hi friends
The SC on a recent jurdgement on rights of illegimate child on ancestral properties :
"
***Apart from Article 39(f), Article 300A also comes into play while interpreting the concept of property
rights. Article 300A is as follows: "300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law: No
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
** Right to property is no longer fundamental but it is a Constitutional right and Article 300A contains a
guarantee against deprivation of property right save by authority of law.
** In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such
children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children
will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral.
** For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained to take a view different from the one taken by this
Court in Jinia Keotin (supra), Neelamma (supra) and Bharatha Matha (supra) on Section 16(3) of the Act.
** We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that
purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a
larger Bench."
1.Is the SC right in intereperting the Law?
2.If the SC takes different stands on different cases on the same issue,what is the credibility of the SC?
Pls comment...
