Delhi High Court finds 'nothing offensive' in "PK"; dismisses PIL seeking a ban on the film

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed against Raj Kumar Hirani directed, Aamir Khan-starrer film PK, saying 'the film was not offensive'. 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw found no merits in the petition which sought a ban on the film for alleged derogatory remarks against Hindu gods, Hindu beliefs, faith and worship in the movie, and consequently proceeded to dismiss it.

A poster of the film 'PK' starring Aamir Khan and Anushka Sharma among others

The Bench asked: "What was wrong in the movie? We don't find anything offensive in it. We don't find any substance in the plea."

The Court, reserving its judgment, said it will pass a detailed order in the petition later.

The Public Interest Litigation, filed by one Gautam, claimed that the film made mockery of Hindu gods and Lord Shiva was shown in bad light.

"The Hindu way of worship has also been criticised in a most unwarranted manner," he alleged.

Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain appearing for the Centre opposed the plea, saying similar matter came before the Supreme Court which had rejected it.

'Acche din' a distant dream for both Central Information Commission and RTI applicants as 'Modi Sarkar' sits on file related to appointment of CIC even as pendency mounts

If the state of affairs of the Central Information Commission were to be considered as a parameter to assess the robust nature of the transparency  regime in the country, chances are that the nation may not acquit itself well in that regard. 

That is because the Central Information Commission (CIC), the apex body under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has remained headless since August 22, spawning an unprecedented backlog of applications (there are over 36,000 pending Right to Information (RTI) queries pending with the CIC) and sparking fears that the undue delay occasioned could sound the "death knell" for transparency.

The absence of a CIC has affected implementation of the RTI and contributed to mounting arrears

203 people - other commission members and retired bureaucrats included - are vying to become the chief information commissioner, according to information received by activist Commodore (retd.) Lokesh Batra under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

The information provided to Commodore (retd) Batra also revealed that the number of pending cases in the CIC increased by 47 per cent, from 7655 to 11212, in the four months since the retirement of the last CIC, Rajiv Mathur. 

As on January 4, 2015, there are 36,319 pending cases before the Central Information Commission, of which 28,888 are appeals while the rest (7,431) are in the nature of complaints.

The government had invited applications for the post of CIC on 24th October. The last date for application was 23rd November.

The CIC chief is appointed by the President on the recommendation of a three-member selection committee headed by the Prime Minister and including the leader of the Opposition and a cabinet minister who is nominated by the Prime Minister. 

The posts of three information commissioners are also lying vacant.

In an e-mail reply to Batra, the Department of Personnel and Training said the file related to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner has been pending with the PMO since August 1, 2014.

Former chief information commissioners Wajahat Habibullah and Deepak Sandhu recently wrote to the President highlighting how the lack of a CIC head was affecting RTI implementation.

"The effective functioning of adjudicators under the RTI Act, i.e. the information commissions, is critical for the health of the transparency regime in the country. Already, there is a huge backlog with close to 25,000 appeals and complaints pending in the commission. Often, people have to wait for more than a year for their appeals and complaints to be heard. The lack of a chief information commissioner will cause the pendency to increase further," said the letter, also signed by activist Aruna Roy and former CIC commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.

 

Law Commission recommends insertion of a new clause in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to enable daughter-in-law to claim alimony from in-laws.

In a report submitted to the Government on Tuesday, the Law Commission of India has recommended that the Hindu law should be amended to cast a legal obligation on the father-in-law to maintain and pay alimony to the daughter-in-law when her husband is unable to do so.

Under the law at present, a woman does not have the right to claim alimony from her father-in-law or other in-laws if her husband fails to maintain her due to various reasons, including his physical or mental incapacitation, disappearance or renunciation of the world as a religious choice.

The Law Commission, headed by Justice A P Shah, however, held that there was “sufficient basis in classical Hindu law to cast a legal obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law, when the husband of the latter is unable to do so”. The panel’s report noted that the basis so discovered in the Hindu law lent support to the legislative amendment being proposed by the Commission, as it sought to spell out the father-in-law’s legal obligation to pay maintenance to the daughter-in-law.

According to the panel, insertion of sub-section 4 under Section 18 should read as: “Where the husband is unable to provide for his wife, on account of physical disability, mental disorder, disappearance, renunciation of the world by entering any religious order or other similar reasons, the Hindu wife is entitled to claim maintenance during her lifetime, from members of the joint Hindu family of the husband, except where the husband has received his share in the joint family property.”

“The right of a Hindu woman, whose husband is unable to provide maintenance to her, must be protected,” held the Commission, while recommending to Law Minister Sadananda Gowda insertion of the new clause in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The clause will exempt only those cases in which the husband has already received his share in the joint family property and in such cases, his wife could get maintenance out of the properties.

As reported by the 'Kerala Law Review' earlier, the issue was referred to the Commission by the Punjab and Haryana High Court last year in a case where the wife of a man of unsound mind had sought one-fourth share in the land belonging to the family from her father-in-law as maintenance for herself, her spouse and their children.

Right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination for progeny is a fundamental right, says the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

In an interesting verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High court, in a judgment passed on Tuesday has allowed jail inmates to have sex with their partners as long as they are married and want to have a child. The court held that the right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination for progeny was a fundamental right.

Justice Surya Kant of the high court has passed these orders while disposing of a petition filed by a couple - Jasvir Singh and Sonia - who are currently lodged in the Central Jail, Patiala. They were awarded the death penalty by a trial court for kidnapping and killing a 16-year-old boy of a rich Hoshiarpur family for a hefty ransom.

The duo had sought permission to stay together and resume their conjugal life for the sake of progeny. They wanted the court to order the jail authorities to make the necessary arrangements in this regard. Jasvir had pleaded that he was arrested within eight months of their marriage. The petitioners claim that their demand is not for personal sexual gratification.

The court however denied Jasvir's plea considering the heinous nature of the crime committed, but enlarged the scope of the petition in larger public interest. The judge held that right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of convicts and jail inmates to have conjugal visits or artificial insemination as an alternative.

"A society which is currently involved in academic and intellectual debates on 'gay-rights' or the recognition of 'third-gender', cannot shy away nor can it keep concealed under the carpet the pragmatic concept of conjugal visits of the jail inmates," the court observed. "To say it differently, time has come and before it is too late, the stake-holders must sit together and deliberate upon this crucial subject and take a holistic view."

Woman employees who had a baby through surrogacy cannot be discriminated against in the matter of granting maternity benefits, holds the Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that there should not be any discrimination against woman employees who had a baby through surrogacy in the matter of granting maternity benefits.

Kerala High Court

The Court gave its ruling in a writ petition filed by P. Geetha, Deputy General Manager, Kerala Livestock Development Board, who obtained a baby through a surrogate mother, against the refusal of the board to grant her maternity leave.

The Kerala Livestock Development Board rejected her request on the ground that its staff rule and regulation did not provide leave to a woman employee who got a baby through surrogacy.

The petitioner contended that there was no justification for refusing maternity leave for the reason that the baby was born thorough a surrogate mother. She also contended that motherhood was an integral part of womanhood, and with advanced assisted-reproduction methods in place, one could not cling to the traditional meaning of maternity. A woman who had a baby through surrogacy should be treated just as a natural mother, and she should not be discriminated merely on the ground that she did not bear a child in her womb, said the petitioner. 

The Kerala High Court speaking through Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu held that the petitioner was entitled to all post-delivery benefits sans the leave for improving the health of the mother after delivery. In fact, the petitioner did not bear the child and she could not insist on leave for convalescing and regaining her health, the court said. 

The Court also observed that child-specific statutory benefits, if any, could be extended to the petitioner.