12 September 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas | Supreme Court Warns States/High Courts which haven’t Filed Compliance Affidavits

In a Public Interest Litigation seeking establishment and effectuation of Gram Nyayalayas in the country as per the mandate of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 the Supreme Court  today issued a warning to States/UTs and High Courts which did not file affidavits (on the establishment and functioning of Gram Nyayalayas) pursuant to its last order.

If the affidavits are not filed by the next date, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter, the court said.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan also appointed Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta and Advocate Suhasini to assist the Court in the matter.

At the outset of the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed that pursuant to the Court's last order, 41 affidavits had been filed. He further submitted that out of the total Gram Nyayalayas required at the intermediate Panchayat level, only 5-6% percent have been effectuated. Some states are saying that they do not need Gram Nyayalayas because they have Nyaya Panchayats, even though the two are markedly different (note: Gram Nyayalayas have judicial officers). In some other states, the High Courts are saying that they have framed the rules and asked state governments to effectuate Gram Nyayalayas but state governments are not doing anything.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for High Court of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that inspite of repeated reminders to the state government for establishment of Gram Nyayalayas, the state was not taking any steps.

Hearing the counsels, the Court directed state of Himachal Pradesh to file a response. Insofar as states and High Courts which had not filed their affidavits pursuant to the last order, it was directed that the Chief Secretaries of the state governments and Registrar Generals of the High Courts shall file the responses within 3 weeks.

Case- National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

2. Can’t Direct Enactment of Law to Enforce Fundamental Duties, Says Supreme Court During PIL Hearing

While hearing a plea of fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court today expressed that it cannot direct the legislature to enact a law for enforcement of the same.

The cause that you (petitioner) are espousing is certainly relevant. Duties are very important. When you have rights, duties are also to be… there are number of judgments. But we can’t direct legislature to enact a law. It’s something which citizens or people of the country have to be conscious about, said Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

A bench of Justices Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan was hearing a petitioner filed by Advocate Durga Dutt, seeking enforcement of the Fundamental Duties enshrined in Part IV-A of the Constitution. Notice was issued on the same, to a limited extent, in the year 2022.

The petitioner claimed that Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) and Fundamental Duties are co-extensive, as in some cases, the violation of Fundamental Duties can lead to the violation of Fundamental Rights.

During today's proceedings, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared for the Union and expressed reservations about the Court directing the enacting of a law for enforcement of the fundamental duties. However, without being adversarial, he pointed to certain measures being taken by Departments, Ministries, schools, etc. to create awareness about fundamental duties.

The AG expressed that a sanctioned punishment would not be the right way to enforce fundamental duties. He added that sensitivity towards the same can only be nurtured in people. Further, it was submitted there are legislations in place and programmes/plays being conducted in schools, etc., which create awareness about and promote fundamental duties.

Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar, for petitioner, argued that citizens are only aware of Fundamental Rights, but not sensitized about the significance of Fundamental Duties. "Some of them are very, very relevant today. Even today, a person is not sensitized or knows that there is an Article 51A existing...people or citizens of this country should know what is Fundamental Duty...Is it too much to ask of a citizen that you have certain duties to the nation, to this great country of ours, which we have achieved through a long process? Is it too much to ask that people should be aware of this and adhere to certain duties?" he said.

In support of the prayers, the senior counsel relied on Hon'ble Shri Ranganath Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., where the Union was asked to take steps to implement recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee report (2000). This report gave various recommendations as regards the mode and manner to be adopted for generating awareness and consciousness among citizens towards fundamental duties.

After hearing the counsels, Justice Khanna conveyed that the Court cannot direct the legislature to make a law to enforce Fundamental Duties. Rather, it’s the people in the country that have to be conscious about fundamental duties.

Referring to certain legislations, the judge added that their statements and objects would seem to comply with one or more clauses of Article 51A. An example was given by linking the fundamental duty regarding maintenance of communal harmony to the IPC provisions dealing with communal tensions (Section 153A IPC, etc.).

Drawing attention to Article 51A (f), Justice Khanna remarked that there are executive actions and laws to protect cultural heritage (like signboards to prevent damage to archeological sites and laws dealing with defacement/destruction). "For everything, there is already a law", said the judge.

The hearing ended with the bench requesting the AG to file a synopsis of various laws enacted on different facets of Fundamental Duties.

Case- Durga Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors.

3. Co-Owner Whose Share In Joint Property Remained Undetermined Cannot Transfer Entire Property : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a co-owner whose share in the joint property remained undetermined cannot transfer the entire suit property to another person without its partition being completed by metes and bounds.

In other when there exist various co-owners in the property then the subsequent purchaser of the suit property cannot acquire right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely based on the sale deed executed by one coowner/transferor.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal heard a matter wherein the subsequent purchaser/appellant was transferred with the entire suit property by the transferor/co-owner via sale deed despite there existing other co-owners. Moreover, the share of the transferor was not determined in the suit property. While transferring the suit property, it was claimed by the transferor that initially his uncle and father had equal share in the property. Before his uncle's death, he (uncle) had gifted his share to transferor's father, and after the death of the transferor's father, it was claimed that the transferor became the absolute owner of the property as his sisters had also relinquished her share in the suit property.

It was contended by the transferor that since he had exclusive ownership over the suit property, therefore the transfer of the entire suit property to the appellant cannot be disputed with.

On the other hand, the respondent (being co-owner) disputed the transaction by contending that the appellant cannot acquire rights, and interest in the suit property as the transfer made to it of the whole suit property was void as there was no express approval of other co-owners who had vested interest in the property.

Rejecting the appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the transferor was only entitled to share his part in the suit property and not the entire suit property with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not claim ownership over the entire suit property but only to the extent of the share held by the transferor.

“In this view of the matter, the entire property purchased by the two brothers late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram in the year 1959 vide Exh.1 continued to be the joint property in which both of them had equal rights. On their death, the same devolved upon their respective heirs and legal representatives including Brij Mohan (transferor), his three sisters on one side and plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal, his three brothers and five sisters on the other side. Thus, Brij Mohan alone was not competent to execute a sale of the entire property in favour of the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand (subsequent purchaser), that too without its partition by metes and bounds”, the court observed.

The Court observed that the actions of the transferor to sale the entire suit property (where the other co-owners also had interest) could not bind the other co-owners as it would tantamount to depriving them from their valid share in the suit property.

“It is held that Brij Mohan alone was not competent to transfer the entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated so as to bind the other co-owners. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand has rightly been restrained by the decree of injunction in acting in derogation of the propriety rights of the co-owners until and unless the partition takes place”, the court held.

According to the Court, the Appellant is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against transferor but he would not be entitled to claim ownership and control over the entire suit property.

Given the aforesaid, the Appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgments were upheld.

Case- S.K. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors.