Legal Current Affairs for CLAT (September 2024) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Discrimination among Homogenous Groups

Why in News?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that candidates from the same academic cohort cannot be discriminated against based on the date of their admission when determining eligibility for job appointments. This ruling came in response to a case involving the Rajasthan authorities’ 2017 Teacher Grade III Level II recruitment notification, which set different graduation marks criteria based on the timing of candidates' B.Ed course admission. Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan delivered the judgment in the matter of Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

What was the Background of Manilal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.?

On 11th September 2017, the Rajasthan authorities issued an advertisement for Teacher Grade III Level II positions in the Scheduled Area (TSP). The advertisement included different educational qualifications based on when candidates enrolled in B.Ed courses:

• Candidates admitted before 31st August 2009 needed a minimum of 45% marks in graduation.
• Candidates admitted after 31st August 2009 needed a minimum of 50% marks in graduation.

The appellant, who secured admission to a B.Ed course on 23rd October 2009, had 44.58% marks in graduation. He met the qualifying percentage (40%) required for B.Ed admission at the time. Despite scoring above the cut-off marks in the recruitment exam, his name did not appear on the provisional list of selected candidates. He was informed that his candidature was rejected due to his graduation marks being below the 45% threshold.

The appellant, aggrieved by the decision, filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on 27th November 2018. The appellant appealed before the Division Bench, which dismissed his appeal on 27th April 2022.

After the dismissal, the appellant’s appointment, made through an interim order by the High Court on 23rd October 2021, was canceled on 7th June 2022. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s decision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed that it was unjust to discriminate among students who were part of the same academic cohort but admitted at different times. The Court noted that it would be discriminatory if students admitted in the first round of counselling with less than 50% graduation marks were eligible, while those admitted in subsequent rounds were not. The Court emphasized the principle of equality and noted that such discrimination was unsustainable.
• The Court referred to the NCTE notification of 13th November 2019, which clarified that the minimum graduation percentage requirement did not apply to candidates who were admitted to B.Ed courses before 29th July 2011. The Court concluded that treating candidates differently based on their admission date, despite being part of the same academic session, violated the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The Court ruled that applying different qualifying criteria based on the admission round would be arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination. It further held that the appellant should not be penalized for having been admitted in a later round of counselling.

What is Reasonable Classification Under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. However, it does not mandate that all laws must apply uniformly to all individuals. The principle of reasonable classification allows the State to treat different classes of persons differently, provided there is a rational basis for such classification.

For a classification to be valid under Article 14, it must meet two criteria:

1. Intelligible Differentia: There must be a clear distinction between the groups that are classified and those that are not.
2. Rational Relation: The classification must have a rational connection to the objective of the law or action in question.

If these tests are satisfied, the classification is deemed reasonable and constitutional. The classification must not be arbitrary or artificial but should be based on real and substantial differences. The principle ensures that differential treatment is justified by reasonable grounds.

Grounds for Reasonable Classification

Reasonable classification can be based on various grounds, including:

• Age
• Gender
• Geographical or territorial basis
• Nature of business or profession
• Nature of offences and offenders
• Basis under tax laws
• State of government
• The individual or body as a class

What is the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)?

The NCTE is a statutory body established by the Indian government under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. It was formally set up in 1995 to oversee teacher education standards, procedures, and processes across India.

The primary functions of the NCTE include:

• Planning and coordinating the development of the teacher education system.
• Ensuring the maintenance of norms and standards in teacher education.

The NCTE’s jurisdiction covers both central and state governments on matters related to teacher education. Its headquarters are in New Delhi.

Rights of Persons in Preventive Detention

Why in News?

A bench of Justice PK Mishra, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice KV Viswanathan ruled that the right granted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is intended to ensure that a detenue is given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. This ruling was made in the case of Jasleela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors.

What is the Background of Jasleela Shaji v. The Union of India & Ors. Case?

