Important Legal News – May 2024 [Updated Daily @6PM]

Amal Chandra Das vs State of West Bengal: Calcutta High Court Nullifies OBC Classification of 37 Communities, Cancels Certificates

On May 22, 2024, the Calcutta High Court annulled the classification of 37 communities as Other Backward Classes (OBC) under the West Bengal Backward Classes (Other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2012. The division bench, led by Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha, invalidated these OBC certificates but ensured that those who had already benefited from the classification would remain unaffected.

The court specifically struck down Section 16 of the 2012 Act, which allowed the State Executive to amend any schedule of the Act, thus removing the 37 communities from Schedule 1. The bench also invalidated several Executive Orders that classified these communities as OBCs for public service reservations.

The West Bengal Backward Class Welfare Department, in consultation with the State Backward Class Commission, was directed to submit a report to the State legislature with recommendations for including new classes or excluding others from the OBC list.

The court highlighted the absence of a legislative policy guiding the State’s power to classify OBCs and emphasised the need for quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequate representation in public employment, as mandated by the Supreme Court.

Mukatlal versus Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs. And Ors.: Supreme Court: Hindu Women Can Claim Full Ownership of Property Under S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act Only If in Possession

The Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu woman can claim full ownership of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act only if she possesses it. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the woman must have acquired the property through inheritance, partition, maintenance, gift, or purchase.

The case involved a widow whose adopted son sought partition of HUF property. The Court concluded that since the widow never possessed the property, her son couldn’t claim ownership. This decision reversed the High Court’s ruling, underscoring possession as a critical requirement for claiming full ownership under the Act.

National Investigation Agency New Delhi versus Owais Amin @ Cherry & Ors: CrPC Not Retroactively Applicable to J&K Before 31.10.2019; Old Law Applies to Prior Proceedings

The Supreme Court ruled that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 applies to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) only from October 31, 2019, following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019. Proceedings and investigations initiated before this date must adhere to the J&K CrPC 1989. Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti rejected the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea for retrospective application of the 1973 CrPC.

The Court emphasized that non-compliance with the J&K CrPC 1989 is a curable defect, allowing the NIA to seek appropriate sanction and proceed. This decision reinforces the need for compliance with the procedural laws in effect at the time of investigation initiation.

Supreme Court to Decide on Muslim Women’s Right to Equality in Succession

The Supreme Court will determine whether Muslim women have the right to claim equality in succession under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. This question arose in a case where respondents claimed that a will executed by Hazi left properties to three sons, excluding the fourth.

The trial court’s decree was modified by a lower appellate court, limiting Hazi’s will to one-third of his estate, with the remainder divided among legal heirs. The High Court later restored the trial court’s order. The Supreme Court framed key questions on the equality in succession for Muslim women and the extent of a testator’s rights under Mohammedan Law. Senior Advocate V. Giri was appointed Amicus Curiae and the matter is posted for July 25.

Ankit Singh And 3 Others vs State of UP and Another: Allahabad High Court Emphasizes the Importance of Maintaining Wedding Present Lists

The Allahabad High Court stressed the importance of maintaining a list of wedding presents to combat false dowry allegations, referencing the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Justice Vikram D Chauhan observed that couples rarely comply with this rule, which requires signed lists from both bride and groom to distinguish gifts from dowry.

The Court questioned the State Government on the appointment of dowry prohibition officers and their enforcement of these rules. The State must report on compliance and disclose any relevant orders or officer appointments by May 23, amid rising dowry-related disputes.

Bhikchand S/O Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through Lrs. versus Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceased) Through Lrs.: S.144 CPC | Purchaser Aware of Appeal Cannot Claim Bona Fide Status: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling on Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Supreme Court ruled that a purchaser who buys property knowing an appeal is pending cannot resist restitution by claiming to be a bona fide purchaser.

The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, overturned a High Court decision, emphasizing that such purchasers, aware of ongoing appeals, are not protected as bona fide buyers. The judgment, referencing Chinnamal & Ors. Vs. Arumugham & Anr, highlighted that knowledge of pending litigation disqualifies a purchaser from claiming innocence, mandating restitution upon decree reversal.

Sonu Sonkar v The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors: Delhi High Court Denies Parole for Conjugal Relations with Live-In Partners

The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian law does not allow parole for maintaining conjugal relationships with live-in partners. In the case of Sonu Sonkar v The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors, the court emphasized that live-in partners do not qualify as “family members” under prison rules. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted that granting parole for such purposes could lead to numerous convicts seeking similar privileges, which would be against the existing legal framework. The case involved Sonu Sonkar, a murder convict who sought parole to consummate a relationship with a woman he married while on parole, without providing proof of divorce from his first wife.

The court noted that Sonkar’s request did not merit approval as he already had three children with his first wife and his second wife had recently given birth to a stillborn child. The plea was ultimately rejected, underscoring the strict boundaries set by law regarding the rights of convicts in relation to family and conjugal matters.

Child In Conflict With Law Through His Mother Versus The State Of Karnataka And Another: Supreme Court Rules Three-Month Deadline for Juvenile Preliminary Assessments as Directory, Not Mandatory

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the three-month timeframe stipulated in Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 for preliminary assessments of juveniles is not mandatory. This section pertains to assessing the mental and physical capacity of children under sixteen accused of serious offences. The court noted that the process involves multiple parties, such as investigating officers and experts, which can lead to delays.

Since the Act does not specify consequences for failing to meet the three-month deadline, unlike the provision for petty offences, the timeframe is considered directory rather than mandatory. This interpretation allows for extensions if justified in writing, especially when expert opinions are delayed, ensuring the Act is applied in a purposeful and meaningful manner.

The decision aligns with previous rulings by various High Courts, emphasizing a flexible approach to the time limits for juvenile assessments to accommodate practical challenges in the judicial process.