Grant of Classical language status : Madras High Court issues notice to Centre and governments of Odisha and Kerala

The Madras High Court today ordered issuance of notices to the Centre and governments of Odisha and Kerala on a PIL challenging the grant of classical language status to Oriya and Malayalam languages.

 

Madras High Court

The Ministry of Culture of the Centre vide a notification on March 11, 2014 had granted the status to these languages.

A Division bench of the Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh also ordered the registry to tag the PIL filed by R Gandhi, an advocate, with the similar petitions challenging grant of classical status to Telugu and Kannada languages.

The court had earlier allowed Karnataka Government to implead itself as a party to the case.

In his PIL, Gandhi submitted that he was not against any Indian language getting classical status provided it satisfied the criteria.

He contended that Ministry of Culture and Home affairs should adhere to criteria laid down to determine the eligibility of a language to be considered for classification as a “Classical Language” as per the notification of the Centre on November 25, 2005.

As per the criteria, the status should be given to the language with “high antiquity of its early texts/recorded history over a period of 1500-2000 years”, he contended.

The claim of any language for classical language has to be evaluated in terms of the criteria which are really based on recommendations of the Gopichanth Nareng Committee appointed by Government of India, he contended.

He also sought for a direction from the court to the Centre to strictly adhere to implement the criteria laid down in the 2005 notification for determining the eligibility of languages to be considered as “Classical Language” before declaring classical status to any language.

A person can be accorded Scheduled Caste status on his re-conversion to Hinduism subject to evidence of his acceptance by the community: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a person can be accorded Scheduled Caste (SC) status on his re-conversion to Hinduism if he is accepted by fellow caste men and proves that either he or his forefathers previously belonged to that caste before embracing another religion.

"In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are (i) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; "(ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect, according to us, is very significant and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible," a bench of justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda said.

The court's judgment came in an appeal preferred by KP Manu, a Kerala resident, who had challenged the verdict of the Kerala High Court.

Manu, who was born as a Christian as his grandfather had embraced the religion after leaving Hinduism, became Hindu again at the age of 24 and was granted SC certificate of 'Hindu Pulaya' caste to which his ancestors belonged.

However, later on a complaint, a scrutiny committee held that he cannot be treated as a Hindu on the ground that his forefathers were Christians and he himself had married a Christian woman. This finding was affirmed by the High Court as well.

On the basis of the report of the scrutiny committee, the state government took action and directed the employer of Manu to remove him from service and recover a sum of Rs 15 lakh towards the salary paid to him.

However, the apex court set aside the verdict of the High Court. The apex court, in its verdict, said, "in the instant case, the appellant got married to a Christian lady and that has been held against him. It has also been opined that he could not produce any evidence to show that he has been accepted by the community for leading the life of a Hindu.

"As far as the marriage and leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot be allowed to make any difference. The community which is a recognised organisation by the state government, has granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the appellant. It is the community which has the final say as far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him within its fold."

The bench further said "therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the Scheduled Caste. Had the community expelled him, the matter would have been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the scrutiny committee which have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable."

"The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste and shall also be paid back wages upto 75 per cent within eight weeks from today," said the Bench allowing Manu’s appeal.

Divorced wife told to get a job and stop living off her ex-husband in a landmark judgment

An Appeals Court judge has told the ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon to get a job and stop thinking she has the right to expect “an income for life” at her former husband’s expense.

Tracey Wright. Pic Courtesy: The Guardian

Lord Justice Pitchford said divorcees with children aged over seven should work for a living in a noteworthy decision which signals an end to leisurely living for ex partners of wealthy spouses. 

Former riding instructor and mother-of-two Tracey Wright, 51, chose not to be a working mother when she split up with top equine surgeon Ian Malcolm Wright in 2008. 

After 11 years of marriage, the couple's £1.3 million, seven-bedroom home, set in 16 acres of Suffolk countryside, was ordered to be sold and the proceeds split. 

Mrs Wright came away with a £450,000 mortgage-free house in the heart of riding country, in Newmarket, Suffolk, plus stabling for her horse and her daughters' ponies. 

Her ex-husband was also ordered to pay her and the children £75,000-a-year in maintenance and school fees. 

However, last year Mr Wright, 59, who is one of UK’s top vets, went to the High Court to seek a cut in his bills. 

He protested it was not fair that he be expected to keep supporting his ex-wife indefinitely, even after his retirement, whilst she made "no effort whatsoever to seek work". 

A family judge's reaction was to respond to Mrs Wright, of Wickhambrook, Newmarket, with "harsh words." 

