Top News Headlines 16th Dec 2021: Right To Dignity A Fundamental Right: SC

Right To Dignity A Fundamental Right: SC

• A bench of the Hon’ble SC comprising Justices LN Rao and BV Nagarathna on Tuesday in the case of Budhadev Karmasker vs. State of West Bengal held that “Right to dignity is a Fundamental Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of this country irrespective of his/her vacation”
• The Hon’ble Court directed the State Governments and the Union Territories to issue ration cards and voter identity cards immediately to the sex workers from the list prepared by the NACO (National AIDS Control Organisation).
• The Court in the judgement said that on 19 July, 2011 the Court had directed the formation of a committee to advise the court on issues pertaining to the prevention of trafficking and rehabilitation of sex workers. It was on the basis of this report that the Court had issued directions to the Government.
• One of the issues raised in this report was that “it was very difficult for the sex workers to acquire proof of identity such as ration cards or Voter Identity Cards owing to the lack of the proof of residence. It has been mentioned in the report that District authorities do not recognise the identities of the sex workers and their children. Resultantly, the sex workers are deprived of their entitlement to basic human and fundamental rights. They are denied access to schemes meant for rehabilitation”.
• The panel in its report on 12 September, 2011 recommended that the existing verification rules as to address verification should be relaxed and the worker’s profession should not be mentioned. A sex worker who is a citizen of this country should not be denied voter id just because of their profession.
• An application was filed on 29 November, 2020 by the Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee seeking a direction to the authorities to distribute monthly dry ration and cash transfers to sex workers who were struggling during the pandemic. They were deprived of the rations because they could not produce an Identity Proof.
• The Court observed in strict terms “As this Court had directed the State Governments and the Union Territories to issue ration cards and identity cards to sex workers a decade back, there is no reason as to why this direction has not been implemented till now. Right to Dignity is a Fundamental Right that is guaranteed to every citizen of this country irrespective of his/her vocation. There is a bounden duty cast upon the government to provide basic amenities to the citizens of this country.”
• The Court ordered immediate issuance of ration and identity cards on the basis of the list prepared by NACO and the State Governments and Union Territories have been directed to continue distributing dry ration to sex workers without asking for the proof of any residence or of their profession.

Read the article above? Let’s see if you can answer the following–
Right to live with dignity has been derived from which article of the Constitution?

Father Duty-Bound To Maintain His Daughter Irrespective Of Religion– Kerala HC

• The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of JW Aragadan vs. Hashmi NS and anr. has held that the father of a child being the natural guardian is bound to maintain his son till he attains majority and his daughter till she is unmarried.
• The question came up for consideration when a suit for maintenance was filed by the daughter of the appellant (father) and the second respondent (mother). The appellant, a Hindu and the respondent, a muslim had an interfaith marriage in 1987 and a daughter was born out of their wedlock.
• In 2010, the daughter moved the court for both past and future maintenance and expenses for her education and marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant (father) in this case contended that the petition was not maintainable and he was not liable to maintain his daughter as the law does not bind him to do so because there is no substantive law mandating a father to maintain a child born out of an interfaith marriage.
• The Court, however, noted that “Every child born into this world is entitled to be maintained. It is their right - both moral and legal. The duty to take care of the children has been recognised as an enforceable obligation in the entire civilised society. The custom as well as statutes recognise father as a natural guardian. He is entitled to the custody of the minor’s person and property. The right to custody carries with it a duty to take care. Since the father is a recognised guardian, he is under a duty to maintain and protect the child.”
• Reliance was placed by the court on the decision in the case of Mathew Varghese vs. Rosamma Varghese (2003) KHC in which it was held that “every father, whatever be his religious denomination and faith has the indisputable liability to maintain his child.” In the case of Ismayil vs. Fathima and anr (2011) KHC it was held that “the right of the children to be maintained by their father, in the absence of any contract, legal principle, personal law stipulation or statutory prescription flows from the fountain stream of the all encompassing fundamental right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.”
• As regards the marriage expenses claimed by the daughter, the Court said that an unmarried daughter born to an interfaith couple is entitled to her marriage expenses as it is a part of her mental and physical well-being. “Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which obliges a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter specifically includes the right of the claimant for marriage expenses”, the Court further said.
• Hence, the Court awarded Rs.5000 as maintenance, Rs.96,000 as educational expenses and Rs.3,00,000 as marriage expenses.

Preparing for judiciary? Let’s see if you can answer the following—

Under which section of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is a Hindu bound to maintain his illegitimate minor children?

Bail On The Ground Of Parity Denied in POCSO Case- Minors Treated As A Class: Delhi HC

• While denying bail claimed on the ground of parity in the case of Suraj vs. State, the Hon’ble Delhi HC said that “the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a class by itself and to treat them separately so that an attempt to sexual assault or harass or molest or abuse the minor entails graver and stricter consequences. The ultimate purpose of the law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them”.
• In the present case, the prosecutrix stated that she was in the fifth standard when she developed a friendship with Suraj. But after 2-3 months, Suraj took her to the Inderpuri forest after school hours and raped her. He took explicit videos and photos of her and threatened to leak them on the internet if she did not have intercourse with four of Suraj’s friends.
• Thus began a series of exploitation as a result of which the prosecutrix got pregnant. The prosecutrix was 17 years old when the FIR was registered
• The learned counsel for the accused claimed bail on the ground of parity as two of the co-accused had been released on bail.
• The court enlisted the factors which have to be kept in mind while granting bail, namely-”

a) The nature and gravity of the accusation;
b) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
c) The danger of the accused absconding;
d) Reasonable apprehension of witness tampering;
e) Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
f) Danger of justice or processes thereof being stifled by the grant of bail”.

• The Court further observed that “Rape is an offence which not only violates the physical body of the survivor, but is also capable of inflicting trauma on the mental psyche which can end up persisting for years. Keeping in mind this nature of the offence, this court inhabits a duty to consider this matter with utmost care”.
• The Court held that the prosecutrix had been traumatised since she was 13 years old till she attained the age of 16 years. All the accused had been named in the FIR and charges had been framed against all of them. Further, they have been booked under section 6 of the POCSO Act as well, which prescribes a minimum punishment of 20 years and a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life (natural life).
• The petitioners were thus accused of a crime of a very serious nature and therefore, the court refused to release them on bail even on the ground of parity.

Judiciary Special! Try answering the following in the comment section below-

When did the POCSO Act come into force?