0

Unraveling India’s Labor Law reforms: Adapting to the digital era.

Articles

Introduction:

Imagine a bustling street in the heart of Mumbai, where vendors set up their stalls, office-goers rush to catch their trains, and laborers toil under the scorching sun to make ends meet. This vibrant tapestry of daily life in India is woven together by the countless workers who form the backbone of the nation’s economy. Yet, behind the bustling façade lies a complex web of laws and regulations that govern the rights and protections of these workers. For generations, India’s labor laws have been a beacon of hope for millions, offering assurances of fair wages, safe working conditions, and social security. From the era of colonial rule to the dawn of independence, these laws have evolved to reflect the changing needs and aspirations of the workforce. However, as we step into the digital age, the landscape of labor relations is undergoing a profound transformation, posing new challenges and opportunities that demand a fresh perspective.

In recent years, the corridors of power in New Delhi have echoed with debates and deliberations over the need to modernize India’s labor laws to adapt to the realities of the 21st century. Amidst calls for greater flexibility and efficiency, policymakers have embarked on a journey of reform, seeking to strike a delicate balance between promoting economic growth and safeguarding the rights of workers. But what do these reforms mean for the millions of faces behind the statistics—the factory workers, the office clerks, the gig economy workers, and the digital nomads? How do they navigate the shifting sands of labor regulations in their quest for a better life and livelihood? In this article, we embark on a journey to unravel the human stories behind India’s labor laws in the digital age. Through the lens of real-life experiences and personal anecdotes, we aim to humanize the often abstract and technical discourse surrounding labor reform. From the struggles of a migrant worker to the aspirations of a young entrepreneur, we delve into the lives of those directly impacted by these reforms, shedding light on their hopes, fears, and dreams for a brighter future.

As we navigate the intricate tapestry of India’s labor laws, let us not lose sight of the human faces and voices that lie at the heart of this narrative. For ultimately, it is their stories that illuminate the path forward, guiding us towards a future where the rights and dignity of every worker are cherished and upheld in the digital age and beyond.

Historical Context of Labor Laws in India:

Picture this: a bustling marketplace in colonial India, where vendors hawk their wares amidst the clamor of voices and the hustle and bustle of daily life. Amidst the chaos, a group of weary workers toil away in the nearby factories, their faces etched with the weariness of labor and the hope for a better tomorrow. This scene, emblematic of the socio-economic landscape of 19th-century India, serves as a poignant reminder of the struggles and sacrifices of those who built the foundations of modern India with their sweat and toil. The roots of India’s labor laws can be traced back to this era of colonial exploitation and social unrest, where British colonial rulers sought to harness the vast resources and manpower of the subcontinent for their own economic gain. Faced with growing discontent and agitation among the indigenous workforce, the colonial administration begrudgingly enacted a series of rudimentary labor laws aimed at placating the masses and maintaining order in the face of mounting resistance.

The first flickers of labor legislation in India emerged with the enactment of the Factories Act of 1881, a modest attempt to address the abysmal working conditions prevalent in the burgeoning factory towns of colonial India. This landmark legislation, while offering a semblance of protection to factory workers, fell far short of addressing the deep-rooted inequalities and injustices pervading the colonial labor regime.

However, it was not until the dawn of India’s independence in 1947 that labor legislation truly came into its own, as the newly liberated nation embarked on a journey of nation-building grounded in principles of social justice and equity. Guided by the visionary leadership of stalwarts such as Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar, independent India sought to carve out a new social contract wherein the rights and dignity of every worker were enshrined as sacrosanct.

The years following independence witnessed a flurry of legislative activity aimed at ushering in an era of social and economic transformation. From the landmark Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, which sought to provide a framework for resolving industrial disputes and safeguarding worker rights, to the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, which aimed to ensure a decent standard of living for workers across various sectors, India’s labor laws were imbued with the spirit of egalitarianism and social solidarity. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, India’s labor laws continued to evolve in response to changing socio-economic realities and political imperatives. From the liberalization of the economy in the early 1990s to the advent of the digital age in the 21st century, labor legislation underwent numerous amendments and reforms, reflecting the shifting contours of India’s socio-economic landscape.

Today, as India stands on the threshold of a new era of growth and development, the legacy of its labor laws serves as a testament to the resilience and perseverance of its people in the face of adversity. Yet, even as we celebrate the achievements of the past, we must also confront the challenges of the present and the imperatives of the future, as we strive to build a more inclusive and equitable society where the rights and dignity of every worker are upheld and cherished.

Recent Amendments to India’s Labor Laws: An Overview, Objectives, and Implications

In recent years, India has witnessed a significant overhaul of its labor laws, marked by a series of amendments aimed at modernizing regulations and fostering a conducive environment for economic growth and employment generation. These reforms, initiated by the government with the aim of striking a balance between promoting business interests and safeguarding worker rights, have sparked intense debate and scrutiny among stakeholders.

Overview of Recent Amendments:

The recent amendments to India’s labor laws encompass a wide range of legislative changes aimed at streamlining compliance procedures, enhancing flexibility in labor relations, and promoting ease of doing business. These amendments touch upon various aspects of labor regulation, including hiring and firing practices, working conditions, social security provisions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Objectives behind the Amendments:

Promoting Ease of Doing Business: One of the primary objectives behind the amendments is to create a more business-friendly environment by simplifying regulatory procedures and reducing bureaucratic red tape. This is intended to attract investment, stimulate economic growth, and create employment opportunities.

Enhancing Flexibility: The amendments seek to provide greater flexibility to employers in terms of hiring, firing, and contractual arrangements, thereby enabling them to adapt more effectively to changing market dynamics and business exigencies.

Improving Compliance: By rationalizing and consolidating existing labor laws, the amendments aim to improve compliance rates among employers, thereby ensuring that workers are afforded their rightful entitlements and protections under the law.

Promoting Formalization: Another objective of the amendments is to incentivize the formalization of the informal sector by extending social security benefits and legal protections to workers in previously unregulated or under-regulated sectors.

Facilitating Growth of Emerging Sectors: The reforms are also designed to facilitate the growth of emerging sectors such as e-commerce, gig economy, and technology startups by creating a more enabling regulatory environment conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship.

Implications of the Amendments:

Enhanced Business Competitiveness: The amendments are expected to enhance the competitiveness of Indian businesses by reducing compliance costs, enhancing operational efficiency, and fostering a more conducive business environment.

Greater Flexibility in Labor Relations: The reforms may lead to greater flexibility in labor relations, enabling employers to hire and deploy workers more efficiently in response to market demand and business needs.

Potential Impact on Job Security: While the reforms may create opportunities for job creation and economic growth, they also raise concerns about potential erosion of job security and labor rights, particularly for vulnerable segments of the workforce.