• The detention order against the appellant was passed on 31st August 2023 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention was aimed at preventing the detenue from engaging in activities harmful to the augmentation of foreign exchange in the future.
• The detenue was placed in custody, and the grounds for his detention, along with the documents relied upon, were provided. He was informed of his right to make representations to the Detaining Authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board. The detenue submitted representations to these authorities, but the Jail Authorities sent them via ordinary post. As a result, neither the Detaining Authority nor the Central Government received the representations.
• The Advisory Board determined that there was sufficient cause for the detenue's detention and directed that he remain detained for one year from the date of his detention. Dissatisfied with this, the detenue filed a writ of Habeas Corpus before the Kerala High Court, which rejected the petition. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The Supreme Court framed two issues to be decided in this case:

1. Issue 1: Whether the failure to supply the statements of Ms. Preetha Pradeep (a material document relied upon for the detention) affected the detenue's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?
2. Issue 2: Whether the non-receipt of the representation and the delay in deciding it by the Detaining Authority and Central Government violated the detenue's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?

• Issue 1: The Court ruled that while it is not necessary to provide every document mentioned in passing, it is essential to provide any document directly relied upon by the Detaining Authority if it affects the detenue’s ability to make an effective representation. In this case, the non-supply of the statements of Preetha Pradeep affected the detenue’s right to represent.

• Issue 2: The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the transmitting authority to ensure that the detenue’s representation is sent promptly. The Court held that the Jail Authorities’ negligent approach in sending the representation via ordinary post resulted in the delay and, thus, the valuable right of the detenue to have his representation addressed expeditiously was infringed. The Court stressed that such representations should be decided with the utmost speed.

What is Preventive Detention?

Preventive detention refers to the detention of a person without trial and conviction by a court. It is not aimed at punishing a person for a past offense but at preventing potential future offenses.
Some key laws related to preventive detention include:

• Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (MISA)
• Foreign Exchange Conservation and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA)
• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA)
• Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act, 2002 (POTA)
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008 (UAPA)

What is Article 22 of the Constitution?

Article 22 of the Constitution provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. It is divided into two parts:

• First Part (Article 22(1) and 22(2)) deals with ordinary law.
• Second Part (Article 22(3) to 22(7)) deals specifically with preventive detention.

Provisions under Article 22:

• Article 22(1): Any person arrested must be informed of the reasons for the arrest and must be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of their choice.
• Article 22(2): A detained person must be presented before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours (excluding travel time) of their arrest.
• Article 22(3): This applies to persons arrested under preventive detention laws, stating that the provisions of Article 22(1) and (2) do not apply in such cases.
• Article 22(4): Preventive detention laws cannot authorize detention for more than three months without an Advisory Board’s opinion.
• Article 22(5): Persons detained under preventive laws must be informed of the grounds for their detention and given an opportunity to make a representation.
• Article 22(6): The facts detrimental to public interest need not be disclosed.
• Article 22(7): Parliament may prescribe circumstances under which a person can be detained beyond three months without Advisory Board approval.

What was the Background of Mahesh Sitaram Raut v. State of Maharashtra Case?

In this case, the petitioner was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and the petitioner was detained in Taloja Central Prison, Navi Mumbai.

The petitioner had appeared in the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test (CET) for law examination, ranking 95th, and was provisionally allotted a seat at Siddharth Law College. However, due to his detention, he was unable to be physically present for document verification required for admission. The petitioner was released on bail by an order dated 21st September 2023, but the NIA filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the order.

What are the Case Laws on Preventive Detention?

• Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1981): The Court held that under Article 22(5), the appropriate government must provide the detenue with the earliest opportunity to make a representation. Delay in considering the representation by the detaining authority violates the right to make an effective representation.

• Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab and others (1981): The Court ruled that if the Jail Superintendent or State Government fails to forward the detenue's representation, it deprives the detenue of their right to have their detention revoked by the Central Government. This is a violation of the safeguards under preventive detention laws.

Right to Education

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale and Justice AS Gadkari ruled that imprisonment does not restrict an individual's right to pursue education.

Background of the Case

The petitioner requested permission to take admission in Siddharth Law College, asserting that the right to education is a fundamental right. However, the counsel for the college argued that LL.B. is a professional course, and the university rules mandate a minimum attendance of 75% during each academic year. Since the petitioner was in jail, it was impossible for him to meet the attendance requirement. The matter was brought before the High Court for resolution.

What were the Court’s Observations?

The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared for the Common Entrance Test (CET) and was seeking admission to the LL.B. course at the law college. The Court emphasized that denying the petitioner the opportunity to take admission in the college, despite the seat being allotted following the proper procedure, was a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to education.

