Leagl Article

Introduction Regardless of the several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court about the legal position of illegitimate children and their rights. The conflict in the validation of their legal right continues to exist. “Our society and judicial system do not accept children born outside of wedlock. This is  known as Nullius Filius in Latin terms, simply meaning illegitimate child.” However, with time, society gradually granted them the same status and legal right to inherit property. As per the provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: “All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection” The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 states that: “All children have the rights set out in the UNCRC. Individual children and young people shouldn’t be discriminated against when these rights are realized.” This article provides detailed information and clears the juridical status of Illegitimate children in Indian statutes like The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, The Hindu Succession Act 1956, The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, and The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 16 (3) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 entitles illegitimate children to receive only the property of their parents and not of any other connections. The child would only be entitled to acquire the father’s self-acquired property and not the ancestral property. However, in 2011 the Hon’ble SC in its judgment in the case of Revansiddappa & others v. Mallikarjuna & others established that “The illegitimate children have the right in their parent’s self-acquired, as well as ancestral properties under the HMA.” The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 An illegitimate child is related to the mother and each other, but not by the father. “They do not have the entitlement to inherit their father’s success.” Under the Hindu Succession Act 1956, a mother can always inherit the property of her illegitimate children and an illegitimate child can inherit the property of his or her mother or of an illegitimate brother or sister. The father has no right to claim the property of an illegitimate child. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Under Section 20(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, an illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor. Maintaining children whether they are legitimate or illegitimate is an obligation. Our statutes ensure this, and the responsibility falls on the parents. In respect to the maintenance of illegitimate children, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) the Madras HC while hearing a matter explicitly held that: “An illegitimate minor child is entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of CrPC. Even if we discard the fact of marriage. The minor child, as the illegitimate daughter of the respondent, would still have the entitlement to maintenance. Hence, not only the Hindu law but also the Central law in India protects the right to claim maintenance of an illegitimate child. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 6 (b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 states that the mother shall be recognized as the Natural and First Guardian of an illegitimate child. After her death, the father assumes the role of natural guardian for such a child. Further, the SC has ruled recently that a single mother case of the solitary guardian of an illegitimate child in India. Recently in 2022, the Bombay HC in the case of Dharmesh Vasantraishah v. Renuka Prakash Tiwari, held that – “A mother is the natural guardian of an illegitimate child. And the father can only claim the guardianship after the mother.” Conclusion Once Leon R. Yankwich rightly said, “There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.” The offspring born out of an immoral relationship with the parents has no role in the activities in which their parents indulge. One should not label these children as illegitimate at all. We should consider and regard all newborn babies the same in all aspects, irrespective of their parents’ relation. The parliament has got the recommendation to remove the term ‘illegitimate’ from all the statutes and reimplement the laws equally for all to safeguard the future of the children.  Since the consequences of the illegitimate relationship between the parents affect the children born out of such a relationship only. The society must protect the rights and social status of these children at any cost.

Introduction Recently the offence of Adultery mentioned under section 497 of The Indian Penal Code has been decriminalized by the Hon’ble SC in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India 2017, striking down the previous judgments in the case of Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India 1985 and Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay 1951.The Five Judge bench of the court struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional. On the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Additionally, the court struck down Section 198(2) CrPC only to the extent that it applies to the offense of adultery. This landmark judgment became a significant topic of debate among citizens. It garnered attention due to its association with various religious and social concerns. It was equally appreciated and criticized by the people. In favor of the judgment Section 497 of IPC is evidently discriminatory based on the sex of the spouse. This clear bias violates the fundamental right, namely, the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is limited to the extramarital affairs of a married woman. This section imposes punishment exclusively on men engaging in adultery outside wedlock, even in cases of mutual and consensual activity. Notably, the section omits any punishment for women, even as abettors, treating married women differently from their male counterparts. Given that sexual intercourse involves at least two individuals. There is no legitimate reason to exempt or grant immunity to women from the culpability or punishment of adultery. The intent behind the insertion of Art. 15(3) is to uplift and strengthen the social status of a particular class in society for substantive equality. While it delivers favorable outcomes such as maternity benefits and women’s quotas. However, it cannot be utilized to claim exemption from prosecution for an offense. Further, Section 497 spreads gender and sexual stereotypes, which ultimately constitute a form of discrimination based on the sex of the spouse. Further, a nine-judge Constitutional bench in the case of K M Puttaswamy v. Union of India, stated: “sexual privacy is an integral part of the right to privacy under Article 21.” Privacy includes at least a right to make one’s own decisions about his or her intimate matters. One’s right to sexual freedom necessarily includes the right to choose a sexual partner, even when legally married to another person.. Penalizing the adulterous relationship infringes on the right to choose a sexual partner or make one’s sexual preferences. Thus, no such provision can deprive any person of their freedom to decide their sexual partner. Section 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) grants the husband the right to prosecute the third person with whom adultery has been committed but denies the woman her right to prosecute her husband for the offense of adultery. Moreover, law cannot penalize all immoral activities. Various practices, perceived as highly immoral and existing socially, are still prevalent in our society. Social practices like inter-caste marriage or contraception may be termed as immoral by some of the societies but the state cannot prohibit these practices by law. The Delhi HC observed in the case of Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi and stated that: “If there is any type of “morality” that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be “constitutional” morality and not public morality.” Even though many religions condemn and rigorously sanction the commission of adultery, it is not an integral part of any religion, and the decriminalization of adultery will not affect any kind of religious practice or faith. This sec.497 IPC treats women as chattel or the property of their husbands. This law grants husbands a dominant position compared to wives. The women stand as the ‘property of the husband’ since she has no right to sue either their adulterous husband or his paramour u/s. 497 IPC. Apart from this, sec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code deliberately lacks a sense of collective public good because it requires the offense to be committed without the consent or connivance of the husband. There will be no offense if the Husband gives consent to this relationship of his Wife with another man outside the wedlock. If the commission of offense depends upon the consent of any person, then there is no “collective good” in Sec. 497 IPC to hold that Adultery is an offense. Against the judgment The decriminalization of such a sinful act as Adultery is ultimately affecting the sanctity of marriage, society, religion, and other marriage-related institutions. This judgment of striking down Sec. 497 IPC is destructing the institution of marriage and encouraging the morale of those engaged in such offense and is going against the customs and traditions of every religion, such as in Manu smriti provided for punishment for those addicted to intercourse with other men’s wives by the punishment which causes terror, followed by banishment, in Christianity find adultery an immoral and a sin for both men and women. Even Islamic law does not support adultery. Therefore, quashing adultery as an offense is a negative derivative of the customs and practices of every religion. The Hon’ble Bench has led to an increase in the rate of Adultery cases and guards the women. The decision will harm the religious and personal rights of the society at large. The State can fix Section 497’s anomalies and make it gender-neutral through the authority granted by the Indian Constitution, but it would be incorrect to deem Section 497 of the IPC read with Section 198 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code completely invalid. Art. 15 (3) allows the State to make “special provisions” for women and children. This special power allows the state to make laws that are completely in favor of women not against them. But in the present matter, given how badly women’s standing has deteriorated even today, Lord Macaulay’s basis of discrimination while crafting Section 497 of the IPC was justified and reasonable. Decriminalizing the practice of Adultery has given the

Introduction “Anti-Terrorism is a fight between Justice and Evil, Civilisation and Savagery.” Considering this ideology, they made a significant modification to Section 35. This involved adding a provision for individuals who are or will be potential terrorists, engaging in activities that increase terrorism. The Union government passed amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA) in 2019. This allows the designation of any organization or individual as terrorists if they: commit or participate in the acts of terrorism; prepare for acts of terror; promote terrorism, or individuals otherwise involved in terrorism. After this amendment, Several questions have been raised on the constitutionality of this amendment, questioning whether the UAPA Act 2019 is manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the constitution of India. State’s obligation towards the citizens The group of individuals itself forms an organization. Earlier, authorities could declare only an organization as a terrorist organization. Once an organization fulfilled the grounds mentioned under Section 35 of the UAPA, authorities registered it as a terrorist organization. However, this later resulted in the formation of a new terrorist organization by the same group of people. This process degraded and limited the whole purpose of implementing the UAPA to prevent terrorism in India. The offenders took advantage of this loophole in the act to use it against the citizens of India itself. Remedies Available for the accused under UAPA Now after the amendment, any person or organization charged u/s 35, possesses several remedies too which are as follows: firstly, he or she or it may apply for denotification via application to the central government requesting to de-notify his or her or its name from the list of terrorists; Secondly, if the Central Government rejects the application after due consideration, the applicant (he/she/it) may approach to the Review Committee, constituted for reviewing the decisions related to the UAPA Act, within 1 month from the date of such refusal of an application for denotification; Thirdly, the aggrieved party may approach the Hon’ble High Court through an appeal against the verdict of the Review Committee; and Fourthly, may appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court if not satisfied by the judgment of the High Court concerned. Further, as per Section 37(3) of the act, the Chairman of the Review Committee shall be a sitting or retired judge of the High Court, hence it leaves no home for the Central Government to interfere and perform its unlimited arbitrary powers in the matter of offenses under this act. The present central government claims that the UAPA Act 2019 is neither manifestly arbitrary nor ultra vires the constitution of India. Controversial situations One major criticism of this Amendment Act, 2019 is that it makes the offense non-bailable, unilaterally categorizing a person as a terrorist without providing them a lawful opportunity to be heard. This goes against the principles of the Doctrine of Natural Justice and Audi Alteram Partem (listen to the other side). In Dev Dutt v. Union of India AIR 2008, it was held that “Any administrative having civil consequence must be made in consonance with natural justice”. Furthermore, concerning the petitions of Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India 2019 and Association for Protection of Civil Rights v. Union of India 1997, the accused were registered on the same grounds, that an individual may be identified as a terrorist without any judicial scrutiny even before the commencement of a trial, thus they have challenged this Amendment Act as being violative of the Right to Equality enshrined under article 14, Free Speech under Article 19 and Life & Liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution. Conclusion As an anti-terrorist legislation, it plays a vital role. It is instrumental in maintaining the security and integrity of the nation. I’s purpose is to prevent and control terrorism. When authorities charge any individual or organization under this Act for any offense, given the recent amendments, obtaining bail and release from confinement becomes almost impossible. This situation automatically creates chaos and disharmony among the citizens. Therefore, scrutinizing such an act is imperative. To avoid curtailing or infringing upon the civil, political, and legal rights of individuals, one should conduct this scrutiny. It must undergo regular judicial review for the sound delivery of justice. 

