#Section 376 IPC

[seemabhatnagar]

"Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail Amidst FIR Delay and Lack of Conclusive Evidence"

In the present case the court emphasized the importance of deciding bail applications promptly, ideally on the first date of hearing. This can be achieved by ensuring that the case diary is made available to the court immediately. The court noted that written objections from the State are generally unnecessary in bail applications, except where a specific statute mandates it. By relying on the material in the case diary, the court can avoid delays and ensure timely justice.

The Court granted Bail to the accused as the FIR was lodged six months after the alleged incident raising doubts about the reliability and urgency of the complaint

The opinion of the Doctor was not properly documented as the report does not reflect any external injuries on the prosecutrix's body or private parts. However, sexual assault is not ruled out.

More so, the applicant was in custody for over one and a half years, which the court found substantial given the circumstances and the inconclusive evidence presented.

Gorav Sayal v. The UT of Jammu and Kashmir & SHO Nowshera Rajouri

Bail Application 423/2022

Before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Laddakh at Jammu

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan J

Fact: Gorav Sayal, a 25-year-old man from District Rajouri, Jammu has filed a bail application. He is accused of offence under Section 376 IPC for allegedly committing rape on March 20, 2022 .

The FIR was registered on September 13, 2022, after a six-month delay. He has been in custody since October 29, 2022.

Issue: Whether Gorav Sayal should be granted bail considering the delay in the FIR registration, the inconclusive #MedicalLegalCertificate (MLC), and the alleged harassment of the prosecutrix.

Point of Argument:

Argument of the Applicant's Counsel: The FIR was delayed due to ongoing compromise talks between the applicant and the prosecutrix, involving the village Sarpanch. The MLC does not show any external injuries on the prosecutrix, and the basis for the sexual assault opinion in the MLC is unclear.

Argument of the State: The prosecutrix has been consistently harassed and forced to withdraw her statement. Despite multiple opportunities, the prosecutrix has not contested the case herself, raising concerns about her willingness to pursue the complaint

Court's Observation:

There is six-month delay in FIR registration and the applicant's incarceration for over one and a half years.

The MLC is inconclusive, showing no external injuries or injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix.

The prosecutrix has had multiple opportunities to contest the case but did not appear in court.

[swiftinsight]

Kashmiri Business Tycoon Sahil Zaroo Allegedly Rapes Northeast Girl, Bail Hearing Today

SRINAGAR: A Kashmiri business tycoon Sahil Zaroo, who is now in jail for taping a young professional from North East India has a bail plea hearing today on Thursday.

It was reported that after the rape incident happened on August 16 after which he fled to Srinagar however after an FIR was filed by the survivor he was arrested within 24 hours by Delhi Police.

In a horrific incident, the victim was drugged at a party in Delhi. After the girl was unconscious she became a victim of the crime.

According to the FIR, the survivor, who is working as a cabin crew in an airline was later offered a job at Zaroo's private jet and he also asked her to take up accommodation at Zaroo's private residence.

Zaroo was persistent that the girl takes up his job offer in spite of refusing many times.

Later she was drugged and raped after she fell unconscious. An FIR against Sahil Zaroo vide FIR No. 252/21 under sections 376 and 328 IPC was registered by the victim on August 18.

The victim is under the protection of the Special Unit For Northeast Region (SPUNER) of the Delhi Police.

Zaroo also allegedly tried to settle the case with the victim and offered her money.

Meanwhile, Zaroo's wife Saima Majid has also filed a counter-complaint against the victim accusing the survivor of blackmailing, extortion and honey trapping.

Crime against women from the Northeast has become a routine, in May, a viral video showed a girl, believed to be from the Northeast, being sexually abused by four men and a woman. One video shows the five people brutally torturing, stripping, and sexually abusing the girl.

The offenders slapped, abused, stepped on the face of the victim and inserted a glass bottle into her private parts.

Perpetrators were later arrested by the police after an over-pouring of disgust and condemnation by people in social media.

[lawforeverything]

376 IPC Punishment

Rape, under the Indian Penal Code, is defined as a criminal act involving non-consensual sexual intercourse, which is committed against the victim’s will through force, fear of force, or when the victim is unable to give consent due to mental illness, intoxication, deceit, or unconsciousness. It is essential to note that rape is considered a form of sexual assault in many countries.