Need for Skill Upgradation: The amendments may necessitate investments in skill development and capacity-building initiatives to ensure that workers are equipped to thrive in an increasingly dynamic and competitive labor market.

Potential for Social Dialogue and Conflict Resolution: The reforms may pave the way for greater social dialogue and collaboration between employers, workers, and government stakeholders, facilitating the resolution of disputes and the negotiation of mutually beneficial outcomes.

In conclusion, the recent amendments to India’s labor laws represent a significant milestone in the country’s journey towards creating a more inclusive, dynamic, and sustainable economy. While they hold the promise of unlocking new opportunities for growth and development, they also pose challenges that must be addressed through thoughtful policy interventions and stakeholder engagement. By striking a delicate balance between promoting business interests and safeguarding worker rights, India can harness the full potential of its workforce and pave the way for a brighter future for all.

Impact on Traditional Work Environments and Adaptation to the Digital Economy:

The recent amendments to India’s labor laws have profound implications for both traditional work environments and the burgeoning digital economy, reshaping the dynamics of labor relations and employment practices across various sectors.

Impact on Traditional Work Environments:

Flexibility in Hiring and Firing: The amendments provide greater flexibility to employers in terms of hiring and firing practices, allowing them to adjust their workforce more easily in response to market fluctuations and business needs. While this may lead to greater agility and efficiency in traditional industries such as manufacturing and construction, it also raises concerns about job security and stability for workers.

Changes in Working Conditions: With the emphasis on simplifying compliance procedures and reducing regulatory burden, there may be a relaxation of certain labor standards and working conditions in traditional sectors. This could potentially undermine the gains achieved in terms of worker safety, health, and welfare over the years, leading to concerns about exploitation and abuse.

Shift towards Informalization: The reforms may inadvertently contribute to the informalization of the labor market, as employers seek to circumvent regulatory requirements and contractual obligations. This could further marginalize vulnerable workers, particularly those in low-skilled and precarious jobs, exacerbating inequalities and social disparities.

Adaptation to the Digital Economy:

Facilitation of Digital Platforms: The amendments are expected to facilitate the growth of digital platforms and the gig economy by providing a more enabling regulatory environment for technology-driven business models. This includes provisions related to gig workers, freelancers, and online marketplaces, which have traditionally operated in a regulatory grey area.

Opportunities for Remote Work: The reforms may pave the way for greater adoption of remote work and telecommuting arrangements, as employers embrace flexible work practices enabled by digital technologies. This could lead to a paradigm shift in how work is organized and performed, with implications for productivity, work-life balance, and geographical mobility.

Challenges of Digitalization: While the reforms aim to harness the potential of the digital economy for job creation and economic growth, they also pose challenges related to digital literacy, skill upgradation, and cybersecurity. Workers in traditional industries may face difficulties in adapting to new technologies and digital platforms, exacerbating existing disparities in access to opportunities and resources.

Need for Regulatory Adaptation: The emergence of new business models and employment practices in the digital economy may necessitate a rethinking of regulatory frameworks and labor standards to ensure adequate protection for workers. This includes issues such as data privacy, algorithmic accountability, and platform-mediated employment relationships, which require innovative policy responses to address.

In conclusion, the recent amendments to India’s labor laws have far-reaching implications for both traditional work environments and the adaptation to the digital economy. While they hold the potential to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic dynamism, they also pose challenges in terms of job security, labor rights, and social inclusion. By striking a balance between promoting flexibility and protecting worker interests, India can navigate the complexities of labor regulation in the digital age and build a more inclusive and equitable future for all.

Future Outlook and Recommendations:

As India navigates the complex terrain of labor law reforms in the digital age, it is imperative to chart a course that fosters inclusive growth, promotes social justice, and upholds the dignity and rights of every worker. Looking ahead, several key trends and challenges are likely to shape the future trajectory of labor regulation in India, necessitating proactive measures and innovative solutions to address emerging issues. Embracing Technological Innovation: The future of work in India will be increasingly shaped by technological innovation, automation, and digitalization. To harness the full potential of these trends, policymakers must prioritize investments in digital infrastructure, skill development, and lifelong learning initiatives to ensure that workers are equipped with the competencies needed to thrive in a rapidly evolving labor market. Promoting Social Dialogue and Collaboration: Building consensus and forging partnerships between government, employers, workers, and civil society organizations will be essential to address the complex challenges posed by labor law reforms. By fostering a culture of social dialogue, collaboration, and mutual respect, India can create a more inclusive and participatory decision-making process that takes into account the diverse needs and perspectives of all stakeholders.

Strengthening Social Protection Mechanisms: As traditional forms of employment give way to new and flexible work arrangements, there is a pressing need to strengthen social protection mechanisms to ensure that all workers have access to basic rights, benefits, and safeguards. This includes extending social security coverage to gig workers, informal sector workers, and those engaged in non-standard forms of employment.

Promoting Decent Work and Fair Wages: In the pursuit of economic growth and competitiveness, it is essential to prioritize decent work and fair wages as fundamental principles of labor regulation. This requires a concerted effort to enforce minimum wage laws, combat wage theft and exploitation, and promote decent working conditions for all workers, regardless of their employment status or sector.

Investing in Human Capital Development: Human capital development will be a linchpin of India’s future prosperity, requiring sustained investments in education, training, and lifelong learning initiatives. By empowering workers with the skills, knowledge, and capabilities needed to adapt to technological change and navigate the complexities of the modern labor market, India can unlock new opportunities for growth, innovation, and social mobility.

Promoting Gender Equality and Social Inclusion: Gender equality and social inclusion must be central tenets of India’s labor law reforms, ensuring that women, marginalized communities, and vulnerable groups have equal access to employment opportunities, rights, and protections. This includes addressing gender-based discrimination, promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and closing the gender pay gap.

In conclusion, the future outlook for labor law reforms in India is one of both challenges and opportunities. By embracing technological innovation, promoting social dialogue, strengthening social protection mechanisms, and investing in human capital development, India can build a more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable labor market that empowers workers, fosters economic growth, and upholds the values of social justice and dignity for all.

Conclusion

In India’s dynamic landscape of labor laws, the fates of millions of workers hang in the balance. Their daily struggles and aspirations form the heartbeat of the labor movement, urging us to understand the complexities of their reality. As we navigate through time, it’s essential to glean insights from the past, acknowledge the present challenges, and embrace the opportunities that lie ahead. Through fostering empathy and solidarity, we can forge a more equitable society where every worker’s dignity is respected.

The true measure of success In labor law reform transcends mere legal doctrines; it lies in the tangible experiences of those it seeks to protect. Amidst adversity, these laws aim to uphold principles of justice and human dignity. However, their ultimate purpose is not just to regulate markets but to uplift lives. By centering our efforts on human values, we pave the way for a future where every worker is empowered to flourish.

