Top News Headlines 9th Feb 2022: There Is No Negative Equality: SC

There Is No Negative Equality: SC

• The Hon’ble SC has, in the case of R. Muthukumar vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, held that there is no principle of negative equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. If there has been, through an illegal order, a benefit conferred on a person or a set of people, the same cannot be multiplied and be used as a precedent for future cases.
• In the instant case, in 2015, in accordance with a compromise decree between TANGEDCO and 84 persons, the Madras HC had directed their appointment. Later, several other unsuccessful candidates approached the HC claiming employment in parity with these 84 people.
• A single judge dismissed the petitions, holding that the said candidates cannot avail the benefit of the compromise order. In a later set of petitions, the single judge allowed the claims.
• The division bench dismissed the candidates appeals while allowing the appeals filed by TANGEDCO. Later, two sets of appeals were filed before the SC. One was by the aggrieved candidates who claimed employment on the basis of parity, and the other was by TANGEDCO against the order which required it to give employment to the unsuccessful candidates who had not approached the Court earlier but had later filed a writ petition.
• It was contended by the candidates that restricting the benefit to only those candidates who had approached the Court earlier amounted to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They also claimed that in terms of performance, they might as well have fared better than those 84 candidates who were given employment by the compromise decree.
• It was argued by TANGEDCO that the compromise order was not based on any rule of law but was merely a concession. They also contended that a wrong that was committed on the basis of the wrong order cannot compel the performance of an act which is unjustified in law as there was no concept of negative equality in the Constitution.
• The SC held that the compromise order was not based on merits and therefore held that the candidates cannot claim the benefit of parity as their petition was founded on the same compromise order.
• In support of their decision, the Court relied on the landmark case of Basawaraj and anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013)14 SCC where it was held that it is a well established constitutional principle that there is no negative equality. Thus, if there is a legal advantage conferred on one set of people without legal basis, then the same can be relied upon as a principle of parity and cannot be multiplied.
• Thus, in light of the aforesaid, TANGEDCO’s appeals were allowed and the appeals filed by the unsuccessful candidates were set aside.

Provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 cannot be used as an instrument to settle personal scores against the husband or his relatives; such prosecution is abuse of process of law: Supreme Court

• Setting aside an impugned order of the Patna High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“the Court”), in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v State of Bihar, held that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of a complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. The Court further highlighted that a criminal trial in such cases eventually leading to an acquittal can also inflict scars upon the accused and thus, such exercise must be discouraged.
• The Court also observed that complaints under section 498A which do not have any bona fide basis not only causes unprecedented suffrage before and during the trial but also results on severe misery given the adverse media coverage.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (IPC) aims to safeguard a woman from cruelty in the hands of husband and his relatives thereof. The Court, at the very outset, expressed its concerns regarding increasing cases of marital discord and friction and how this has led to increased number of cases being filed under section 498A, sometimes for personal vendetta. However, the Court, relying on the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v UOI & Ors remarked that mere possibility of abuse of a process of law does not invalidate the entire section.
• Brief facts of the case are that the complainant (wife) instituted a criminal complaint (FIR 1) against the husband and his relatives alleging that they demanded dowry and harassed her. Subsequently, the case was resolved and the wife re-joined her matrimonial home.
• After a certain passage of time, the wife filed another criminal complaint (FIR 2) against the husband and his relatives under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with section 34 of the IPC. Aggrieved, the husband and the appellants (ie, relatives) filed a case in the Patna High Court (HC) for quashing the complaint. The HC observed that the averments in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and the same called for an investigation. Aggrieved by the order of the HC, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
• The question for adjudication before the Court was whether the complaint filed against the husband and the Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and liable to be quashed?
• Making observations of judgments of various HCs in cases of Rajesh Sharma and Ors v State of U.P (2018), Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Anr (2014), Preeti Gupta & Anr v State of Jharkhand & Anr (2010), Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v State of UP & Anr (2012), K. Subba Rao v The State of Telangana (2018), the Court expressed it concerns regarding the rising instances of misuse of section 498A and warned other courts from initiating proceedings absence of any prima facie case against the husband and his relatives.
• The Court observed that the FIR levelled general accusations against the appellants and no specific/ distinct allegations were made out against them. No specific role has been attributed in furtherance of the general allegations. Given this, the allegations are said to have been made only on account of small skirmishes.
• The Court further observed that while it had not examined the allegations made against the husband, the allegations made against the appellants are general and omnibus in nature and do not call for any prosecution. Held, allowing the prosecution to continue in the absence of any specific allegations will result in an abuse of process of law. In result, the appeal was allowed and the FIR under sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with section 34 of the IPC stood quashed.
• Lastly, the Court also remarked that the two FIRs filed against the husband and his relatives are to be treated on different footing as both deal with distinct complaints. FIR 1 relates to the year 2017 when a case was filed for dowry harassment and FIR 2 relates to the year 2019 wherein the harassment of the wife continued despite earlier assurance that the wife will be treated properly. While FIR 2 has been quashed, FIR 1 constitutes a fresh cause of action.