Traditionally, rape was viewed as an act driven by sexual desire. However, it is now understood to be fueled by a desire to assert power and control over the victim. In interviews with convicted rapists, many admitted to targeting victims they perceived as vulnerable or treating them cruelly.

Punishment for Rape: Section 376 IPC

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates the punishment for rape in India. Let us examine the different provisions and penalties for various categories of rape offenses:

1. Punishment for Rape (Except Specified Offenses)

Under Subsection 1 of Section 376 IPC, the punishment for rape, in general, is rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of seven years, which may extend to life imprisonment. In addition to imprisonment, the offender may also be liable to pay a fine.

2. Punishment for Rape by Police Officers, Public Servants, and Military Personnel

Subsection 2 of Section 376 IPC deals with cases where rape is committed by police officers, public servants, or members of the armed forces. In such instances, the minimum punishment is ten years of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to life imprisonment. The offender is also liable to pay a fine.

3. Punishment for Rape by Husband during Separation

Section 376B of the IPC addresses cases where a husband has sexual intercourse with his wife during separation, without her consent. If the wife is above the age of 12, the husband may face imprisonment for a period ranging from two years to life, along with a possible fine.

4. Punishment for Sexual Intercourse by Person in Authority

Section 376C of the IPC pertains to cases where a person in authority, such as a public servant or superintendent of a jail or hospital, abuses their position to induce or seduce a woman into sexual intercourse. The punishment for such offenses is rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of five years, which may extend to ten years, along with a fine.

5. Punishment for Gang Rape

Section 376D of the IPC addresses gang rape cases. If a woman is raped by multiple individuals constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each offender is deemed to have committed the offense of rape. The punishment for gang rape is rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years, which may extend to life imprisonment. Additionally, a fine is imposed, which is meant to cover the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation.

6. Punishment for Rape on a Woman under Twelve Years of Age

Section 376AB of the IPC specifically deals with cases where rape is committed against a woman under the age of twelve. The punishment for such offenses is rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years, which may extend to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. A fine is also imposed, which should cover the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation.

7. Punishment for Gang Rape on a Woman under Sixteen Years of Age

Section 376DA of the IPC pertains to gang rape offenses committed against a woman under the age of sixteen. Similar to Section 376D, each offender is considered to have committed the offense of rape. The punishment for gang rape on a woman under sixteen years of age is imprisonment for life, along with a fine to cover the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation.

8. Punishment for Gang Rape on a Woman under Twelve Years of Age

Section 376DB of the IPC specifically addresses gang rape offenses committed against a woman under the age of twelve. Each offender is deemed to have committed the offense of rape, and the punishment is imprisonment for life or even the death penalty. A fine is also imposed, which should cover the victim’s medical expenses and rehabilitation.

Read Full Blog :

[amlawfrimseo]

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment: Dablu Kujur || AMLAWFIRM

Importance of Detailed Police Reports

The Court emphasised the importance of a detailed and compliant police report, as Section 173(2) outlined. These reports are crucial documents for prosecution, defence, and judicial proceedings. The Court directed that police reports must include specific details such as:

The names of the parties involved

The nature of the information

The names of the witnesses

Whether an offence appears to have been committed and by whom

The status of the accused (arrested, released on bond, forwarded in custody)

Relevant medical examination reports, particularly in cases involving offences under Sections 376 and related provisions of the IPC

[rishikeshnews]

Minister's son accused of rape and assault, police engaged in arrest

Dehradun: Kanak Dhanai, son of Dinesh Dhanai, a minister in the Congress government and leader of the Uttarakhand Jan Ekta Party, has been accused of assaulting and raping a woman. On the complaint of the victim, the police have registered a case. The police will soon record the magistrate's statement of the victim in the case. Along with this, the efforts to arrest the accused have also been intensified. According to the Raiwala police, a 30-year-old married woman resident of Dehradun has made a written complaint against him.

The woman informed the police that she had talked to Kanak Dhanai on the social networking site Instagram. Meanwhile, Kanak met her in Dehradun in April 2021. During this meeting, he committed rape. After this Kanak blocked the mobile number of the woman. According to the woman, she even attempted suicide when she got depressed.

The woman alleges that Kanak Dhanai assaulted her during the meeting in Chiddarwala on January 13, on which she reached the police station with a complaint. Police Station President Kuldeep Pant has informed that in view of the seriousness of the matter, a case of rape and assault has been registered against Kanak Dhanai under sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.