References

https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/opinion/labour-laws-in-india-four-codes-labour-reforms-minimum-wages-left-midway-modi-government-economy

https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/01/10/indias-labour-reforms-and-ftas-could-spell-luck-for-its-labour-force/

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-modi-may-prioritise-labour-reform-if-he-wins-polls-party-says-2024-02-13/

2

Are Inter-religious Marriages Still Hindered in India? Navigating Interfaith Marriages in India: Legal Framework, Societal Challenges, and Paths Forward.

Articles , , , , , 2

INTRODUCTION

Interfaith marriages, also known as mixed marriages, involve unions between individuals from different religious backgrounds. As Peterson succinctly describes, these unions encompass couples whose divergent religious beliefs may potentially lead to conflicts, he quotes, “marriage between any two people from such diverse backgrounds that their differences in religious values are possible causes of conflict”.[1] In countries like India, characterized by a rich tapestry of religious diversity and a history marked by religious intolerance, the potential for such conflicts is significant. The multitude of religions and castes, combined with various permutations, underscores the vast array of possible combinations.

In India, traditional arranged marriages prevail, contrasting with the Western notion of ‘love marriages’ Arranged marriages involve parental selection of spouses based on criteria such as caste, religion, mother tongue, and economic status. Conversely, in love marriages, individuals choose their partners based on compatibility and affection developed through pre-marital interactions. This shift from arranged to love marriages has led to an increasing prevalence of interfaith unions, as religious beliefs often play a lesser role in partner selection.

However, interfaith marriages are often met with disapproval in Indian society. Deep-seated beliefs and ideologies contribute to this disapproval, with parents expressing concerns about compatibility and religious adherence. Despite this societal resistance, interfaith marriages have been legalized in India through the Special Marriage Act (SMA)[2]. While interfaith unions cannot be solemnized under specific religious marriage acts, they can be registered under the SMA.

Despite the legal recognition of interfaith marriages, couples still face threats of violence, often from their own families and communities. This raises questions about the adequacy of legal provisions in protecting interfaith couples from hostility and ensuring their safety.

What does History say about Interfaith marriages?

Exploring Hindu mythology unveils a longstanding acceptance of love marriages, evident in ancient texts where such unions were termed as “Gandharva vivaha”[3]. In this ancient tradition, the essence of marriage rested solely on the mutual love and consent between the individuals involved. A quintessential illustration of Gandharva vivaha resonates in the epic Mahabharata, exemplified by the union of Dushyant and Shakuntala, whose lineage includes the illustrious Pandavas and Kauravas. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that the concept of Gandharva Vivaha has been subject to historical debate, with scholars questioning its authenticity as a distinct form of marriage.

Turning to more contemporary history, the advocacy of “the fusion of blood” by B.R. Ambedkar emerges prominently. He fervently championed intermarriage as a means to address the scourge of caste and religious discrimination. Ambedkar espoused the notion that the amalgamation of diverse bloodlines could engender a profound sense of kinship, essential for eradicating divisive sentiments[4].

In alignment with this vision, Articles 14, 15, and 21 were enshrined in the constitution as fundamental rights[5], safeguarding an individual’s autonomy to choose their life partner without constraint.

The case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr [6] is a landmark judgment that has clarified the validity of inter-caste marriages. It can be observed from the court’s decision that any person who is a major has a right to choose the partner of their choice. It can be further considered to be a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The act of violence caused by the family members due to the inter-caste or different religion marriage is considered to be a barbaric practice which is unjust as it would be a curtailment of the fundamental right of a person because of some people’s feudal mindsets.

The court further opinionated that a family having a problem with such marriages can stop maintaining social relations with the couple and leave them but they do not have the authority to instigate violence against the married couple for that.  The court stated “In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes.”

India’s deep-rooted casteism and religionism are obstacles to a progressive nation. It is important to protect the interests of the youth who are carrying out inter-caste or different religion marriages as they pave the way to discard the toxic discrimination present within India. This landmark judgment has clarified that the Hindu Marriage Act does not prohibit inter-caste marriage and it has made it clear that major women marrying outside their caste is not wrong or prohibited by the law [7].

LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN PLACE

In India, marriages are typically governed by the personal laws corresponding to the religion adhered to by the couple. However, when individuals from different faiths intend to marry legally, they have two avenues available:

  • SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954:

Couples can opt to have their marriage formalized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. This Act offers a secular framework for individuals of diverse religious backgrounds to marry legally, without necessitating either party to embrace the other’s faith. It provides a non-religious alternative for marriages and ensures legal recognition of the union.

This legislation enables couples, regardless of their religious or caste affiliations, to enter into marriage. Nevertheless, the process for formalizing such unions is notably more stringent compared to the procedures outlined in personal laws.

Provisions:

Sec.5 of SMA, Notice of intended marriage ―When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.

Sec.6 of SMA, Marriage Notice Book and publication ―(1) The Marriage Officer shall keep all notices given under sec.5 with the records of his office and shall also forthwith enter a true copy of every such notice in a book prescribed for that purpose, to be called the Marriage Notice Book. (2) The Marriage Officer shall cause every such notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in his office[8].

Sec.7 of SMA, Objection to marriage ― Within 30 days of such publication, anyone can object to such a marriage violating any conditions of a valid marriage[9].

In certain districts, vigilante groups espousing anti-“love jihad” sentiments vigilantly monitor notice boards for announcements of interreligious marriages. Upon discovering such unions, these groups often inform the parents or families involved, thereby amplifying the potential for conflict and coercion.

Moreover, the criteria stipulated by the SMA, such as the absence of existing spouses or mental incapacity, are consistent with those found in personal laws governing marriage. Thus, it raises a valid question as to why interfaith couples are subjected to additional scrutiny and obstacles not imposed on couples marrying under personal laws.

In essence, while the SMA aims to provide a legal framework for interfaith unions, the implementation of its provisions, particularly the 30-day notice period, often exacerbates societal tensions and compromises the fundamental rights of individuals. Addressing these challenges requires a reevaluation of the SMA’s procedures to safeguard the autonomy and safety of interfaith couples while upholding the principles of equality and freedom of choice in marriage.

Sec.14 of SMA, New notice when marriage not solemnized within three months.

Furthermore, it is imperative to address the issue of government officials overstepping their authority. An amendment to the Special Marriage Act should be considered to safeguard couples from such officers who engage in moral policing, dissuading them from marriage, or obstructing the solemnization process. Instances have arisen where these officers have taken it upon themselves to notify the families of the couples, despite no such mandate existing within the Act. This egregious breach of privacy infringes upon the rights of couples seeking marriage. Therefore, stringent provisions must be implemented to ensure that marriage officers adhere strictly to their duties and refrain from interfering with the couple’s decision to marry[10].

