Jatinder Kumar Sapra Vs. Anupama Sapra [May 06, 2024]
1. Shah Bano Case (1985) - India
Issue: The Shah Bano case is one of the most landmark judgments in Indian family law. It dealt with the issue of maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandates that a husband provide financial support to his wife and children after divorce if they are unable to maintain themselves.
Facts:
Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband after 43 years of marriage.
After the divorce, she filed a petition in the Aligarh District Court for maintenance under Section 125 IPC, seeking alimony from her husband.
The husband, a well-off man, argued that he had already paid the Mahr (dowry) and that according to Muslim personal law, he was not required to pay maintenance after divorce.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Shah Bano, directing her husband to provide maintenance under Section 125 IPC.
The Court held that Section 125 applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion, and thus, Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under this law.
This judgment was a significant step toward gender justice, as it reaffirmed that religious personal laws could not override the fundamental rights of women.
Aftermath:
In response to the verdict, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was enacted, which limited the rights of Muslim women to maintenance under Section 125.
Despite the statutory response, the Shah Bano case remains a critical case in understanding the intersection of religious laws and gender equality in Indian jurisprudence.
2. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) - India
Issue: This case revolved around the right of daughters to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, especially after the landmark amendment in 2005.
Facts:
The case involved a dispute over whether a daughter could claim a share in the ancestral property of her father if the father passed away after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, which gave daughters equal rights to inherit the property.
Vineeta Sharma, the appellant, was seeking her share of the family property, which her brother, Rakesh Sharma, had claimed entirely for himself, arguing that her father’s will had specifically excluded her.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that daughters have the same rights as sons to inherit ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The Court held that the daughter’s right to inherit property arises from the time of birth, and the fact that the father died after the amendment meant that the daughter was entitled to a share, even if she was born before the amendment.
The Court rejected the view that the daughter’s right to a share would depend on whether the father was alive or whether the daughter was actively seeking her claim at the time of his death.
Impact:
This judgment reinforced the gender equality provisions in inheritance laws and was a landmark decision in gender justice.
It also clarified that the amendment applied retroactively, empowering daughters to claim their rightful share, irrespective of whether the father died before or after the amendment.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) - India
Issue: This case is a landmark judgment related to federalism, the dismissal of state governments, and the role of the President in the application of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to dissolve a state assembly and dismiss a state government in case of a breakdown of law and order.
Facts:
The case arose after the President's rule was imposed in Karnataka (1989), Andhra Pradesh (1991), and several other states, which led to the dismissal of state governments that were not aligned with the ruling government at the national level.
S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of Karnataka at the time, challenged the imposition of President’s Rule, arguing that it was politically motivated and unconstitutional.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 356 (which deals with the imposition of President's rule) must be used only in cases where there is a complete breakdown of law and order, not as a tool for political gain.
The Court emphasized the need for judicial review of the exercise of power under Article 356, recognizing that this provision could not be used arbitrarily to dismiss state governments.
The Court laid down strict guidelines for the invocation of Article 356, marking a critical judgment in favor of federalism and democracy.
Impact:
The Bommai case is often cited as a critical safeguard for federalism in India, limiting the President’s discretion in dissolving state assemblies.
The judgment also reaffirmed the importance of the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - India
Issue: This landmark case addressed the issue of the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution, specifically whether the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution in ways that would alter its fundamental structure.
Facts:
The case involved a challenge to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which sought to limit land holdings, a move that Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner, claimed would violate the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
The case questioned whether the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute or whether certain parts of the Constitution (such as fundamental rights and the structure of the government) were beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court in a 7-6 majority decision ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
The Court defined the basic structure to include fundamental rights, secularism, democracy, federalism, and judicial review, thus preventing Parliament from making amendments that would undermine these principles.
Impact:
This case is widely regarded as one of the most important in Indian legal history, as it established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which remains a critical principle in Indian constitutional law.
The judgment ensures that fundamental aspects of the Constitution are protected, even against the amending power of Parliament.
5. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013) - India
Issue: This case dealt with the police’s duty to register an FIR (First Information Report) when an offense is committed, particularly in cases of cognizable offenses like rape or murder.
Facts:
Lalita Kumari, the petitioner, had filed a complaint with the police regarding a cognizable offense but was told to wait for further instructions and was not allowed to file an FIR.
The case challenged the police’s discretion in not registering an FIR and highlighted the delay in investigation, which was detrimental to the victims' rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the police must register an FIR as soon as a cognizable offense is reported, and that no preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registering the FIR.
The Court also emphasized that it is the duty of the police to investigate any cognizable crime without delay, and failure to do so would violate the victim’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Impact:
The judgment reinforced the duty of the police to act promptly and fairly in all cases of cognizable offenses, particularly in gender-based violence.
It highlighted the constitutional obligation of the police to safeguard victims’ rights, ensuring that delayed justice or denial of the FIR does not impede access to legal recourse.
Conclusion
These cases represent critical turning points in Indian constitutional law and family law. From safeguarding gender equality in inheritance and divorce to setting principles for federalism, police accountability, and the amendment process, these decisions have shaped the legal landscape of India. They highlight the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring justice, even in complex, sensitive, or controversial matters.
RELATED Blog
comments