[neeraj-justwin]

Section 376(2) IPC - Punishmen for Rape

[kimskashmir]

Man arrested for raping minor girl in Srinagar: Police

SRINAGAR (KIMS) — A man has been arrested for raping a minor girl in Bemina area of Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir Police said on Wednesday. Police said, a man namely Irshad Ahmad Langoo, son of Bashir Ahmed Langoo, a resident of Hamdaniya Colony Bemina has been arrested for raping a minor girl. In this regard, a (First Information Report) FIR No. 97/2023 u/s 376 of IPC, sections 5(N), 6 of POCSO…

[blogynews]

"Incredible Triumph: Tripura Youth Sentenced to Life Term for Assaulting Physically Challenged Minor, Defying All Odds | Agartala News+"

A 27-year-old youth has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in Tripura’s Khowai district for repeatedly raping a physically challenged minor over a three-month period in 2019. The court found Sujit Tanti guilty under Sections 376 (3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial involved…

[blogynewz]

"Incredible Triumph: Tripura Youth Sentenced to Life Term for Assaulting Physically Challenged Minor, Defying All Odds | Agartala News+"

A 27-year-old youth has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in Tripura’s Khowai district for repeatedly raping a physically challenged minor over a three-month period in 2019. The court found Sujit Tanti guilty under Sections 376 (3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial involved…

[blogynewsz]

"Incredible Triumph: Tripura Youth Sentenced to Life Term for Assaulting Physically Challenged Minor, Defying All Odds | Agartala News+"

A 27-year-old youth has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court in Tripura’s Khowai district for repeatedly raping a physically challenged minor over a three-month period in 2019. The court found Sujit Tanti guilty under Sections 376 (3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial involved…

[leadindia011]

In this YouTube Video, we delve into the alarming issue of fake rape cases in India and shed light on the detrimental consequences of false rape accusations. As we witness an unfortunate rise in misleading accusations, it becomes crucial to understand the gravity of the situation and learn how to deal with such false rape cases effectively. With a particular focus on IPC Section 376, a key legislation pertaining to rape in India, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview. Join us as we unveil the truth behind these fabricated allegations, exposing the impact they have on the lives of innocent individuals. We delve into the legal aspects surrounding false rape cases, examining the challenges faced by both victims and the justice system. Moreover, this video empowers viewers with valuable insights and practical advice on combating misleading accusations. By highlighting the importance of evidence, due process, and fairness, we aim to bring about a positive change in how these cases are perceived and handled. Stay informed as we explore the grave consequences of false rape cases and strive to create awareness surrounding this critical issue. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to our channel for more thought-provoking content on socially relevant topics. Together, let's foster a more just and equitable society.

[seemabhatnagar]

The Dark Trail: Sonia Keshwani’s Extortion Chronicles

Sonia Keshwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Mohit Dudeja Crl. Misc. Case No. 11714/2024 Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Maninder S Bhatti J Order: The case was dismissed by the court because directallegations against the applicant Sonia Keshwani. Background This is the Regular first bail application filed U/s 439 Cr P C by the Applicant Sonia Keshwani for the offence registered against her U/s 384, 389, 452, 506, 427 IPC. Submission of the Counsel of the Applicant 1.     The allegation of the prosecution that the applicant came to the house of the complainant and attempted to ransack it is false. Neither any amount nor any kind of property or valuable security was delivered to the applicant. Hence, no case of extortion is made out in terms of section 383 and no case could have been registered U/s 384 IPC. 2.     The Trial Court rejected the bail application on the ground that there are other cases of similar nature registered in the past against the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court was required to appreciate that previously as many as four cases were lodged by the present applicant against her husband Vikas Ramrakhyani. 4.     Previous cases could not have been made the basis to reject the bail application of the applicant. 5.     The applicant is innocent and has been in custody since 19.2.2024. 6.     The applicant herself is a victim & has been falsely implicated. Submission of the Counsel of the State 1.     Applicant is in the hashtag#habit of hashtag#lodgingfalse and frivolous hashtag#cases. 2.     The Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court has considered details of all previous cases. 4.     The present applicant, is in the habit of hashtag#blackmailing and hashtag#manypersons have been made hashtag#scapegoats at the instance of the present applicant. 5.     The applicant even lodged the false First Information Report against the persons and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a grant of bail. 6.     In the present case there are direct allegations against the applicant. 7.     It is alleged that the applicant while threatening the complainant extorted money and even ransacked the shop of the complainant and the hashtag#conduct of the applicant was also hashtag#captured in hashtag#CCTV of the hashtag#shop. 8.     The application for bail deserves to be dismissed. Observation of the Court 1.     A perusal of the case diary reflects that there are hashtag#directallegations of hashtag#extortion against the applicant. 2.     The statement of Mohit Dudeja, the complainant, also reflects that upon being threatened he gave a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the present applicant. 3.     It is also not in dispute that the present applicant has also lodged 5 cases under Section 376 I.P.C against different persons including two cases against one Vikas Ramrakhyani who, according to the applicant, is her husband. Seema Bhatnagar