  • RELIGIOUS CONVERSION:

Alternatively, one partner may choose to convert to the religion of the other and adopt its practices. Subsequently, they can proceed with their marriage ceremony under the personal laws of the converted religion. For instance, if a woman is Muslim and a man is Hindu, either the man may decide to embrace Islam or the woman may opt for Hinduism. Following this conversion, they can lawfully marry under the personal laws applicable to either Islam or Hinduism.

These options offer legal pathways for individuals from different religious backgrounds to formalize their marriage in India, promoting inclusivity and accommodating diverse religious preferences within the legal framework. Couples seeking to circumvent the cumbersome process of marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) may opt for the alternative of converting to each other’s religion. However, this approach presents two significant challenges.

Firstly, it’s crucial to acknowledge that individuals may not willingly choose to convert, but may feel compelled to do so due to lack of alternatives. They may desire to maintain their religious beliefs while still marrying the person of their choice, a reasonable expectation.

Secondly, religious conversion for marriage is fraught with difficulties in India, particularly due to anti-conversion laws, which will be discussed further ahead.

CASE LAWS:

  • Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others: [11]

Rev. Stainislaus, the appellant, was sanctioned for prosecution by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar for committing offenses under Sections 3, 4, and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act, which in broader respect is the allegation of unlawful or forceful conversion from one religion to the other. 

The appellant, Rev. Stainislaus, raised his main objection when the case was heard by Magistrate, First-Class, Baloda-Bazar, claiming that the State Legislature lacked the necessary legislative authority and only the Parliament had the authority to make laws and not the state legislature. He also contended that the Madhya Pradesh Act violated the Constitution because it did not fall under the authority of Entry I of List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule. It was also further raised that Sections 3, 4, and 5(2) were in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution and hence were void. The Magistrate did not refer the matter to the High Court with the view that the objections raised had no force in them. The same view was held by the Additional Session Judge when asked for the revision of the order. Hence, the appellant moved to the High Court and filed petitions.

Therfeore, the case mainly dealt with the validity of Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam,1968 and Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, challenged in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court of Orissa respectively [12].

  • Evangelical Fellowship of India and Act Now for Harmony and Democracy V. State of Himachal Pradesh.

The Court held that the right to ‘propagate’ one’s religion does not include the right to convert others. The Court also ruled that the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act and Rules do not violate the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.[13]

  • Chirag Singhvi V. State of Rajasthan & Anr, Decided on 15th December 2017.

 It is true that under Article 25 of the Constitution of India there is fundamental right granted to every (27 of 38) [HC-149/2017] citizen to profess, practise and propagate his religion freely, but it does not mean that a citizen of particular religion can forcibly compel other citizen to change his/her religion so as to solemnize the marriage only because after conversion of religion, a citizen bears his/her all rights which is available in the converted religion and to relinquish his/her right of the parent religion. Therefore, obviously, no person can be compelled to change religion only to solemnize marriage, therefore conversion of religion only for the purpose of solemnizing forcible marriage, is not permissible under the fundamental right as enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. In the Sura-II Ayat 221 of Holy Quran a person of Muslim religion should have faith in Islam religion for all purpose not only for marriage.[14]

STATE’S ROLE IN INTER-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGES:[15]

Inter-religious marriage is not a personal issue that is dealt privately by families in their homes. Since it involves the law (central and state), runaway couples and FIRs, it is a public issue which warrants the involvement of the State as well.

To understand how inter religious marriages play out in the society and what kind of role the State plays in these inter-religious marriages we will be looking at it through 3 perspectives -:

  • Role of the Police :

The first point of state contact in case of a runaway inter-religious couple is when an FIR is registered. This is usually done by the male guardian of the girl, and is registered as a case of abduction, kidnapping and often rape by the boy.

The police begin their search of the couple, and if caught, the boy is taken into custody for questioning and can possibly even be imprisoned.

On the other hand, the girl having been returned to her home is pressurized by her family into testifying against the boy to make a case for abduction and kidnapping[16].

The police sometimes even colludes with the family members of the couple to stop the inter religious marriages. They contribute to the patriarchal idea of controlling females and exploiting the ambiguities in the legal system to turn a runaway couple case into an abduction one[17]. Even though they might know the reality of the situation and how the couple has run away on its own will to get married, they go ahead with the false story of the boy kidnapping /abducting the girl and make out a case against him.

  • Role of the Judiciary:

The judiciary plays a significant role in addressing issues related to inter-religious marriages, particularly in cases where marriages have been solemnized or when couples face obstacles before marriage. In the former scenario, the court evaluates the validity of the marriage, while in the latter, it often deals with abduction or kidnapping allegations against one party.

Frequently, if a couple elopes, the girl’s family may accuse the boy of coercion, leading to abduction or kidnapping charges. Despite courts recognizing fabricated claims in some instances, legal constraints often prevent intervention unless the girl, if a major, provides a favourable statement.

In a landmark 2006 ruling[18], the court affirmed the right of individuals to marry of their own choice and deemed violence against inter-religious couples illegal, signalling a significant step toward protecting their rights. However, recent cases, such as a Hindu girl’s conversion to Islam to marry a Muslim man, highlight ongoing challenges. Despite her voluntary testimony in the Kerala High Court, the marriage was annulled, suggesting judicial endorsement of paternal authority over the girl’s decisions, reflecting concerns of “love jihad”.

However, the Supreme Court’s intervention emphasized the girl’s autonomy and upheld her constitutional right to choose her partner, emphasizing that parental concerns cannot override an adult’s choice to marry. Subsequent rulings have reiterated the judiciary’s stance in respecting couples’ decisions, cautioning against mala fide proceedings by parents unless there is substantive evidence of coercion. This underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding individuals’ right to marry freely and protecting inter-religious couples.

  • Role of the legislature:

The legislature, governed by the State List, holds authority to enact laws concerning law and order issues. Many states have enacted anti-conversion laws to prevent fraudulent or coerced conversions. However, concerns arise when these laws prohibit conversion for marriage, even if done voluntarily. Examining examples from Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka illustrates this issue.

In 2020, Uttar Pradesh implemented the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance[19], requiring interfaith couples to inform the district magistrate two months before marriage. This ordinance imposes governmental scrutiny on voluntary conversions for marriage, fostering a hostile environment for inter-religious couples.

Similarly, Karnataka passed the Anti-Conversion Bill in September 2022, prohibiting conversion through misrepresentation, force, coercion, or marriage without prior notice to the district magistrate.

