Top News Headlines 3rd Jun 2022: Order Of Land Tribunal Granting Occupancy Rights To Tenant Not Sustainable If LRs Of Deceased Owner Not Made A Party

Order Of Land Tribunal Granting Occupancy Rights To Tenant Not Sustainable If LRs Of Deceased Owner Not Made A Party: Karnataka HC

• In Dr. K. Ravindranath Shetty and ors vs State of Karnataka and ors the Hon’ble Karnataka HC has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal by which it had granted the right of occupancy in respect of land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased were not made parties, and hence could not oppose the proceedings, which was their right.
• The matter was, hence remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hear the petitioners and to afford them an opportunity of adducing evidence, and then pass appropriate orders according to law.
• The contentions of the appellants in the case was that the tenant who had been awarded occupancy rights in respect of 63 cents of land, had made their deceased father a party to the proceedings, without taking into account the fact that their father had passed away in 1974 itself.
• Thus, the petitioners argued that the proceedings instituted against a dead person were essentially a nullity in the eyes of law. The cause title of the Land Tribunal’s order indicated that Sanjeeva Shetty, the petitioner’s father, had passed away, and that Subbaiah Shetty was representing him.
• The Government pleader also produced records which indicated that the notices which were sent to Subbaiah Shetty were received and a signature was also found on the sign.
• The Court observed that the signature does not indicate as to whether the signature is of Subbaiah Shetty, since the signature found in the verifying affidavit and also in the valalath differ from the signature found on the postal acknowledgement and on the personal notice effected by the Land Tribunal.
• The Court rejected the reliance which was placed by the Counsel for the respondent on Anil M Puthran and ors. Vs. Land Tribunal, Puttur, Dakshina Kannda and anr (2006) wherein it was held that the non-impleading of all the legal representatives would not nullify the order of the Land Tribunal.
• The Court observed that the Land Tribunal was aware of the existence of the legal representatives of the landlord, and since they were not afforded an opportunity to oppose the claim of the tenant, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained.

'Madrassas Cannot Lose Minority Status By Receipt Of State Aid': SLP Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Assam Repealing Act 2020

• Recently, an SLP was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Gauhati High Court's order where it upheld the constitutional validity of the law passed by the Assam assembly converting provincialized Madrasas (State-funded Madarssas) into impugned law (general schools).
• The Act in question, the Assam Repealing Act 2020, repealed the Assam Madrassa Education
• (Provincialization) Act, 1995 and the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialization of Services of Employees and Re-Organisation of Madrassa Educational Institutions) Act, 2018, thus turning all state run Madrassas into general schools.
• The initial petition in the Gauhati High Court was filed by 13 petitioners who were either Mutawallis (donors) or President of the Managing Committees on which the Madarssas were built.
• The contention of the petitioners is that the Repealing Act is violative of their fundamental rights given under Articles 25, 26, 28 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
• As per the petitioners, this Act withdraws important subjects on theological aspects such as the Quran. Because of this, there remains no difference between Madarssas and other high schools and hence takes away their rights to practice and profess their religion.
• The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the plea on the ground that the Madarssas being government schools, are maintained by the State through provincialization and come under the ambit of Article 28(1) of the Indian Constitution and thus, cannot be permitted to give religious instructions.
• However, it has been contented by the petitioners that just by receiving mere aid from the government, the Madrassas cannot be disentitled from demanding their rights under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution which provides educational institutions to impart education of their choice.
• A Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the validity of the High Court's decision.
• What remains to be seen is whether the Apex Court will continue being the flag bearer of the constitutional principles or will it take the same road as the Hon'ble High Court.

Sex Workers Have a Right To A Dignified Life Uner Article 21: Supreme Court

• The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while exercising its right under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, asserted that notwithstanding the profession every individual has a right to live with dignity and this right also extends to sex workers.
• The Apex Court has directed the police to treat sex workers with a certain dignity and not use abusive language with them.
• The Hon'ble Court has also directed the media to not publish their pictures or reveal their identity during rescue operations and further said that doing so is punishable under Section 354C of IPC.
• On 19.07.2011, the Apex Court has constituted a Panel regarding sex workers and the issues they face.
• Three broad aspects that the Panel identified were; prevention of trafficking, rehabilitation of those who wish to leave and a conducive environment for those who wish to continue working with dignity.
• In 2016, the Union Government told the Court that the recommendations of the Panel were under consideration and a draft legislation is in the process to be published.
• As more than six years passed and still the legislation never saw the light of the day, the Apex Court thought it best to use its power under Article 142 and issue guidelines on the same.
• A three judge bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna elucidated that these directions would be followed till the time the Union Government came up with a legislation.
• The Court has directed the Press Council of India to issue suitable guidelines for the same.
• The Court reiterated that the right guaranteed under Article 21, extends beyond protection of body or faculty and includes, inter alia, the right to live with a certain dignity and the bare necessities to sustain life.
• This right has been guaranteed to every citizen of this country and cannot be taken away unless through procedure established by law.
• Denying the rights of sex workers would not only be unjust and would also be violative of the principles laid down in the Indian Constitution.
• Even though this is not an unprecedented step as in 1997 also, the Apex Court exercised its power under Article 142 and issued guidelines regarding sexual harrasment at workplace in Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan.
• Nonetheless, this is a commendable step by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to protect the rights fundamental rights of sex workers and their children, who bear the brunt of social stigma and are deprived of their to be treated with decency and dignity.