Chatter #9: Essential Legal Bytes (Legal Uniform, Politician Trustees, Renunciation, Defamation, Anal Sex)

1. Uniform for Advocates and Interns

The Delhi High Court has ruled that law interns must wear a white shirt, black tie, and black pants, as prescribed by the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD). Additionally, Justice Prathiba M Singh declared that advocates appearing before any court, from city civil courts to the Supreme Court, must also wear white bands in addition to the uniform prescribed for them.

2. Politicians cannot be Temple Trustees

It is only the Hindu temples that are administered by the government.  In many cases, the trustees are not even Hindus.  Specifically, in states that have communist or Congress governments.

The Kerala High Court ruled on Monday that active political participants, regardless of whether or not they hold an official post, are not eligible to be appointed as non-hereditary trustees in temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board. A division bench comprising of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar was hearing a plea that challenged the appointment of certain persons as non-hereditary trustees in Pookkottukalikavu Temple. The notification of the Malabar Devaswom Board stated that active politicians or persons holding official posts in any political party were ineligible for appointment to the post. The court stated with regard to the notification:

“The terms are used disjunctively. So persons who are actively involved in politics, whether or not they hold any post in a political party are ineligible”

The petitioners argued that the non-hereditary trustees appointed were not suitable due to their affiliation with a political party and their pending criminal cases.

3. Divorce because of spiritual renunciation

The Gujarat High Court granted a woman a divorce after she became a Jain nun three months ago while her appeal against a family court order denying her separation from her husband was pending. The woman had performed diksha, the Jain ritual of renunciation, during the pendency of her appeal to the High Court against the Surendranagar district family court's decision to reject her plea for divorce from her husband on the grounds of cruelty. A division bench of Justices AJ Desai and Rajendra Sareen ruled on January 30th that the woman was entitled to divorce since she had "renounced the world by entering into a religious order." This is one of the grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, according to the bench.

4. Defamation for Reporting

The "liberal-leftists" keep talking about press freedoms but when it comes to their own actions, they are the epitome of fascism.

A suit has been filed by extremist Shehla Rashid against a news channel and a TV journalist for an apology, for the so-called damage they caused to her reputation. The charges against her were made by her estranged father in what she claimed was "a one-sided and defamatory broadcast". Justice Prathiba M Singh strangely recused herself saying that she couldn't handle this case and asked for it to be put before another bench.

5. Anal Sex is a crime in India

Section 377 is still active in India even though the homosexuality was deemed not a crime.  Just a little history:

Section 377 was promulgated by the Christian British rulers in 1861 modeled on the Buggery Act of 1533 passed by Henry VIII based on Christian ecclesiastical court rulings (Source)

The Calcutta High Court stated that even a small amount of penetration is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with unnatural offenses. In a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations of sexual torture of a medical student by his senior, Dr. Raunak Hajari and Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Anr, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) further clarified that even incomplete anal intercourse would count as penetration, and thus could be an element in establishing the offense under Section 377 of the IPC.

“Penetration, however little is an offence. In the present case the opinion in the medical report is “No injury or evidence of complete anal intercourse could be detected” (so penetration however little (incomplete) in this case)...No injury or evidence of 'Complete anal intercourse' could be detected “is to be proved in trial as even incomplete anal intercourse prima facie proves penetration however little and is thus an essential ingredient (evidence) to prove the commission of offence under Section 377 IPC in this case,” the judgment stated.

If you like our content and value the work that we are doing, please do consider contributing to our expenses.  CHOOSE THE USD EQUIVALENT AMOUNT you are comfortable with.

If you like this post - please share it with someone who will appreciate the information shared in this edition.

Today’s ONLINE PAPER: Check out today’s “The Drishtikone Daily” edition. - THE DRISHTIKONE DAILY