These laws provide an avenue for parents to file false cases against their daughters’ partners, leveraging accusations of allurement or fraudulent means. Previously limited to kidnapping charges, now parents can exploit these laws to justify arrests, posing challenges for inter-religious couples seeking marriage.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON “A CHRISTIAN MARRYING A HINDU IN GURUDWARA!”

What’s the News, Why in News?

A recent petition filed under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act before the Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, has brought to light a perplexing issue regarding the validity of marriages celebrated in alternative forms and later registered under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act.

The case involved a Christian and a Hindu couple who married in an Anand Karaj ceremony at Gurudwara and subsequently registered their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. However, when their marriage deteriorated and they sought divorce under the Special Marriage Act, questions arose about the legitimacy of their union. This case underscores the ambiguity surrounding such marriages and the pressing need for clarity in legal interpretation[20].

Legal Framework in Place:

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a comprehensive legal framework for both solemnizing and registering marriages, catering to couples of diverse religious backgrounds.

Chapter 2 of the Act deals with the solemnization of special marriages, outlining conditions and procedures for marriage between consenting adults.

Chapter 3 pertains specifically to the registration of marriages celebrated in other forms, allowing couples to register their unions under the Special Marriage Act, provided certain conditions are met.

Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act enables the registration of marriages solemnized through alternative ceremonies, thereby extending legal recognition to unions celebrated outside traditional norms.

CASE LAWS: The Karnataka High Court’s interpretation in Rency Mathew v. Bharath Kumar[21] introduced a paradox within the statute by deeming marriages celebrated in alternative forms invalid for registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act.

The court contended that only marriages recognized as valid under personal laws could be registered under the Special Marriage Act, thereby rendering Chapter 3 redundant. This interpretation contradicts the legislative intent of providing legal validity to marriages celebrated through diverse customs and traditions, raising concerns about its impact on matrimonial laws and the rights of couples.

The interpretation laid down by the Karnataka High Court creates confusion and undermines the purpose of Chapter 3 of the Special Marriage Act. By requiring marriages to be valid under personal laws for registration under the Special Marriage Act, the court overlooks the intent of providing legal recognition to unions celebrated outside traditional norms.

This approach not only restricts the rights of couples but also perpetuates legal uncertainty and inconsistency within the system. Moreover, it raises questions about the practical implications of such an interpretation on matrimonial proceedings and the broader legal landscape.

 AFTERMATH:

In cases where couples seek divorce under the Special Marriage Act, the interpretation laid down by the Karnataka High Court could have far-reaching consequences. While mutually consenting parties may find relief in annulment, contested divorces could lead to unjust outcomes, depriving one party of legal redress. The lack of clarity in the law exacerbates the vulnerability of couples and undermines the principle of equality before the law. Moreover, it highlights the urgent need for legislative intervention and judicial clarity to address the inconsistencies within the Special Marriage Act and ensure equitable outcomes for all parties involved in matrimonial disputes.

CONCLUSION:

Despite legal provisions allowing individuals to freely choose their spouses, inter-religious marriages in India continue to face significant hurdles. Whether couples opt for marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) or choose conversion, they encounter various challenges and barriers.

Marriage under the SMA involves navigating through bureaucratic processes, including notice periods, objections, and time constraints, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Conversely, opting for conversion to marry under personal laws often exposes couples to accusations of coercion or undue influence, particularly from their families. With the tightening of anti-conversion laws in certain states, the process becomes even more daunting for interfaith couples.

While the judiciary has consistently upheld the rights of inter-religious couples to marry, there is a pressing need for legislative reforms to facilitate such unions. Amendments to the SMA could streamline the process for interfaith couples, reducing their reliance on conversion. Additionally, state laws should refrain from creating unnecessary hurdles for voluntary conversions for marriage purposes.

While anti-conversion laws were initially intended to prevent forced conversions, they should not impede voluntary conversions for marriage. Individuals should have the autonomy to make such decisions without undue interference from the government or external parties. Enhancing legal safeguards and promoting inclusivity are essential steps towards creating a more equitable environment for inter-religious couples in India.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Chiraag K A

References:

[1] Pothen, “Inter-Religious Marriages in Central India (Malwa).”

[2] Special Marriage Act (SMA) 1954 (India) 

[3] “Gandharva Vivaha in Ancient Hinduism – Love Marriage in Hindu Religion | Hindu Blog”.

[4] Dhanda, “Runaway Marriages.”

[5] The Constitution of India – Article 14, 15, 21.

[6] AIR 2006 SC 2522; (2006) 5 SCC 475; 2006 (56) ACC 234

[7] https://lexpeeps.in/lata-singh-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-anr/

[8] SMA, n 4 S.6(2) 

[9] SMA, n 4 S.7(2) 

[10] “Tightening the Noose on Interfaith Marriage.” 

[11] 1977 AIR 908 1977 SCR (2) 611 1977 SCC (1) 677

[12]  https://legalvidhiya.com/rev-stainislaus-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others/

[13] (CWP No. 438 of 2011).  https://www.minormatters.org/storage/app/uploads/public/5b5/5a5/7bc/5b55a57bcc5bd294686352.pdf

[14] (D.B. Habeas Corpus No. 149 / 2017) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177909177/#:~:text=It%20is%20true%20that%20under,his%2Fher%20religion%20so%20as

[15] Bhumi Sharma – Inter-religious marriages in India – still an obstacle?

[16] Chowdhry, “Private Lives, State Intervention.”

[17] Dhanda, “Runaway Marriages.” 

[18] Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another 2006 

[19] EPW Engage, “Anti-Conversion Laws” 

[20] Also Refer https://www.livelaw.in/articles/christian-hindu-gurudwara-legal-catch-22-marriage-laws-254263

[21] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170003227/ & https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=010202978100&Title=RENCY-MATHEW-Vs.-BHARATH-KUMAR

0

Katchatheevu Island issue – Political turmoil over Sovereignty and Fishermen Rights: India v/s Sri Lanka

Articles , , , , , , , , , ,

Introduction

Katchatheevu Island is a very small and uninhabited island spanning 285 acres in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka. It is spread covers around 1.6 km in length and slightly over 300 m wide at its widest point. It’s in proximity to both the countries. It is situated northeast of Rameshwaram, approximately 33 km from the Indian coast, and it lies around 62 km southwest of Jaffna, Sri Lanka’s northernmost point. The only structure on Katchatheevu is St. Anthony’s Church, built in the early 20th century. During an annual festival, Christian clergy from both India and Sri Lanka jointly conduct services, drawing pilgrims from both nations. However, despite the occasional influx of people, Katchatheevu is unsuitable for permanent habitation due to the absence of a freshwater source on the island. The geographical location of the island and rich fishing ground around the island makes it a point of contention between the two countries.