[legalupanishad]

Rape on Dead Body: Karnataka High Court Ruling

This article on 'Rape on Dead Body: Karnataka High Court Ruling' was written by Mohammed Zaid Alam, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

In India, the act of rape on dead body is considered a criminal offense. The specific provision that deals with this offense is Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, it's important to note that Section 377 has been primarily used to address unnatural sexual acts and does not explicitly mention the offense of rape on a dead body. The punishment for the act of rape on dead body may be determined by interpreting relevant provisions of the IPC and legal principles established through judicial decisions. In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court stated that engaging in rape on dead body does not fall under the offense of rape as defined by Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the court, there is currently no provision within the IPC that specifically addresses this act. The article discusses a recent ruling by the Karnataka High Court stating that engaging in rape on dead body does not fall under the offense of rape as defined by Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that there is currently no specific provision in the IPC to address this act. The article also mentions the facts and laws related to the recent ruling.

The case before the Karnataka High Court

In a case that occurred on June 25, 2015, a 21-year-old woman was attacked while returning home from her computer class. The accused, Rangaraju, forcefully held her, gagged her, and took her to a nearby bush. He then proceeded to slit her throat, resulting in her death. This act is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After the police registered a case, they obtained a statement from the accused, and a charge sheet was filed. The matter was sent to the sessions judge, who framed charges against the accused for murder and rape under Sections 302 and 376 of the IPC, respectively. After examining the evidence, the session's judge found that the prosecution had successfully proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both the murder and the subsequent act of "raping" the victim's body. The accused was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the murder. Additionally, he was given another 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 for the offense of raping the victim's dead body. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court.

The ruling by the High Court

The Karnataka High Court upheld the trial court's decision to convict the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the high court acquitted him under Section 376 for the act of "raping" the victim's dead body, stating that the IPC does not provide for punishment in such cases. The court acknowledged that the accused engaged in rape on dead body but questioned whether it would constitute an offense under Sections 375 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offenses) of the IPC. Upon careful examination of Sections 375 and 377, the court concluded that the dead body cannot be considered a human or a person. Consequently, the provisions of Section 375 or 377 would not apply. The court clarified that no offense punishable under Section 376 had occurred and described the act as necrophilia, which is sexual attraction towards corpses. Referring to Section 46 of the IPC, the court highlighted that "death" refers to the death of a human being. Thus, rape must involve a living person, not a dead body. The court emphasized that a dead body cannot provide consent, protest against rape, or experience fear or outrage. The court also relied on a 1989 Supreme Court ruling in the case of "Pt Parmanand Katara, Advocate vs Union of India," which emphasized the need to maintain and respect the dignity of a dead body. The ruling stated that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to dignity and fair treatment, which extends to a person's body even after death. Additionally, the court referred to a 2021 advisory by the National Human Rights Commission, which emphasized the prohibition of physical exploitation or discrimination in the treatment of dead bodies and emphasized the right to a decent and timely burial.

Rape on Dead Body: Karnataka High Court Ruling The Karnataka High Court emphasized the need for the central government to take prompt action and amend Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to explicitly address offenses involving necrophilia. Alternatively, the court suggested introducing a separate legal provision that specifically criminalizes necrophilia, prescribing a punishment of up to 10 years of imprisonment along with a fine. Furthermore, the court-mandated the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in morgues across Karnataka within six months. It directed the government to ensure hygiene, privacy, and the security of clinical records and information in these facilities. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of sensitizing mortuary staff to handle such sensitive matters appropriately.

What is Necrophilia and its legal nature in India?

