Top News Headlines 5th April 2022: For Claiming Reservation U/A 16(4), Marriage To Another Caste Not Relevant

For Claiming Reservation U/A 16(4), Marriage To Another Caste Not Relevant: Kerala HC

• In the case of Beksy A vs. District Collector and ors. the Kerala HC has once again reiterated that marriage of an individual of a particular caste to another as is permissible under law is of no relevance for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
• In the instant case, the petitioner belonging to the Latin Catholic Community married a person who belonged to the Roman Catholic Community, in 2005. Later she obtained an appointment through the Public Service Commission for the post of an LP school teacher.
• It was for this reason that the petitioner had sought to obtain a caste certificate but the same was rejected stating that she had married a man who belonged to the Syro Malabar Syrian Catholic and therefore she was not entitled to the Latin Catholc Status. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved the HC.
• The Court observed that the present case fell squarely within the Full bench decision of the Kerala HC in the case of Kerala Pattikajathi Samrakshana Samithi and anr vs State of Kerala and ors (1995) KHC wherein it was observed that adoption, marriage and conversion of faith of individual from one caste to another as permitted by law have no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefits of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
• The Apex Court had also considered this point in the case of Sunita Singh vs State of UP AIR 2018 SC.
• Thus, the writ petition was allowed and it was ordered that a caste certificate be issued to the petitioner showing that she belonged to the Christian Latin Catholic, as soon as possible, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the judgement.

Order Disposing Application U/S 91 of CrPC Interlocutory, No Revision Lies: Madhya Pradesh HC

• In the case of Dadhibal Prasad Jaiswal vs Smt. Sunita Jaiswal the Madhya Pradesh HC has observed that an order rejecting an application under section 91 of CrPC is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies.
• Section 91 of CrPC provides for summons for the production of documents or other things which are in possession of any person.
• In the instant case, the argument of the applicant husband was that he was in a legal battle with his wife/respondent. The wife had filed a domestic violence case against him and had moved an application under section 91 of CrPC seeking directions from the Court to summon the copy of FIR from the police station to prove that the husband/applicant was involved in an extramarital affair.
• The Court of the Magistrate had rejected her application against which she had moved a revision application before a Court of Sessions, which was allowed. It was this order of the Sessions Court which was challenged in the present case.
• The Respondent wife contended that her application under section 91 of CrPC did not survive after the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the same was finally concluded and therefore could not be said to be interlocutory. Further it was argued that the Applicant had not raised the jurisdictional point before the Court of revision and therefore the respective Court did not inquire regarding the power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in light of section 397 CrPC.
• The Court observed that the test for an interlocutory order has been decided by the Apex Court in the cases of Amarnath vs State of Haryana (1977) SCC and Madhu Limaye vs State of Maharashtra (1977) SCC wherein it was held that orders which result in termination of proceedings before the concerned Court are certainly not interlocutory in nature. In Amarnath's case, the Court had held that the order disposing of an application by which a valuable right of either party is affected, would be an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order, though the same would not result in the disposal of the case itself.
• Section 397(2) of CrPC provides that the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
• The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam (2009) SCC wherein it was held that the orders passed under section 91 or section 311 of CrPC are interlocutory in nature, which barrs the jurisdiction of criminal revision. Even though reasons have not been assigned as to why it considers that such orders are interlocutory, the finding is unambiguous and unequivocal.
• The Court also observed that as regards the question that the applicant had not raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the revision Court to entertain the revision petition, the Court held that a point of law can be raised at any stage. It was further observed that even if the question of jurisdiction was not brought up before the Revisional Court, the Judge ought to have known the law.
• Thus, while allowing the revision application, the Court held that the respondent, if she felt aggrieved by the order, should have resorted to another procedure which was provided by law. The order of the revisional Court was quashed.

Section 32(2) Of The Benami Transaction Act Is Unconstitutional: Madras HC

• In V. Vasanthakumar v. The Union of India (2018), a bench of CJ. Munishwar Nath Bhandari and J. D Bharatha Chakravarthy were dealing with a writ petition, which challenged the validity of Section 9 and Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. While ruling Section 32(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 to be unconstitutional, the Hon'ble HC ordered the government to consider the Hon'ble SC judgment while framing new provisions.
• Section 9 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, talks about the Qualifications for the appointment of Chairperson and Members. But since this Section was already deleted, the court did not consider it.
• Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, outlines the Qualifications for the appointment of Chairperson and Members of Appellate Tribunal. A person who has served in the Indian Legal Service and held the position of Additional Secretary or similar post, in the case of a Judicial Member, is qualified to become a member, according to the law.
• In a relevant case, Union Of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010), it was held by the Hon'ble SC that the post of a judicial member should not be given to a member of the Indian Legal Service but to someone who has served as a judge or as a member of the Bar.
• In another significant case, Shamnad Basheer V. Union of India & Others (2015), the SC emphasized the significance of a judicial member who has served as a judge or a member of the Bar. This is because, before the establishment of the tribunal, arbitration was done on a case-by-case basis. As a result of the tribunal's formation, they will be carrying out the task formerly carried out by the court. The selection of a judicial member to the goods and services tax appellate Tribunal was addressed in a similar case, Revenue Bar Association V. Union of India (2019).
• After hearing both sides and considering the cases mentioned earlier, the Hon'ble Court held that the exercise of authority by the legislature should be within the purview of making the judicial system self-reliant. The court also emphasized that the principle of judicial independence is critical, stressing the importance of separation of powers.
• Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of.