#highcourtofkeralaaternakulam

[seemabhatnagar]

“Drama Denied: The Battle Over Governorum Thoppiyum”

The #right to #constructivelycriticize and be critical is #fundamental to the nature of the #systems and which is #inherent, but #subjectto #reasonablerestrictions. #Creativediscretion and #liberties will have to be #judged from the #angle of #impact; it may have on #generalpublic #perceptions.

Natak v. The State of Kerala & 3 others

WP No. 6343/2024

Before the High Court of Kerala

#Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran

#Order: The Single Judge closed the Writ as it was related to the #CochinCarnival held in December 2023 and thus has become #infructuous. time.

#Petitioner an #organization of #artists, #writers, and #activists, working in areas associated with #theatre wanted to host a #drama in December 2023 by the name “#Governorum #Thoppiyum”, as part of the “Cochin Carnival”, but this was #prohibited by the respondent- #SubDivisionalMagistrate, #FortKochi and who also happens to be the Chairperson of the Carnival Committee. The SDM asked the Association to #change the #Title of the play #else the petitioner would be #responsible for any law-and-order situation on its performance.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Sub Divisional Magistrate #misunderstood the #caption as a reference to the Governor of Kerala. The Drama was an adaption of the work of #FriedrichSchiller captioned as ‘#WilliamTell’. and if one sees the performance, it becomes evident that there is no reference to the Governor of Kerala.

The Submission of the #Counsel of the #State was the present writ that has lost its relevance as the Writ relates to the time when Cochin Carnival was hosted.

It was also submitted by the Government Pleader that the #script of Governorum Thoppiyum was #objectionable by the Carnival Committee having references to #constitutionalfunctionaries, which would have created #unrestduring the #Carnival, and therefore, that it was decided that the petitioner be directed to change the title, to avoid any such eventuality.

It was also submitted by the Counsel for the State that the #direction for the change of Title was #onlymeant for #CochinCarnival and is not a general injunction against the petitioner. The order for the change of title of the play was given only to #ensure that no #lawandorder #issues arise, on account of the #impact that the #Drama may have on #multifarioussections of people.

Seema Bhatnagar

[seemabhatnagar]

'Reproductive rights of women and Assisted Reproductive Technology Act'

Ayshakutty M & Sidhiq v. Union of India & 3 others

W P ©34770/2023

Before High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.12.2023 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran allowing the couple petitioner couple to go for only one cycle availing of Assisted Reproductive Technology Services.

Fact

The Case relates to Assisted Reproductive Technology Act.

The Act came into force on January 25, 2022.

Here age of the wife petitioner is 49 years & that of husband petitioner is 55 years.

Section 21g of the AST Act says,

The clinics shall apply the assisted reproductive technology services, — (i) to a woman above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty years; (ii) to a man above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty-five years;

Prayer

The Writ was filed before the High Court to direct the respondents* 1 to 3 to take immediate steps so as to require the 4th respondent to commence providing ART services to the petitioners, including permitting to extract the semen of the 2nd petitioner, at the earliest, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

Respondents*

Union of India represented by its secretary, ministry of health and family welfare

State of Kerala, represented by its secretary ministry of health and family welfare

The district reproductive & child health Officer Ernakulam

Sabine Hospital and Research Centre Pvt Ltd. represented by its Managing Director

Issue

The women below 50 years fall within the ambit of the provision, to apply for the ART services; though their husbands may not be.

But, as long as the statute does not, prima facie, maintain that both the man and woman should be able to apply for the services together, they aren’t able to avail the benefit of the advancement of technology.

And age bar is restriction on the reproductive rights of women.

Submission of the Counsel of the Central Government

For a woman willing to apply for the ART service, she should have the gamete from a man if he is below 55 years.

Observation of the Court

It means that merely because the husband is above 55, the wife will lose her right to apply for the services, even though she is below 50 years.

It will be too far-fetched to even imagine, that the woman must then be forced to seek the assistance of another man.

It is without contest that if the gamete from the husband is not viable, then even a donor is possible under the statutory scheme.

Order

The Hon’ble Court was pleased to permit as an interim measure, and in the specific circumstances of this case without making it a precedent, allowing the petitioners in the case to apply for the ART services, however, for only one cycle.

Seema Bhatnagar