In the case of "Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi v. State of Karnataka," the Karnataka High Court acknowledged that necrophilia refers to a morbid fascination with death and the dead, specifically an erotic attraction to corpses. The court noted that necrophilia is classified as a psychosexual disorder, categorized under the DSM-IV as one of several paraphilias, which include sexual interests or behaviours that deviate from societal norms. Currently, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not explicitly mention necrophilia as a specific offense under sexual offenses. However, the court highlighted that it could potentially fall under Section 297 of the IPC, which deals with causing indignity to human corpses when trespassing into places for funeral rites or repositories for the remains of the dead. However, the court noted that Section 297 requires the act of causing indignity to be accompanied by an intention to wound feelings or insult religious sentiments. Additionally, the knowledge that someone's feelings are likely to be hurt or their religion insulted by such an act would constitute an offense under Section 297. The court observed that the present case did not fulfill the elements of Section 297, and therefore, the act could at most be considered sadism or necrophilia. It concluded that no offense was established under Section 376 of the IPC, which pertains to rape. The court also urged the central government to amend the law to address such acts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court's ruling stated that engaging in sexual intercourse with a deceased person's body does not fall under the offense of rape as defined by Section 376 of the IPC. The court noted that there is currently no provision in the IPC to address this act. However, the court expressed the urgent need for the central government to amend the law to specifically address offenses related to necrophilia. The court recommended two potential approaches for addressing this issue. Firstly, it suggested amending Section 377 of the IPC to include provisions concerning necrophilia. Alternatively, the court proposed introducing a separate legal provision that specifically criminalizes necrophilia, with a recommended punishment of up to 10 years of imprisonment along with a fine. In addition to these legal recommendations, the court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in morgues across Karnataka within six months. It also emphasized the importance of maintaining hygiene, privacy, and the security of clinical records and information in these facilities. Sensitizing mortuary staff to handle such sensitive situations with care and respect was another important aspect emphasized by the court. It is now up to the central government to consider these recommendations and take appropriate action to address the legal gaps and protect the dignity of the deceased.

References

- Sucheta, Government should either amend S. 377 IPC or bring in a new provision to make Necrophilia and sadism punishable with life imprisonment: Karnataka High Court, SCC Online, 1 June 2023, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/06/01/karnataka-high-court-recommends-central-government-make-law-on-necrophilia-legal-news/ - Mustafa Plumber, Rape On Woman's Dead Body Will Not Attract Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court, LiveLaw, 31 May 2023, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/karnataka-high-court-rape-dead-body-sexual-assault-acquittal-necrophilia-section-376-ipc-229822 - Sexual assault on a dead body is not rape, will not attract Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court, Livemint, 5 June 2023, availalble at: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/sexual-assault-on-a-dead-body-is-not-rape-will-not-attract-section-376-ipc-karnataka-high-court-11685962038511.html Read the full article

[astrosblogs]

Woman drugged, raped in car in Gurugram mall parking

According to the complaint filed by the victim, a resident of DLF area, she was seeking a job online and got the contact number of the accused who identified himself as Tushar Sharma.

GURUGRAM: A 27-year-old woman, an engineering graduate, was allegedly drugged and raped by a man in his car parked in the basement of a mall here, police said on Monday.

The accused had called the woman on the pretext of an interview for a job and raped her after giving her water laced with sedatives, they said. An FIR was registered at Women police station, Sector 51.

According to the complaint filed by the victim, a resident of DLF area, she was seeking a job online and got the contact number of the accused who identified himself as Tushar Sharma.

He promised her a job and called her on the pretext of an interview in Sahara mall on Saturday, police said.

"As per the telephonic conversation, I reached the mall at around 1 pm with my documents for the interview. Tushar met me at the gate of the mall and took me to the basement parking of Sahara mall where he offered me water laced with drugs."

"As I lost consciousness, he pushed me inside his car and raped me forcibly. He then fled away in his car, leaving me alone in the parking. He also threatened to kill me if I told anyone about the incident," the woman said in her complaint.

After receiving complaint, the victim was taken to hospital by police for medical examination.

"We have sought CCTV footage from the mall management and are trying to nab the accused," said Suman Sura, SHO of Women police station, Sector 51.

An FIR was registered against the accused under IPC sections 328 (causing hurt by mean of poison), 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) on Saturday night.