The Court ordered that the petitioner should be allowed to take admission in the LL.B. course at Siddharth Law College. However, since the college required the physical presence of the candidate for document verification, the Court left it to the college to consider allowing the petitioner’s authorized representative or next of kin to attend the college for verification or alternatively, for the petitioner to sign the necessary documents from Taloja Central Prison.

The Court clarified that the petitioner was not exempted from fulfilling any other requirements set by the university or the law college. Therefore, the university and college were free to deny the petitioner permission to sit for exams if he failed to meet the attendance or other eligibility criteria.

What is Right to Education?

In the landmark case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that the citizens of India have a fundamental right to education. This right is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 further reinforced the right to education:

• Article 21A: This article mandates that the state provide free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 to 14 years.
• Article 45: This article provides that the state should ensure early childhood care and education for all children until they reach six years of age.
• Article 51A(k): It makes it a fundamental duty of every parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to their child or ward between the ages of 6 to 14 years.

To enforce Article 21A, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act) was enacted in 2009.

Relevant International Legal Provisions Regarding Right to Education

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

• Education should be free, especially at the elementary and fundamental stages.
• Technical and professional education should be made widely available, and higher education should be accessible to all based on merit.
• Education should promote tolerance and friendship among nations, races, and religions.
• Parents have the right to choose the kind of education for their children.

Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

• States recognize the right of every child to education, and should take measures to ensure equal opportunities for education.
• Disciplinary measures should respect the dignity of the child, and international cooperation in education should be promoted.

Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):

• States recognize the right to education for everyone and should ensure that educational institutions are established and directed by individuals and bodies in accordance with the law.

Article 14 of ICESCR:

• States should provide free and compulsory primary education and develop a detailed plan to ensure this provision.

What is the Right to Education Act, 2009?

The Right to Education Act (RTE Act), which came into effect on 1st April 2010, enshrines Article 21A into law.

• Free Education: Under the RTE Act, no child (except those enrolled in private schools not supported by the government) is required to pay any fees or charges that could prevent them from completing elementary education.
• The Act holds the government accountable for providing free and compulsory education to children in the age group of 6-14 years.
• Key Provisions of the RTE Act:
  • Children are entitled to free and compulsory education until the completion of elementary education.
  • Children who have not been admitted to school can be placed in age-appropriate classes.
  • The Act lays down the duties of the government, local authorities, and parents in ensuring the provision of free education.
  • It mandates the appointment of qualified teachers, and prohibits practices like physical punishment, mental harassment, capitation fees, and private tuition.
  • It sets norms for school infrastructure, pupil-teacher ratios (PTR), school working days, and teacher working hours.

Landmark Cases on Right to Education

Unni Krishnan JP And Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. (1993):

• The Supreme Court held that the right to education is implicit in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The state cannot deprive individuals of their right to education except according to a procedure prescribed by law.

Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (2012):

• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 12 of the RTE Act, which mandates that private schools, whether state-funded or not, must reserve 25% of their seats for children from disadvantaged groups. The Court reiterated that it is the state's primary responsibility to ensure free and compulsory education, particularly for children who cannot afford primary education.

Master Jai Kumar Through his Father Manish Kumar v. Aadharshila Vidya Peeth and Ors. (2024):

• The Delhi High Court held that education provided by unaided private institutions falls under the definition of "public duty". Denying admission to a child after a seat has been allotted violates the objectives of the RTE Act.

Child Custody vis-a-vis Article 226 of Constitution

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that when dealing with writ petitions for habeas corpus concerning child custody, the welfare of the child must be the primary consideration. This judgment was delivered in the case Somprabha Rana v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

Background of the Somprabha Rana v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case:

• The mother of the child in this case tragically died by hanging on 27th December 2022. Following her death, the maternal grandparents (respondents 2 and 3) and the child’s father (respondent 4) approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents claimed that while the father was handling postmortem formalities, the appellant’s (the deceased mother’s sisters) took the child, who was 11 months old at the time, without the father's consent.
• The father was arrested for offenses under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but was granted bail on 19th April 2023. A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed, and the Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to return the child to the respondents.
• The Supreme Court intervened on 7th July 2023, staying the High Court’s judgment. On 5th December 2023, the Court granted leave to hear the case and continued the stay, observing that the father could apply for custody in the appropriate court. To date, the father has not filed any such application, and an application made by the appellants for custody was later withdrawn.