History on the sovereignty of Katchatheevu Island

The island during the early medieval period was under the control of Sri Lanka’s Jaffna kingdom. But, by the end of 17th century, it became a part of the Ramnad kingdom based in Ramanathapuram, India. In the British reign, it was administered as part of the Madras Presidency. From the early 1921, both India and Sri Lanka asserted their claims over the island to decide maritime fishing boundaries. After Indian Independence and establishment of Sri Lanka as a separate dominion, the status of Katchatheevu Island became a matter of dispute. While, Sri Lanka asserted its sovereignty over Katchatheevu by citing the Portuguese occupation of the island from 1505 to 1658 CE as evidence of jurisdiction, India relying on the various reports argued that the former Raja of Ramnad held possession of it as part of his estate and regularly collected taxes until the Abolition of Zamindari System.

Following such disputes the then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi entered into a bilateral agreement with the Sri Lankan Government, wherein the island was officially ceded to Sri Lanka to resolve the maritime boundary issues in the region. However, since then it has led to a serious dispute especially among the fishermen of both the countries. The Congress Government defended its stance by stating that the decision regarding the island was made after thorough research of historical and other records pertaining to the island. The Katchatheevu Island involves the issue of fishing rights and the maritime security. Indian fishermen have traditionally used the water around the island for fishing purposes. But, consequent to the bilateral agreement in 1974, there have been numerous instances of arrests and detentions of the Indian fishermen and occasional violence. These conflicts have also caused a lot of diplomatic strains between India and Sri Lanka.

Life-line to the Indian Fishermen

The Indian fishermen mostly from the Tamil Nadu regions venture around the island for fishing and often encounter serious actions from the Sri Lankan authorities.

Article 4 of the Agreement stipulated that each State shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the waters, the Islands, the Continental Shelf and the subsoil on its side of the Maritime boundary in the Palk Strait and Palk Bay and Katchatheevu Island was determined as falling within Sri Lankan waters. The following article added that “Indian fishermen and pilgrims would enjoy access to the island as before and would not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel documents or visas for these purposes”.

During the time when the DMK governed Tamil Nadu in 1974, it contended that the Congress government had not considered its perspectives before signing the agreement with Sri Lanka. The party had organised several protests in response.

Under the leadership of J Jayalalithaa, the Tamil Nadu government consistently raised concerns about the issue and even resorted to legal action.

In anticipation of the visit by Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to India last year, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin had written to PM Modi, urging for discussions on the matter. He later corresponded with PM Modi again after numerous fishermen were detained by the Sri Lankan authorities.

In his letter dated February this year, Stalin further emphasised the impact on the livelihood of Tamil fishermen, citing the increasingly limited access to traditional fishing waters, which threatens the economic stability and social fabric of the communities dependent on the fishing industry.

Reasons for the spotlight on the issue

The report, published by The Times of India on March 31st and cited by Modi, was based on documents obtained by Tamil Nadu BJP Chief K Annamalai. It appeared to indicate that past Congress governments did not attach much importance to the island located about 20 km from the Indian coastline. The issue is at the centre of a war of words between the BJP and the opposition Congress, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi accusing the Indira Gandhi government of callously ceeding the territory to Colombo. After Modi cited a media report to criticise the 1974 India Sri Lanka agreement on the island, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge linked the premier’s stance to the upcoming general elections. Kharge likened the island’s ceding to the swapping of enclaves between India and Bangladesh in 2015 under Modi’s leadership and said both were friendly gestures towards neighbouring countries.

Relevance of Berubari Case to the present issue

The Nehru-Noon Agreement proposed to divide Berubari into two equal halves between India and Pakistan and the division was given effect by promulgating the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960. The Supreme Court’s ruling meant that a constitutional amendment would be needed to transfer Indian Territory to another country. While, the Constitution was amended in 1960, Berubari still remained a part of India. In light of such rulings, secession of Katchatheevu Island to the Sri Lankan Government which was done without any Constitutional amendment has to be overlooked.

Other Importance of Island

Geopolitical Location: Katchatheevu is strategically located in the Palk Strait, which serves as a crucial maritime route connecting the Bay of Bengal with the Gulf of Mannar and the Indian Ocean.

Security Concerns: Control over Katchatheevu provides India with strategic leverage in monitoring maritime activities in the region, including movements of vessels and potential security threats.

Fishing Resources: The waters around Katchatheevu are rich in marine resources, including fish and other seafood, which are vital for the livelihoods of fishermen from Tamil Nadu.

Commercial Potential: Control over Katchatheevu could facilitate the development of commercial activities such as fishing, aquaculture, and tourism, thereby boosting economic growth in the region.

Historical and Cultural Claims: Katchatheevu holds historical significance for India, with claims of traditional fishing rights by fishermen from Tamil Nadu dating back centuries. The island has historical and cultural significance for the Tamil communities in India and Sri Lanka, as it is associated with the legendary Tamil sage Thiruvalallur.

Concerns around the Island

The Restrictions on fishing activities around Katchatheevu imposed by Sri Lanka have led to humanitarian concerns, including instances of arrests, harassment, and loss of lives among Indian fishermen. It is essential from a humanitarian perspective to ensure the welfare and safety of fishermen and their families who depend on the waters for their sustenance. Further, Katchatheevu’s proximity to the Indian coast makes it a potential hub for smuggling activities, including arms, drugs, and contraband.

Conclusion

Katchatheevu Island despite its small size holds a large significance. It remains a complex issue between India and Sri Lanka due to its strategic location, impact on fishing rights, and cultural significance. The transfer of the island to Sri Lanka has strained bilateral ties and highlighted the need for a comprehensive resolution addressing maritime security, livelihood concerns of fishermen, and respecting the historical sentiments of both nations. It has turned out to be a blame game amidst the upcoming Lok Sabha polls instead to tackling the key concern around it. hence, resolving this long-standing dispute is the need of the hour to re-establish mutual understanding and fostering cooperation and stability in the region.

0

Supreme Court Decision: EVM-VVPAT to be Cross-Verified for an enhanced electoral transparency and credibility of election results in India.

Articles

Introduction

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court of India on the cross-verification process of EVMs with VVPATS has become a landmark decision in the ongoing discussion related to the electoral transparency and purity in the country. The technological world that is constantly watched today presents a double-edge sword—both a boon and a source of contention—for elections. EVMs were designed not only to ease the voting process, but as well to curb forms of malpractices and lead to quick and accurate results. Nevertheless, doubts over EVMs’ resistance to hacking and manipulation has always been there, thus casting shadows of uncertainty on the authenticity of election results.

The ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) initiated a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, aiming to introduce an order requiring the constituency VVPATs (Voter Verifiable Paper Audits) to be made visible and a paper check to be done at the end of the election. The main reason for this is that people do not hesitate to be sure about the processes and will not have any problem relying and trusting the systems to have the verified results for the election at any time in the process. The purpose of apex court in this particular case is to develop the policy of today. However, it will become a role model for many upcoming generations that will follow its way. Moreover, it has already shown good consequences of institutional accountability and democracy in a developing country.