[rnewspost]

Rakhi Sawant's husband Adil Khan Durrani accused of rape by Iranian woman, FIR filed in Mysore

An FIR has been filed by an Iranian woman in Mysore against Rakhi Sawant’s husband Adil Khan Durrani. According to reports, the FIR was lodged at Mysore’s VV Puram Police Station under IPC section 376, 417,420, 504 and 506.Reportedly, the Iranian woman has accused Adil of rape on the pretext of marriage while they were together in Mysore. She stated that he refused to marry her five months ago…

[freelawbydjure]

Eventful 2022 in Supreme Court: Many Key issues answered and landmark judgments delivered

Introduction

Apart from the collegium rift between the Central Government and the Supreme Court, the year 2022 was a remarkable one. Although 2022 witnessed three different CJIs, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit, and now D.Y. Chandrachud, Landmark decisions were given to guarantee and protect citizens’ rights and liberties. 

For the first time in the history of the Supreme Court, the current CJI is son of a former CJI. His father, Y.V. Chandrachud served as the 16th Chief Justice of India and holds the record of serving for the longest tenure (1978 to 1985).

In this article, a list of landmark judgments given by the Supreme Court every month in the year 2022 is discussed.

Daughter’s right to inherited property

January 20, 2022: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRS vs Ponnusamy

The Supreme Court of India stated that the self-acquired property of a deceased Hindu male would be resolved by way of inheritance rather than survivorship as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRS vs Ponnusamy and Ors. case, the Apex Court allowed the appeal. After investigation, it has been identified that the property was the self-acquired property of Marappa Gounder. Hence, his sole daughter, Kupayee Ammal would inherit the property. In such property disputes where more than one daughter is left behind, the Court’s verdict is crucial. 

The decision of SC on the minor child rape case

February 09, 2022: Pappu vs the State of Uttar Pradesh

While hearing the case, the Supreme Court partly accepted the decision of the High Court in which an appellant was accused of enticing a 7-year-old girl on the pretext of picking lychee fruit. The appellant then committed rape resulting in death of the girl. He dragged the victim’s body to approximately a distance of one kilometer and dumped her near a bridge on a riverbank. The session judge convicted the appellant of the death sentence and was charged with the offences under Sections 302, 376, 201 IPC, and ¾ POCSO. This was further upheld by the HC stating that punishment of death is “Eminently desirable”. After this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court and the decision of the HC was partly accepted by changing death sentence to life imprisonment.

Supreme Court upheld the policy of OROP (One Rank One Pension) over ORMP (One Rank Multiple Pensions)

March 16, 2022: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

The central government’s scheme of OROP for the armed forces was upheld by the bench of the SC. The scheme states that two individuals of same rank and same service years must get an equal pension when retiring from the military. Despite of same rank and service years, some military officers receive different pensions due to different reasons. The petitioners contended that separate classes among the military personnel were created by OROP based on length of service and rank. While hearing this case, the Chief Justice of India held that no constitutional infirmity was identified in the OROP principle in the pension scheme.

Changes in FCRA impacts the right to receive unregulated foreign funds

April 08, 2022: Noel Harper & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr.

While hearing Noel Harper & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr. case, the top Court disposed of the writ petitions. The provision namely Sections 7, 12(1A), 12A, and 17 of the 2010 Act were declared intra vires by the bench of the Supreme Court. Herein, the amendment introduced different changes to FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulation Act) affecting NGOs as they were not able to receive foreign funds. The amendment was then challenged by Noel Harper who was the Chairman of the Jeevan Jyothi Charitable Trust and the Care & Share Charitable Trust. The Justices C.T. Ravikumar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and A.M. Khanwilkar held that the “Right to Association does not include the right to receive unregulated foreign funds”.

Government never mandated the Covid-19 vaccine says the SC

May 2, 2022: Jacob Puliyel vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India on May 2, 2022 disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner describing the consequences of emergency approval of the Covid-19 vaccine, need for disclosure of clinical data and transparency in clinical trial data. The petitioner further filed an Interlocutory Application whereas the respondent objected to the maintainability of the writ petition. The Supreme Court stated that the government had never mandated the vaccine and also pointed out different issues of the petitioners.

