10 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Supreme Court Dismisses Petitions to Review Its Judgment Refusing to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petitions filed against its ruling that declined to recognize queer marriages in the Marriage Equality Case. A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai, Suryakant, BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta considered the review petitions in chambers, meaning there was no open court hearing. This new bench was formed after Justice Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from hearing the petitions in July 2024. Notably, Justice PS Narasimha is the only member of the original bench that delivered the verdict in October 2023, as the other members, including Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, and Hima Kohli, have retired.

The review bench stated that it thoroughly examined the judgments of Justice Ravindra Bhat (delivered on behalf of himself and Justice Hima Kohli) and Justice PS Narasimha, which formed the majority opinion. The bench concluded that it found no apparent error in these two judgments.

The order of the bench:

"We do not find any apparent error in the record. Additionally, we believe that the views expressed in both judgments are in line with the law, and therefore, no intervention is necessary." The Supreme Court declined to grant legal recognition to queer marriages in India, stating that it is a matter for the legislature to address. However, all the judges on the bench unanimously agreed that the Union of India, in accordance with its previous statement, should form a committee to review the rights and entitlements of individuals in queer unions, despite the lack of legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage."

The Court also unanimously affirmed that queer couples have the right to cohabit without the threat of violence, coercion, or interference. However, it refrained from issuing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul supported the recognition of the right of queer couples to form a civil union, while the other three judges on the bench disagreed with this view.

Subsequently, several review petitions were filed, criticizing the judgment for failing to provide legal protection to queer couples, despite acknowledging the discrimination they face. Petitioners argued that this amounted to an abdication of the Court's duty to safeguard and protect fundamental rights. They also contended that the judgment contained "errors apparent on the face of the record" and was "self-contradictory and manifestly unjust." The petitioners pointed out that while the Court recognized the violation of their fundamental rights by the State through discrimination, it failed to take the necessary step of prohibiting such discrimination.

Case- Supriyo Chakraborty and Another vs. Union of India

2. Bombay High Court Declines To Quash FIR Lodged By Wife Against Husband For Outraging Her Modesty

The Bombay High Court recently declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed by a woman against her estranged husband for outraging her modesty. A division bench consisting of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil refused to dismiss the FIR registered at the Kasturba Sub Police Station in Malvani, Mumbai. The FIR charges the husband under sections 354 (outraging a woman's modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 323 (causing voluntary hurt) of IPC [Sections 74, 351 and 115(2) of BNS].

"We do not believe that we can conduct a mini trial in this case to determine or conclude that the contents of the FIR are entirely false and that the FIR should be quashed. Therefore, the petition is dismissed," the judges stated in their order issued on January 7.

In the petition filed by the husband, it was argued that the couple resides in the same house with their 10-year-old son. However, due to ongoing marital disputes, the wife and child sleep in the bedroom, while the husband sleeps in the living room.

It was alleged by the wife, who works in an entertainment company, in her FIR lodged that on February 26, 2024, the husband came to her bedroom and forcibly opened it and had an argument with her, for which she urged the police to invoke section 506 against him. On the subsequent day, the husband forcibly entered the bedroom and used the toilet without the wife's permission. When she questioned him, they had an argument and amid this when she tried to video record the same, he snatched her phone and touched her breast, which the wife said was without her permission and thus, she felt insulted. Thereafter, they both went near the kitchen and the husband assaulted her.

Accordingly, the wife called the police and lodged the instant FIR.

The husband argued that the FIR filed against him was 'motivated' and a result of their marital issues, rather than based on any real incident. He claimed that the wife fabricated a false story and provided misleading statements to the police, which led to the chargesheet being filed in court. As a result, he sought to have the FIR quashed. However, the judges were not persuaded by his arguments and dismissed the plea.

Case- Sanket More vs. State of Maharashtra

3. Section 138 NI Act | While Considering Suspension of Sentence, Court Must See If Case Falls Under Any Exceptions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasized that a request for suspension of sentence is typically made without any conditions. When an accused person seeks a blanket order of this nature, it is the Court's responsibility to assess whether the case qualifies for an exception. Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi was hearing a cheque bouncing case in which the petitioner had been convicted by the Trial Court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and sentenced to one year of imprisonment, along with a compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs, which was also the amount of the cheque. An appeal was filed against the verdict, and the session’s court suspended the trial court's order, subject to the payment of 20% of the compensation.

The petitioner approached the High Court to modify or set aside the order. The High Court annulled the order and sent the case back to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal. However, the Sessions Court again suspended the lower court’s order, subject to the payment of 20% of the compensation amount. In response, the petitioner filed the present plea before the High Court.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jamboo Bhandari v. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd & Ors., the High Court observed, “The Appellate Court in the contested order referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court but failed to consider the Court’s observation that, in general, an accused person seeks relief under Section 389 CrPC for suspension of sentence without any conditions. When an accused requests a blanket order, it is the Court’s responsibility to determine if the case qualifies for an exception. In this case, however, the Appellate Court assumed that the petitioner had not provided sufficient grounds for claiming an exception. The Sessions Judge merely rephrased the previous order, adopting a pedantic approach, which is incorrect according to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Thus, the Court overlooked the fact that when an appellant seeks a blanket order, the Court must assess whether the case falls under an exception.”

Section 389 of the CrPC deals with the suspension of sentence pending an appeal. According to this provision, when a convicted person files an appeal, the Appellate Court may, for reasons recorded in writing, order the suspension of the execution of the sentence or order being appealed against. Additionally, if the person is in custody, the Court may grant bail or allow release on their own bond.

The High Court noted that the Appellate Court’s approach did not align with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Muskan Enterprises and Another v. State of Punjab and Another, where the Apex Court had considered the principles outlined in Jamboo Bhandari.

"Therefore, in this case, the First Appellate Court failed to exercise its discretion properly and simply refused to do so on the grounds that the petitioner did not provide any reasons in the petition, despite the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited in the earlier order of this Court," the bench remarked.

The Court also noted that the order needed modification regarding the directive to deposit 20% of the compensation amount imposed by the trial court. Taking into account that the petitioner/appellant had been suffering from ill health since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court altered the order, reducing the amount to "10%" of the compensation (i.e., 10% of Rs. 10 Lakhs), to be paid within eight weeks.

"The rest of the order issued by the Sessions Judge shall remain in force. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the specified timeframe, the Sessions Judge is empowered to take appropriate legal action against the petitioner," the Court stated.

Case- Smt. Mekala Sudha Prameels Kantha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.