The mother was told to "just get on with it" and get a job, like "vast numbers of other women with children." 

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting at the Court of Appeal, has now rejected her challenge to the decision to slash her future maintenance. 

Mr Wright runs a cutting edge equine hospital in Newmarket, carrying out life-saving surgery on top-class horses, including former Derby and Oaks winners and stallions at stud worth tens of millions of pounds. 

He and Mrs Wright, a former legal secretary and riding instructor, married in 1997 and divorced in 2008, having separated in 2006. 

As part of the divorce order, Mrs Wright, who lives with the couple's youngest daughter, aged 10, was handed £75,000 yearly payments, of which £33,200 was spousal maintenance for her personal upkeep. 

The court was worried that supporting his wife would be unaffordable after Mr. Wright retires at the age of 65. 

Judge Lynn Roberts last year agreed that there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not done a stroke of paid work in the six years since the divorce. 

The judge criticised her for being "evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity".

"The world of work has innumerable possibilities these day...vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well," the judge said.

"I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model. 

"It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.

"Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills...I am satisfied that she has worked on the basis...that she would be supported for life. 

"It is essential... that she starts to work now," said the judge, who ordered that her personal maintenance payments from her ex-husband must cease, with a gradual tailing off over a five-year period leading up to his retirement. 

Counsel Mark Johnston, for the wife, challenging that ruling, protested that having to care for a 10-year-old - the couple's older daughter being a boarding pupil at a public school - "is an inherent restriction on her ability to develop any kind of earning capacity in the next five years." 

He warned that Judge Roberts' order would cause "a plummeting in the standard of living" of the youngest child. 

The assets Mrs Wright received in the split "wouldn't come anywhere near allowing the wife to adjust without undue hardship...especially with one child still at home." 

Upholding Judge Roberts' ruling, however, Lord Justice Pitchford confirmed that it is now "imperative that the wife go out to work and support herself." 

"The time had come to recognize that, at the time of his retirement, the husband should not be paying spousal maintenance," he said. 

"The wife had done nothing since 2008 to look for work, retrain or to prepare herself for work. 

"Judge Roberts did not accept any of the explanations put forward by the wife for her inactivity and ruled that it was important that she obey the order. 

"She had harsh words for the wife for her complete failure to confront her obligation to contribute financially. She found the wife exaggerated her income needs. 

"There is a general expectation that, once children are in year two, mothers can begin part time work and make a financial contribution," he went on. 

Mr Wright had been found to be "a man of integrity who had done nothing to mislead the court". 

"But the judge found the wife was an unsatisfactory witness; particularly on the subject of her own earning capacity she was evasive", he added. 

"The judge made it very clear that, within a couple of years, she would be expected to contribute financially. 

"The question is whether there is a real prospect of establishing that the judge gave inadequate reasons for her decision that the husband should provide no spousal maintenance in his retirement. In my view there is no such prospect." 

Lord Justice Pitchford said that "the order was never intended to provide the wife with an income for life". 

And he concluded: "The onus will henceforth be on her. This application is dismissed."

Teesta Setalvad's bail plea posted before new bench after judge's recusal: Supreme Court Registry

In new twist to the controversy over a new Bench hearing Teesta Setalvad's anticipatory bail plea, the Supreme Court registry has said that Teesta's bail plea was posted befrore another bench on the recusal of a judge in the previous bench.

Referring to news reports that Chief Justice of India H L Dattu had transferred Setalvad’s plea to a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra despite the fact that neither of the judges of the previous bench, justices S J Mukhopadhya and N V Ramana, had recused, an apex court registrar said it has “no basis or substance”.

The Registry however, declined to identify which of the two judges - Justice Mukhopadhyay or Justice Ramana -had sought recusal.

“Whatever has been done has been done at the direct recusal of one of the Hon’ble judges of the previous bench. Assigning a case to a bench is in the administrative domain of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,” M K Hanjura, Registrar of the Supreme Court said.

“Whatever has been reported has no basis and no substance,” he said, adding that media should not report “incorrect facts”.

The bench of justices S J Mukhopadhyaya and N V Ramana, on February 13, had extended interim protection by six more days against arrest to Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand in a case of alleged embezzlement of funds for a museum at Ahmedabad’s Gulbarg Society that was devastated in the 2002 riots. It had posed some tough queries to the couple.

However, the matter was later transferred to a new bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Kumar Goel which on February 19 restrained Gujarat police from arresting them and later reserved its verdict of their plea