Key Question Before the Court

The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the child’s custody, given that the child was one year and five months old at the time the judgment was passed.

Court’s Observations

• The High Court had disturbed the child’s custody solely on the grounds that the father was the child’s biological parent, without considering the welfare of the child.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the welfare of the child must be the primary concern in cases of child custody. It observed that custody matters cannot be decided mechanically, especially in habeas corpus petitions involving minors.
• The Court pointed out that a child cannot be treated as movable property. It cautioned that disrupting the child's custody without considering the emotional and psychological impact is not appropriate.
• The doctrine of parens patriae (the state's responsibility to protect the interests of the child) should guide the courts in such matters.
• Given the young age of the child and the fact that the child had not met the father or grandparents for a considerable time, the Court declined to immediately transfer custody to them.
• The Court also noted that family or civil courts are in a better position to handle child custody cases, especially as they can assess the emotional and psychological well-being of the child more effectively.
• While the Court did not grant immediate custody to the father, it allowed the father the right to access and meet the child, reinforcing the importance of the child’s relationship with both parents.

Law on Child Custody and Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The Supreme Court laid down several important principles for dealing with child custody cases under Article 226 of the Constitution:

• A writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, and it is within the discretion of the High Court to decide whether to exercise its powers in such cases.
• If the High Court finds that the custody of the child is illegal, it may still decline to disturb the custody if it believes that doing so would not be in the child’s best interests.
• The welfare of the minor should be the paramount consideration when deciding child custody matters.
• The Court emphasized that the principle of welfare applies even in cases involving habeas corpus petitions for minors.

Principle of Best Interest of the Child in Custody Cases:

• Section 17 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890:

  • Section 17(1) mandates that when appointing or declaring a guardian, the Court should be guided by what is in the best interest of the child, considering all relevant circumstances.
  • Section 17(2) further outlines the factors the Court should consider, including the child’s age, sex, religion, the proposed guardian’s character, capacity, and relationship with the child.
  • Section 17(3) allows the Court to consider the child’s preference if the child is old enough to form an intelligent opinion.

• Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:

  • This section mandates that the welfare of the minor should be the paramount consideration when appointing a guardian for a Hindu child.

• Judicial Precedents:

  • In Ashish Ranjan v. Anupam Tandon (2010), the Court stressed that the moral, ethical, and physical welfare of the child must be weighed when considering custody, and the child should not be treated as property.
  • In Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024), the Court considered socioeconomic and educational opportunities, healthcare, and overall well-being, along with the child’s preferences, when deciding on custody.

Why Family Courts Are Better Equipped to Decide Child Custody:

• Family Courts are in a better position to assess the needs and welfare of children because:
  • Family courts often have dedicated child welfare committees and facilities, such as child centers or play areas, where the child can be observed in a neutral environment.
  • Judges in Family Courts can interact directly with the child and also observe the dynamics of the family.
  • Courts can appoint psychological experts to assess the emotional and mental well-being of the child, which is crucial for making an informed decision about custody.
  • Family Courts can also monitor visitation rights and custody arrangements, ensuring they are in the best interest of the child.

OCI Card Application Based on Marriage

Why in News?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the physical or virtual presence of an Indian spouse is mandatory for processing an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card application for foreign nationals, in accordance with Section 7-A(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This decision overturned the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which had allowed the processing of the application without the presence of the Indian spouse. The Supreme Court emphasized that the statutory requirements for OCI registration must be strictly adhered to. Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhuli, and SVN Bhatti delivered the judgment in the case Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi (2024).

Background of Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi

• The case involved an Iranian national, Bahareh Bakshi, who married an Indian citizen in Dubai in 2009 after he converted to Islam. Following the marriage, disputes arose between the couple, leading to their estrangement. The wife moved to Bengaluru, while the husband relocated to Goa. The wife pursued higher education in India and filed a maintenance petition against her husband, which was granted by a Family Court in Bengaluru.
• In November 2020, Bakshi applied for an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card based on her marriage to an Indian citizen under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. However, when she went to submit her application at the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in Bengaluru, officials refused to accept it, citing the need for her husband’s presence.
• Bakshi filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to waive the requirement for her estranged husband’s presence in the process of her OCI application. The Delhi High Court’s Single Judge bench allowed her petition, directing the Union of India to accept her application without the husband's presence. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision but clarified that the Union of India could still investigate the veracity of the application.
• The Union of India appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that the physical or virtual presence of the Indian spouse is mandatory according to the Visa Manual and the checklist for OCI card applications. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the presence of the estranged Indian spouse is essential for processing the OCI application under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Court’s Observations:

• The Supreme Court ruled that the Citizenship Act, 1955 allows supplementary procedures, including interviews as specified in the Visa Manual and checklist for OCI card applications. The Court observed that the physical or virtual presence of the spouse is crucial for verifying the authenticity of the marriage and for the effective consideration of OCI card applications under Section 7A(1)(d).
• The Court criticized the Delhi High Court for characterizing the spousal presence requirement as “arbitrary,” noting that no challenge had been made to the regulations underlying the requirement. It stressed that it is the applicant’s responsibility to prove the genuineness of their application in the prescribed manner, which includes facilitating the presence of the spouse for the interview.
• While acknowledging the provision under Section 7A(3) for special circumstances, the Court maintained that the general procedure requiring the spousal presence should be followed in most cases.

Who Are Overseas Citizens of India?

• The Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status was introduced through amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955 in August 2005. It allows Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) who were citizens of India on 26th January 1950, or who were eligible to become citizens of India on that date, to register as Overseas Citizens of India.
• OCI status provides a lifelong visa for visiting India, exemption from registration with local authorities for extended stays, and general parity with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in economic, financial, and educational fields. However, OCI holders are excluded from rights related to agricultural land and plantation properties. OCI status does not grant dual citizenship or political rights, such as voting or eligibility for public office.
• In 2015, the provision for Overseas Citizens of India was modified with the introduction of the "Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder" scheme, which merged the Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) card scheme with the OCI card scheme.

Person of Indian Origin (PIO)

A Person of Indian Origin (PIO) refers to a foreign citizen (excluding nationals of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Iran, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal) who:

• Held an Indian passport at any time;
• Or, whose parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents were born and permanently resident in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 and other territories that became part of India thereafter;
• Or, is a spouse of a citizen of India or a PIO.

The PIO category was merged with the OCI category in 2015.

Provisions of the Overseas Citizen of India Under the Citizenship Act, 1955:

• Section 7A deals with the registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) Cardholders.

Eligibility for Registration as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder:

• Section 7A(a): Persons who are citizens of another country but were Indian citizens at or after the commencement of the Constitution, were eligible for Indian citizenship when the Constitution commenced, or belonged to a territory that became part of India after 15th August 1947.
• Section 7A(b): Minor children of persons eligible under category (a).
• Section 7A(c): Minor children whose both parents are Indian citizens, or one parent is an Indian citizen.
• Section 7A(d): Foreign spouses of Indian citizens or registered OCI Cardholders, provided that:
  • The marriage is registered and has subsisted for at least two continuous years before application.
  • The spouse undergoes prior security clearance by a competent Indian authority.

Exclusions:

Persons who or whose parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents are or were citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other country specified by the Central Government are not eligible.

Conversion of Existing Cards:

The Central Government may specify a date from which existing Persons of Indian Origin Cardholders will be deemed Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders.

Special Circumstances:

The Central Government may, in special circumstances and after recording those circumstances in writing, register a person as an OCI Cardholder, notwithstanding the eligibility criteria.

Application and Registration Process:

The registration is subject to conditions, restrictions, and procedures prescribed by the Central Government, and interested individuals must apply for consideration.

Government Authority:

The Central Government has the authority to:

• Prescribe conditions and restrictions for registration.
• Specify countries whose citizens are ineligible for registration.
• Determine the date for conversion of existing cards.
• Register individuals in special circumstances.

Sections 7B, 7C, and 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955

• Section 7B - Rights of OCI Cardholders: OCI Cardholders are not entitled to certain rights reserved for Indian citizens, including:

  • Equality in public employment opportunities
  • Eligibility to be elected as President or Vice-President
  • Appointment as Supreme Court or High Court judges
  • Voting rights and eligibility for membership in Parliament or State Legislatures
  • Appointment to public services, except those specified by special order.

• Section 7C - Renunciation of OCI Card: An adult OCI Cardholder may renounce their card through a prescribed declaration. Upon renunciation, the cardholder’s foreign-origin spouse and minor children who obtained OCI status will also lose their OCI status.