Supreme Court’s decision on large scale criminal conspiracy

June 24, 2022: Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

The top Court held no criticism of SIT’s (Special Investigation Team) approach and the decision was taken based on the investigation report by SIT. In this case, the deceased was killed and the case was presented before the High Court by the appellant which was dismissed. A special investigation team was found since the petitioners did not follow an appropriate procedure to file the complaint as well as the HC did not issue directions for FIR registration. The Gujarat Government objected stating undue delay in filing of FIR. During the investigation, SIT identified 30 allegations in the stated complaint including the instructions given by Shri Narendra D. Modi to give vent to Hindu anger (in the wake of Godhra incident) toward minority Muslims. After investigation, the SIT gave “clean chit” to the accused and the Supreme Court found that all the assertions of the appellant were false.

SC on unmarried women’s right to abortion

July 21, 2022: X... vs The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr.

The petitioner was allowed to terminate a pregnancy based on the proper interpretation of the statute and ensured that no benefit would be revoked on the ground that the petitioner is an unmarried woman, mentioned by the Supreme Court. In this case, an unmarried woman was in a consensual relationship and learned that she was pregnant for a term of 22 weeks. As her relationship failed, she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. Also, she stated that due to the absence of livelihood she would not be able to nurture the child properly. A writ petition was further presented before the Delhi High Court to allow her to abort. While addressing this case, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 was thoroughly considered.

Supreme Court on unreasonable fees demand by arbitrators

August 30, 2022: Oil and Natural gas Corporation Ltd. vs Afcons Gunanusa JV

While hearing this case, the Supreme Court held that arbitrators do not have the power to determine their fees by issuing enforceable orders. Also, the arbitrators cannot be their own judge against the parties. The parties can approach the Court to review the fees demanded by the arbitrators if they feel it to be unreasonable. In addition, the top Court illustrated that arbitrator’s fees should be fixed to avoid unnecessary conflicts and litigation. 

Supreme Court on juvenile justice

September 12, 2022: Vinod Katara vs State of Uttar Pradesh

While hearing Vinod Katara vs State of Uttar Pradesh case, the Supreme Court stated that keeping children in an adult jail results in different types of liberty infringement. Petitioner was found guilty of murder by the Agra’s Session Court and sentenced him for life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court, while hearing the public interest litigation ordered the JJB (Juvenile Justice Board) to check the prisoner’s age in the jail who claims to be a juvenile. On Medical examination, it was identified that the applicant was around 15-years-old. Therefore, the SC ordered the JJB to perform bone ossification test for confirming the age of the applicant so that proper actions could be taken. 

Does wearing hijabs at school affect uniformity and discipline

October 13, 2022: Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka

The bench of the Supreme Court including two judges Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered a split judgment on the case of Aishat Shifa vs The State of Karnataka. The judgment was made on whether Muslim students shed their hijabs before entering their school gates. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said that asking a girl to take off her hijabs at the school gate is an invasion of their privacy and an attack on their dignity. Also, he addressed that there should be restriction on wearing hijabs in schools and colleges in Karnataka further stating that “wearing hijab is ultimately a matter of choice”. In his opposition, Justice Hemant Gupta said that “secularity means uniformity” and compiled that wearing uniforms is a reasonable restriction. This split decision of the judges results in presenting the case to a larger bench.

EWS reservation impacting the basic structure of Constitution

November 07, 2022: Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India

In this case, threefold grounds were addressed which were the bases of the challenge to the 103rd Constitution Amendment. First was making special provisions based on economic criteria in education and employment. Second was excluding educationally and socially backward classes (SC, ST, OBCs) from the benefit of special provisions (EWS reservation). The last one was proving 10 % additional reservations resulting in a breach of 50% reservations. All these grounds result in unacceptable abrogation of the Equality code affecting the basic structure of the constitution. While hearing this case, split decisions were given by the bench of five SC Justices including CJI. Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Dinesh Maheshwari, J. S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Bela M. Trivedi and J. J.B. Pardiwala. The challenges raised to the 103rd Constitution Amendment fails due to the decision rendered by the majority of Justices.

Quashing of criminal complaint

December 16, 2022: Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

In this case, the appellant had filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court where the appellant’s plea to quash the criminal complaint was dismissed. It has been said that the appellant had sold the bulk quantity of raw materials to various drug manufacturers by dividing it into different pack sizes. There was no stock found on the premise of appellant and the respondent did not have a proper explanation regarding the delay of more than 4 years between SCN, initial site inspection and complaint. After the investigation, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the HC. Also, stated that it’s the duty of the HC to perform proper investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice even though quashing of the criminal complaint was done in rarest of rare cases.