Top News Headlines 28th Dec 2021: 17 Year Old Muslim Woman Can Enter Into A Marriage With The Person She Chooses

17 Year Old Muslim Woman Can Enter Into A Marriage With The Person She Chooses: P&H HC

• The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana HC has held that a Muslim woman who is 17 years old can validly enter into a contract of marriage and she does not need the permission or the consent of her parents or guardian in doing so.
• In the instant case titled Nargis and anr. vs. State of Punjab and ors. the Hon’ble HC was dealing with a plea of mandamus in which a couple (33 year old Hindu man and 17 year old Muslim woman) had married according to Hindu rites and rituals and were threatened by the members of the woman’s community. Distressed, they had moved the writ of mandamus seeking protection of their life and liberty.
• It was the petitioner’s contention that according to Muslim law, puberty and majority mean the same thing and a Muslim attains the right to get married to any person of their choice on attaining puberty, which is presumed on the completion of 15 years. In support of this contention, the petitioner cited various cases, some of them being Kammu vs. State of Haryana and ors.(2010), Yunus Khan vs. State of Haryana(2014) and Mohd. Samim vs. State of Haryana and ors.(2019). A reference was also made to Article 195 of the ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law’ by Sir Mulla which states that every muslim who is of sound mind and has attained majority can enter into a valid marriage.
• The Hon’ble Court, completely agreeing with the contentions of the petitioner, granted the writ of mandamus. The Court observed that it is not the case of going into the validity of the marriage. Instead, the instant case has arisen because of the threat that is posed to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
• The court further emphasised that the mere fact that the petitioners got married without the consent of their respective family members does not deprive them of the fundamental right to life and liberty as guaranteed to every citizen of India under article 21 of the Constitution.

And now, a question for our aspirants-
The Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) BIll, 2021 seeks to increase the marriagable age of women to _______ years.

No Vicarious Liability Of Whatsapp Admin- Madras HC Agrees with Bombay HC

• In a case titled R. Rajendran vs. The Inspector of Police and Karthivel the Hon’ble Madras HC has held that the administrator of a whatsapp group cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offensive messages forwarded into the group.
• In the present case, a petition was filed by the Administrator of a whatsapp group named ‘Karur Lawyers’ to quash the FIR instituted against him. The complaint was lodged by a member of the same group alleging that offensive messages were being forwarded to the group by a man named Pachaiyyapan, who was a member of the same group. These messages would promote feelings of enmity between two religious communities. Since the petitioner was the admin of the group, an FIR was registered against him under the provisions of section 153A of IPC (promoting enmity between different groups by words, written or spoken) and section 294(b) of IPC (uttering of any obscene song or ballad in public place).
• Relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay HC in the case of Kishore vs State of Maharashtra (2021), the Hon’ble Court held that the administrator of the group will not be vicariously liable for any message posted into the group by any of the members. The Court agreed with the observation made by the Bombay HC in the above case, in which the court said that vicarious liability will arise only when there is common intention or a pre-arranged plan, in pursuance of which the member and the admin were posting offensive messages in the group.
• The Bombay HC had further noted that the administrator of a whatsapp group cannot reasonably be expected to presume or to have knowledge of the criminal actions of the group members.
• The Madras HC, referring to the above case, also noted that the whatsapp administrator does not have the power to regulate or censor the content being posted in his group. He also has limited power of removing and adding persons to the group.
• After carefully considering the contentions of both the opposing counsels, the Hon’ble Court observed thus-

“If the petitioner has played the role of a group administrator alone and nothing else, then while filing the final report, the petitioner’s name shall be deleted”.

• But the Court also stated that if any other material also comes to light which shows the connivance of the petitioner, then of course, the petitioner will have to contest the case on its merits.

Hate Speech: SC Lawyers Write To CJI, Request The Court To Take Suo Motu Cognizance Of The Same

• On 26 December, 2021, 76 Supreme Court lawyers penned down a letter addressed to the Hon’ble CJI Ramana, requesting him to take suo motu cognizance of the hate speeches which were delivered on two separate gatherings organised in Delhi and Haridwar.
• The entire nation was appalled when videos of a sabha organized in Haridwar between 17 and 19 December went viral on social media. The sabha was organized by Yati Narsinghanand, while the one in Delhi was organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini. In this video, it was alleged that there was a call for mass genocide of the Muslim Community as a way of ‘ethnic cleansing’.
• The lawyers in the letter have urged the CJI to take cognizance of the same. They have also requested him for the issuance of directions under various sections of IPC including sections 120B, 121A, 124A, 153A, 153B, among others.
• It was also contended in the letter that the same were not just hate speeches, but “was an open call for murder” of an entire community. The speeches donot only violate the Constitutional ideals of Unity and Integrity, but they also endanger the lives of millions of muslim citizens of the country.
• It was also pointed out in the letter that the hate speeches are a part of a series of speeches which have been made consistently for quite sometime and that no effective action has been taken in the past incidents, prompting the present letter.
• Further, the letter also said that it has come to the knowledge of the lawyers that a few petitions in this regard under Article 32 of the Constitution are also pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
• Thus, urgent judicial intervention is the need of the hour, so that such incidents can be dealt with effectively and swiftly.

And now, a question for our aspirants-
Reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression have been enshrined in Article ______ .