• Section 7D - Cancellation of OCI Registration: The Central Government may cancel an OCI registration if:

  • It was obtained through fraud, false representation, or concealment of material facts.
  • The cardholder shows disaffection towards the Constitution of India.
  • The cardholder engages in unlawful activities during wartime.
  • The cardholder is imprisoned for two or more years within five years of registration.
  • The cardholder violates provisions of the Act or other laws.
  • Cancellation is necessary for national security, sovereignty, or public interest.
  • The marriage basis for OCI status is dissolved or the cardholder remarries during the subsistence of the original marriage.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai recently ruled that the consent of the girl is mandatory before the termination of pregnancy, and parents cannot force the termination. This ruling was made in the case of X v. State of Gujarat.

What was the Background of the X v. State of Gujarat Case?

• A man filed a plea requesting the termination of his 16-year-old daughter's 25-week pregnancy.
• The petition was based on the girl's age and her socio-economic background, seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy.
• The case before the Gujarat High Court was whether the termination of the pregnancy should be allowed under these circumstances.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court ruled that the girl’s consent is the primary factor in deciding whether the pregnancy can be terminated.
• It emphasized that parents cannot force the minor to undergo the procedure.
• In response to the counsel’s argument that the father's consent was also necessary, the Court clarified that consent and coercion are distinct, and the girl cannot be compelled to terminate the pregnancy.
• The father eventually withdrew his plea, and the Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn.

What is Medical Termination of Pregnancy?

• In India, abortion was illegal until the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) of 1971 was enacted, coming into force on April 1, 1972.
• Section 3 of the MTP Act outlines the conditions under which pregnancies can be terminated by registered medical practitioners (RMPs).

Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy:

1. Up to 20 weeks of pregnancy:

   • If the medical practitioner believes, in good faith, that continuing the pregnancy would risk the life of the woman or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.
   • Or if there is a substantial risk that the child would suffer serious physical or mental abnormalities.

2. Between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy:

   • For specific categories of women, termination may be allowed if two registered medical practitioners believe that the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life or health, or if there is a risk of serious abnormalities in the fetus.

3. Beyond 24 weeks:

   • Termination can only be allowed if it is necessary to save the life of the woman, with the approval of one RMP (Section 5).
   • If there are substantial fetal abnormalities, approval from a Medical Board is required (Section 3(2B)).

Rule 3B of MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021 and Section 3 (2)(b) of MTP Act:

• Rule 3B specifies categories of women who are eligible for termination under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act. These include:
  • Survivors of sexual assault, rape, or incest.
  • Minors.
  • Women who have experienced a change in marital status (e.g., widowhood or divorce).
  • Women with disabilities, as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
  • Women with mental illnesses.
  • Women facing pregnancies in humanitarian or emergency situations.

Explanations under Section 3(2) of the MTP Act:

• Explanation 1: A pregnancy resulting from failure of contraception methods may be presumed to cause grave mental injury to the woman.
• Explanation 2: A pregnancy resulting from rape is presumed to cause grave mental injury to the woman.

Consent Requirements:

• Section 3(4) of the MTP Act requires the consent of a guardian for pregnant women under 18 years of age or women with mental illness.

What is the International Position on Termination of Pregnancy?

United States:

• Roe v. Wade (1973): Prior to this ruling, abortion was illegal in 30 states. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion as a constitutional right under the "right to privacy."
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): Reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade with a 5-4 majority.
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022): Overturned Roe v. Wade, revoking the constitutional right to abortion.

United Kingdom:

• The Abortion Act, 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, 1990) allows abortion on specific grounds, including risks to the woman's life, mental or physical health, or if the fetus suffers from serious abnormalities.

Other Countries:

• According to 2017 data, 59 countries allow elective abortions, with 7 countries permitting it beyond 20 weeks: Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. India now joins this list.

What are the Landmark Judgments on the MTP Act?

• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009):
  The Supreme Court held that the right to terminate a pregnancy is part of a woman’s constitutional right to make reproductive choices under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

• High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra (2018):
  The Bombay High Court ruled that forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy infringes upon her bodily autonomy and mental well-being.

• X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of NCT Delhi (2022):
  The Supreme Court ruled that all women are entitled to terminate their pregnancy under the MTP Act within 24 weeks.