This Court Requests The Student Community & Public At Large To Maintain Peace And Tranquillity: Karnataka High Court Amidst Hijab Ban Hearing

• In a hearing addressing an order issued by the School Education Board of Karnataka (KEB), banning the hijab across educational institutions in Karnataka, the High Court has appealed to the student community of the State and the people at large to maintain peace and tranquillity.
• The controversial order passed by the KEB prohibits Muslim female students from wearing a hijab (head scarf) in state educational institutions.
• A spokesperson on behalf of the State said that educational institutions are free to decide on a uniform and in the absence of one, “clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public law and order should not be worn”.
• To avoid any untoward incident with respect to maintenance of law and order, the Chief Minister has ordered a state-wise closure of high school and colleges for three days.
• In response to the order banning the hijab, a few Muslim students of a Government college in Udupi District of Karnataka filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a declaration that hijab is an essential part of their religion and they have a fundamental right to practice their religion. This was followed by writs from other parts of the State as well.
• In its order in support of the ban, the KEB cited the case of Fathima Tasneem v State of Kerala (2018) which upheld the ban on hijab and also held that dominant interest must prevail over personal interest.
• In the above case, the Court departed from its earlier ruling in the matter and held that individual rights cannot take precedence over larger public interest. As a result, the appeal of the students was dismissed.
• However, multiple Courts on various occasions have upheld the right of a Muslim women to wear the hijab on the grounds that it is an essential part of the Islamic faith.
• The Doctrine of Essentiality was first established by the Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirta Swamiar of Sri Shrirur Mutt (Shrirur Mutt case). As per the Doctrine the word ‘religion’ under Article 25 includes all rituals and practices that are integral to any religion and what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself
• In the case of Amna Bint Basheer v Central Board of Secondary Education (2016), the issue of dress code for appearing in the All India Pre-Medical/ Pre-Dental exam (AIPMT) came up for consideration. The Board mandated light, short sleeve clothes only to prevent malpractices. Aggrieved, the Petitioner appealed before the court to permit her to write the exam in the hijab. The Court, relying on the Doctrine of Essentiality, held that a uniform dress code cannot be insisted upon and left the choice of wearing the hijab with the students themselves on the condition that adequate steps must be taken by the students to appear before the vigilance team for inspection, including removal of head scarf in case of suspicion in front of an invigilator from the same sex.
• Similar judgment was also passed in the case of Nadha Raheem v Central Board of Secondary Education (2015).
• However, in the case of M Ajmal Khan v The Election Commissioner of India & Others(2006), the Madras High Court ruled that hijab are not an essential part of Islam and the Election Commissioner’s decision to put photograph of people on the electoral roll was not unconstitutional. It further observed that Article 25 aims to protect religious faith and belief and not religious practices.
• Given the conflicting rulings of various High Courts, the stance of the Karnataka High Court is highly awaited. Justice Krishna S Dixit, during the proceedings, remarked that the word of law must prevail over passion and emotions and the judgment must be in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Constitution.