. 'More than three lakh dogs in eight weeks? That's too much. You'd require a minimum of 10,000 shelters, with land, staff, vets… and who is going to monitor what's happening in these shelters?' he says. Citing cultural and historical ties, the 59-year-old singer reminds that 'dogs have been part of our mythology and literature for centuries,' and warns of ecological imbalance if they are removed entirely. 'They act as guards against anti-social elements. Remove them and you risk a rise in rodents and other problems. They haven't spent time researching this—it will create an ugly situation and huge distress for animals,' he says. Mohit says he has personally invested time and money in caring for strays. 'We work with a place near our home on sterilisation and feeding. These shelter workers should be collaborating with authorities to find a sustainable solution.' The lack of veterinary infrastructure, he adds, is another barrier. 'We visit veterinary facilities and often there are no doctors there. If you push dogs into shelters, who will give them food, water, basic care? How many people will be employed, and where will the money come from?' he asks For Mohit, the love and loyalty of dogs make this fight deeply personal. 'When I meet dogs, they recognise me. The kind of love they shower is beautiful. We must protect that bond—not break it in the name of a quick fix,' Mohit concludes, hoping the verdict will be revised soon.
Hans India
12-08-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC refuses to interfere with Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case
New Delhi: TheSupreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in the 2001 criminal defamation case filed against her by V.K. Saxena -- the now Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar, challenging a Delhi High Court order that had maintained her conviction in the matter. However, in a bit of relief to Patkar, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench set aside the penalty imposed and directed that the supervision order would not be enforced. Earlier, on July 29, the Delhi High Court upheld Medha Patkar's conviction, rejecting her revision plea against a Saket court order that had dismissed her criminal appeal. A single-judge Bench of Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Patkar failed to point out any procedural defect that would amount to a miscarriage of justice in the case, noting that her conviction was based on due consideration of the evidence and applicable law. However, Justice Shalinder Kaur had modified the probation condition requiring her to appear before the trial court every three months, permitting her to appear virtually or be represented by an advocate. In 2001, Saxena filed two defamation suits against Patkar -- one over allegedly derogatory remarks made during a television interview, and the other concerning a press statement. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and lawyers Gajinder Kumar, Kiran Jai, Chandra Shekhar and Somya appeared for the respondent V.K. Saxena in the case. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate, presented Medha Patkar's case in the court. The legal tussle arose from an earlier suit filed by Patkar in 2000, accusing Saxena of publishing defamatory advertisements targeting her and the NBA. In July last year, Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma sentenced Patkar to five months in jail and ordered her to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to Saxena. On appeal, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh of the Saket Court upheld Patkar's conviction but ordered her to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to prior deposit of a compensation amount of Rs one lakh, which will be released in favour of the complainant (Saxena). It had opined that an insensitive approach towards others' reputation and abuse of the right to free speech must be met with criminal sanction, adding that Patkar, being herself a person of repute, must know the value of one's reputation and how defamation can result in loss of face and public esteem of the victim.
News18
14-07-2025
- Business
- News18
Mere Registered Sale Deed Won't Confer Ownership: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered sale deed alone does not confer ownership of a property. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran observed in a case that while the title was claimed to have been validly obtained through instruments of conveyance, the vendor's title was questionable. Furthermore, actual possession had not been proven. The court was addressing an appeal by Mahinoor Fatima Imran and others against the Telangana High Court's division bench judgment that dismissed their appeal against a single judge's order. The appellants, legal representatives of the original owners/declarants, asserted their possession and ownership. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, claimed their possession based on unchallenged title deeds. The appellants argued that the sale agreement from March 19, 1982, and the executed title deeds could not confer any title to the vendees, as the vendor did not have valid title. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, based their claims on the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana & Anr (2012). The bench, however, said, 'The decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a division bench of this court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills." The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer, particularly in light of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. The practice of using Power of Attorney sales with sale agreements and wills, instead of proper deeds of conveyance upon full consideration receipt, was criticised. The court stressed that while document registration informs the public that a document has been executed, it does not confer unimpeachable validity on all registered documents. The bench noted that the writ petitioners claimed proper conveyances through registered sale deeds from Bhavana Society, based on an unregistered agreement from 1982, which cannot be recognised as a valid transfer method. The bench pointed out, 'An instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months' time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re-registration within four. months from the date of such execution." The court concluded that the original and revalidated 1982 agreement could not result in a valid title, even if the subsequent instrument was registered. In the case, the single judge did not decide the title but raised valid suspicion regarding the vendor's title in the deed of conveyance. The writ petitioners' claim was based on a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially as it was not a registered document. The bench stated that the title is prima facie suspect, disqualifying the petitioners from claiming rightful possession, which was also unproven. The dispute involved approximately 53 acres of prime land in Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana, claimed based on registered sale deeds executed by M/s Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society. The court, while restoring the single judge's judgment, held that Bhavana Society had no valid or legal title to transfer, making the sale deeds void. view comments First Published: July 15, 2025, 03:30 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.