In this article, we delve into the background of EVMs and VVPATs, the intricacies of the Supreme Court’s decision, and the implications of this ruling on the electoral landscape of India. We explore the significance of this judgment in the context of electoral reforms and democratic governance, while also analyzing the reactions and responses from various stakeholders. Furthermore, we examine the potential implications of the ruling for future electoral processes and the broader implications for democratic principles and institutional integrity.

Background:

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were introduced in India in the 1990s to modernize the electoral process, replacing traditional paper ballots with electronic voting. EVMs were hailed as a game-changer, promising efficiency, accuracy, and reduced incidents of electoral malpractices such as booth capturing and ballot stuffing. Over the years, EVMs became the cornerstone of India’s electoral infrastructure, used in all state and national elections.

However, despite their widespread adoption, EVMs have faced persistent criticism and skepticism regarding their vulnerability to tampering and hacking. Concerns have been raised by political parties, civil society organizations, and activists, alleging the possibility of EVM manipulation to influence election outcomes. These concerns gained traction amid reports of malfunctioning machines, discrepancies in vote counts, and allegations of electoral fraud. In response to these apprehensions, the Election Commission of India (ECI) introduced Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) as an additional layer of security and transparency to the electoral process. VVPATs generates a paper receipt containing the voter’s choices, which is displayed to the voter for verification before being stored securely. The introduction of VVPATs was aimed at addressing doubts regarding the accuracy and integrity of EVMs by providing a physical paper trail that could be used for manual verification in case of disputes.

Despite the incorporation of VVPATs, doubts persisted, prompting calls for more stringent verification measures to ensure the credibility of election results. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organization advocating for electoral reforms and transparency, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court, seeking the mandatory cross-verification of EVMs with VVPAT paper slips. The ADR PIL ignited a heated debate over the adequacy of existing safeguards against electoral fraud and the need for enhanced transparency in the electoral process. The Supreme Court’s decision on this PIL has been eagerly anticipated as a potential watershed moment in addressing the longstanding concerns surrounding EVMs and VVPATs and restoring public confidence in the electoral process.

Overview of the Case:

The case revolves around a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) before the Supreme Court of India. The PIL sought the implementation of a crucial electoral reform: the mandatory cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) in all elections.

The ADR, a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in the electoral process, argued that cross-verification of EVMs with VVPAT paper slips is essential to ensure the integrity and credibility of election results. The PIL contended that while the introduction of VVPATs was a step in the right direction, their effectiveness is limited without a robust mechanism for cross-verification.

The petition raised concerns about the potential vulnerabilities of EVMs to tampering and manipulation, citing instances of malfunctioning machines and discrepancies in vote counts reported during past elections. The ADR argued that cross-verification of EVMs with VVPAT paper slips would provide an additional layer of transparency and accountability, allowing for independent verification of electronic voting results and safeguarding against electoral fraud.

The Supreme Court, in its role as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of democratic principles, deliberated on the merits of the PIL and considered the implications of the proposed electoral reform. The Court heard arguments from the petitioner, respondents, and other stakeholders, examining the legal, technical, and practical aspects of implementing cross-verification of EVMs with VVPATs.

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case carries significant ramifications for the electoral process in India. It not only addresses the specific issue raised in the PIL but also sets a precedent for electoral reforms and safeguards against electoral malpractices. The outcome of the case has been eagerly awaited by political parties, election officials, civil society organizations, and the general public, as it has the potential to shape the future of electoral practices and democratic governance in India.

Supreme Court’s decision:

The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) represents a crucial milestone in the ongoing efforts to enhance electoral transparency and integrity in India. After thorough deliberation and consideration of the arguments presented by the petitioner, respondents, and other stakeholders, the Court rendered its judgment, outlining its stance on the matter.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the importance of ensuring the credibility and verifiability of election results while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. The Court recognized the significance of EVMs and VVPATs in modernizing the voting process and curbing electoral malpractices. However, it also acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the potential vulnerabilities of EVMs and the need for additional safeguards to bolster public confidence in the electoral system.

In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court mandated the implementation of a crucial electoral reform: the cross-verification of EVMs with VVPAT paper slips in all elections. This decision signifies a significant step towards enhancing the transparency and accountability of the electoral process by introducing a mechanism for independent verification of electronic voting results.

The Court’s ruling underscores its commitment to upholding democratic principles and ensuring free, fair, and credible elections in India. By endorsing the cross-verification of EVMs with VVPATs, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of democratic values.

The decision has been hailed as a victory for electoral integrity and accountability, with proponents of electoral reforms applauding the Court’s proactive stance in addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner. It is expected to instill greater confidence among voters in the electoral process and strengthen the foundation of democracy in India.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s ruling sets a precedent for electoral practices and safeguards against electoral malpractices not only in India but also in other democracies around the world. It serves as a reminder of the importance of adapting electoral systems to evolving technological advancements while safeguarding the fundamental principles of democracy. Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision on the cross-verification of EVMs with VVPATs marks a significant milestone in India’s electoral history, signaling a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of democratic ideals.

Future Directions:

Following the Supreme Court’s decision mandating the cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs), attention now turns to the future direction of electoral reforms in India. The ruling has laid the groundwork for enhancing transparency and accountability in the electoral process, but there are several avenues for further progress.

One potential future direction involves the continuous refinement and improvement of EVM and VVPAT technology to address any remaining concerns about their reliability and security. This may include investing in state-of-the-art encryption and authentication mechanisms to safeguard against tampering and hacking attempts.

Additionally, there is a need for ongoing vigilance and oversight to ensure the effective implementation of the Supreme Court’s directive across all stages of the electoral process. This includes training election officials, conducting rigorous audits, and establishing robust mechanisms for monitoring and reporting any irregularities.

Moreover, the ruling underscores the importance of broader electoral reforms aimed at strengthening democratic institutions and practices. This could include measures to enhance voter education and awareness, promote transparency in political financing, and empower independent oversight bodies to ensure the integrity of elections.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision may catalyze public discourse and engagement on electoral issues, leading to increased demand for further reforms. Civil society organizations, political parties, and other stakeholders may advocate for additional measures to enhance electoral transparency, such as the adoption of open-source software for EVMs or the introduction of mandatory post-election audits.