10 MOST IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS UNDER ARBITRATION LAW IN INDIA Due to its effectiveness, efficiency, and speed, arbitration is becoming a more popular form of alternative conflict resolution than court-based litigation. With the goal of modernising Indian Arbitration Law and bringing it in line with the best international practices, the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) was modelled after the UNCITRAL framework of legislation.   The Supreme Court of India (SC) and other High Courts (HC) issued a number of notable rulings in 2021 that addressed the legal status and applicability of the Arbitration Act’s provisions. In order to guarantee that the alternative dispute resolution procedures outlined in Indian Law adhere to international norms, the Indian Government also modified the Arbitration Act.   Some Of the Important Judgments are: N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors, SLP (Civil) Nos.13132-13133 of 2020)   Issue: Whether an arbitration agreement would be void, ineffective, or unenforceable if the underlying contract was not stamped in accordance with the applicable stamp legislation?   The SC ruled that even if the substantive contract is not admissible in evidence or that it cannot be implemented due to non-payment of stamp duty, in such cases the arbitration agreement would not be considered void, unenforceable, or non-existent. However, due to a contradiction with an earlier ruling, the SC referred the aforementioned issue to be addressed by a Constitution Bench of Five Judges.   Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.,SLP (CIVIL) No.665 of 2021   Issue: Whether a delay of more than 120 days can be condoned in case of filing of appeal against the order?   The SC ruled that a delay in submitting an appeal against a court order under the Arbitration Act may be excused even after 120 days. However, only in rare circumstances may such a delay be excused.   Inox Renewables Limited v. Jayesh Electricals Limited, SLP (C) No.29161 of 2019   Issue: Whether by mutual consent can the parties to arbitration change the seat of arbitration.   The SC ruled that changing the “venue” of arbitration by both parties’ consent will also change the juridical “seat” of arbitration.   PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited, SLP (CIVIL) NO.3936 OF 2021   Issue: Whether two Indian parties can agree on a foreign seat of arbitration?   The SC held that two Indian parties may select a foreign arbitral seat and that those who pick such a foreign seat may seek temporary relief from Indian courts.   Rahul S Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors, SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS. 7965-7966/2020   In order to expeditiously carry out decree execution, the SC issued guidelines that all executing courts must abide by. The guidelines noted that an executing court must resolve the execution proceedings within 6 (six) months of the date of filing, and that this deadline may only be extended by providing written justification for the delay.   Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd, COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 4466 OF 2020   Issue: Whether the arbitral tribunal can go beyond the terms of the contract between the parties?   An arbitral decision that violated the provisions of the parties’ contract was overturned by the Bombay High Court. Unless the parties mutually agree to allow the arbitrator to settle a dispute by applying what they deem to be “fair and reasonable,” the Bombay High Court ruled that the arbitrator’s jurisdiction is restricted to the agreement and that they can pass an order that may be the subject of reference.   Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation& Ors., CS(COMM) 295/2020   The Delhi High Court issued a precedent-setting order prohibiting the implementation of a foreign court’s rulings. Interdigital Technology Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court asking for an injunction against Xiaomi Corporation for allegedly infringing on its patents.   Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8343-8344 OF 2018   The SC ruled that a non-signatory who is functioning as the arbitration agreement’s signatory’s alter ego would be subject to the enforcement of a foreign award. The SC concluded that being a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is not a reason for Indian courts to refuse enforcement of a foreign judgement, underscoring the limited grounds on which enforcement of a foreign award may be refused by courts.   DLF Homes Developers Ltd. v. Rajapura Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Anr, ARBITRATION PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17 OF 2020   The SC ruled that even though the parties have an arbitration agreement, the court may nevertheless conduct a prima facie review and deny a request to send a matter to arbitration if it does not fall under the terms of the arbitration agreement.   Tata Capital Finance Ltd. v. Shri Chand Construction and Apartment Pvt. Ltd., AO(OS) 40/2020 and CM No. 15441/2020   The Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitration agreement that gives one party unequal authority to end the arbitration process on its own would be legally unenforceable. Additionally, a clause in an arbitration agreement that directs one party’s claims to arbitration while leaving the other party’s claims open to another remedy would be illegal under the law.   Reference: https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/1156308/arbitration-law-in-india-key-judgments-and-updates-for-the-year-2021   https://www.barandbench.com/columns/40-important-judgments-on-arbitration-2021   https://blog.ipleaders.in/important-judgments-arbitration-passed-2021/ https://www.barandbench.com/columns/50-important-arbitration-judgements-january-may-2022   Need Free Legal Advice or Assistance Online? For any Dispute Resolution (ADR) related matter, please Post Your Requirement anonymously and get free proposals OR find the Best Dispute Resolution (ADR) Lawyers and book a free appointment directly.