Overall, the future direction of electoral reforms in India will likely be shaped by a combination of technological advancements, legal and regulatory changes, and public demand for greater transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant step forward, but there is still work to be done to ensure that India’s electoral process remains robust, fair, and reflective of the will of the people.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision mandating the cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) represents a landmark moment in India’s electoral history. By endorsing this crucial electoral reform, the Court has reaffirmed its commitment to upholding democratic principles and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

The ruling marks a significant victory for transparency, accountability, and the protection of democratic ideals. It addresses longstanding concerns about the credibility of EVMs and strengthens public confidence in the electoral system. By introducing a mechanism for independent verification of electronic voting results, the Court has taken a proactive stance in safeguarding the sanctity of elections and upholding the constitutional rights of voters.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court’s decision sets the stage for further progress in electoral reforms. It highlights the need for ongoing vigilance, investment in technology, and broader institutional reforms to strengthen democratic governance in India. The ruling is not just a verdict on a specific legal dispute but also a call to action for all stakeholders to work towards ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision on EVM-VVPAT cross-verification serves as a beacon of hope for democracy, both in India and around the world. It demonstrates the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of challenges and reaffirms the principle that elections are the cornerstone of democratic governance. As India continues its journey towards building a more inclusive, transparent, and accountable democracy, the Court’s ruling will undoubtedly be remembered as a pivotal moment in that ongoing endeavor.

References

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-explainer-evm-vvpat-paper-slip-cross-verification-adr-pil-254438

https://www.eci.gov.in/evm-vvpat

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/ex-chief-election-commissioner-op-rawat-vvpats-evms-supreme-court-adr

https://www.business-standard.com/amp/elections/lok-sabha-election/lok-sabha-polls-understanding-vvpat-slips-uses-background-debates-124040200747_1.html

0

“Supreme Court restores Scheduled Caste status to BJP leader Navneet Kaur”

Articles, Blog

Case Title: Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles v. State of Maharashtra and Others

 

Case no.: Civil Appeal NO(S). 27412743 OF 2024

 

Order on: 4th April 2024.

 

Quorum: J.K. Maheshwari J., Sanjay Karol.

 

Facts of the Case:

The central issue in this case concerns the validation of the caste claim made by the appellant, who contested the 2019 Parliamentary election as an independent candidate in Maharashtra’s Amravati constituency, which was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The appellant emerged as the winning candidate, defeating other contestants, including Anandra Vithoba Adsul, who is a respondent in this case.

The controversy arose when the validity of the appellant’s caste claim was challenged by other candidates, primarily alleging that she obtained a ‘Mochi Scheduled Caste’ certificate through the submission of forged documents. The dispute traces back to 2013 when complaints were lodged against the appellant before the Scrutiny Committee, seeking the cancellation of the caste validity certificate issued to her by the Deputy Collector in 2013.

The matter underwent proceedings from 2013 to 2017. Eventually, the High Court, in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 2014 filed by Raju Mankar, set aside the caste validity certificate issued to the appellant and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee with directions to afford all parties a hearing and decide in accordance with the law.

Following the remand by the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee reconsidered the matter. After a thorough examination and considering all documents, the Committee accepted the appellant’s caste claim in an order dated 03.11.2017. The decision was primarily based on two key documents: a bona fide certificate issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science, and Commerce in 2014, mentioning the appellant’s grandfather’s caste as ‘Sikh Chamar’, and an Indenture of Tenancy from 1932, supporting the appellant’s claim of her forefathers migrating from Punjab to Maharashtra in 1932, along with proof of residence.

The aggrieved parties filed respective writ petitions, leading to the present appeals.

Contentions of the Appellant:

Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta argued that the High Court’s intervention in overturning the Scrutiny Committee’s findings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was unjustified. He asserted that the Committee, acting as a quasi-judicial authority under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, conducted a thorough fact-finding process.

He emphasized that the High Court’s role in such cases is to review whether the lower courts or forums acted within their jurisdiction, and not to conduct a roving inquiry. As per precedents like ‘Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others., AIR 1958 SC 398’, ‘Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143’, and ‘Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union and Another, 2000 (4) SCC 245’, the High Court should treat such petitions akin to statutory appeals.

Regarding the admissibility of documents submitted by the appellant, Mr. Mehta argued that they should have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, as they carried a statutory presumption under the Indian Evidence Act. He cited cases like ‘Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113’ and ‘Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 909’ to support his argument. Unless adverse findings were returned by the Vigilance Cell, the Committee should not have deemed these documents inadmissible, particularly as they pertained to the appellant’s forefathers from the pre-independence era.

Contentions of the Respondents:

Senior Counsel Mr. Kapil Sibal contested the case by focusing on the interpretation of the Scheduled Castes Order, 1950, issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. He argued that it is constitutionally untenable to grant a caste certificate to the appellant because the Presidential Order does not specifically mention the caste ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ or ‘Sikh Chamar’ for Maharashtra State. Mr. Sibal emphasized that the Presidential Order must be strictly construed, and no authority has the power to expand its scope. He cited legal precedents, including ‘Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 2 SCC 130’, to support his argument that the Presidential Order is self-explanatory and cannot be interpreted beyond its explicit terms.

Assisting counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat supported the High Court’s findings, alleging that the appellant obtained her caste claim certificate through fraudulent means, submitting multiple forged documents. He argued that even if the documents were genuine, they were self-contradictory and did not justify granting the appellant a caste certificate. Mr. Farasat highlighted discrepancies in the appellant’s submissions, particularly regarding her claimed caste affiliation and the documents presented. He asserted that the Scrutiny Committee’s decision to validate the appellant’s caste claim was impermissible under the law, as neither ‘Sikh Chamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ are recognized as Scheduled Castes in the original Presidential Order for Maharashtra State.

To support his argument, Mr. Farasat pointed to three specific documents submitted by the appellant, alleging that they were forged and fabricated. These documents included her father’s school leaving certificate, her father’s caste certificate (which was cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee), and her own school leaving certificate. He claimed that the changes made to these documents were influenced by political pressure exerted by the appellant’s husband, who is a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly.

 

Issues:

Validity of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles “Mochi” caste certificate, alleging that it had been obtained using fabrication of documents.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

The appeals are from a common judgment and final order dated 08.06.2021 issued by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in three Writ Petitions. Two of these petitions, Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2019, were filed by Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar (Respondents) respectively, seeking to quash the order dated 03.11.2017 of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban, which validated the caste claim of the appellant as ‘Mochi – Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra.

Conversely, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 9426 of 2020, seeking to set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s findings, particularly regarding the non-consideration of her oldest documents that supported her caste claim. The Division Bench, in its judgment, allowed the petitions of Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar, while dismissing the petition of the appellant. The High Court invalidated the Scrutiny Committee’s order dated 03.11.2017 on the grounds of fraudulent acquisition and cancelled the appellant’s caste certificate. Additionally, the Division Bench imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000 on the appellant and ordered her to surrender her caste certificate. Consequently, the present appeals were filed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click Here to View Judgement

1 2 3 4 … 78