https://www.facebook.com/101061686310876/

The Black Coat, WZ/518, Delhi (2026)

17/10/2023

The Supreme Court refused to grant legal recognition for q***r marriages in India.

Justice S Ravindra Bhat held that an entitlement of legal union of marriage could only be through enacted law. However, consistent with the statement made to the Court by the Solicitor General, Justice Bhat too concluded that the Union shall set up a High Powered Committee to examine the rights and benefits to q***r couples. He stated that the present case was not one where the Supreme Court could require the State to create a legal status. Differentiating the present case from previous cases pertaining to q***r rights, he stated that earlier, the Court's intervention was in instances where the Court protected q***r persons from violence or criminalisation based on State's duty to protect citizen's right. However, the present matter was not the same. He asserted that marriage was a "social institution" and there could not be an unqualified right to marry which was to be treated as a fundamental right. "If it is agreed that marriage is a social institution, does it follow that any section of society which wishes for the creation of a like institution, can seek relief by court intervention?," he stated.

Justice Bhat further held that the Court could not create a legal framework for q***r couples and it was for the legislature to do as there were several aspects pertaining to policy to be taken into consideration. However, he reiterated that q***r couples had a right to relationships. In his judgement, Justice Bhat held– "All q***r persons have the right to choose their partners. But State cannot be obligated to recognize the bouquet of rights flowing from such a Union. We disagree with the CJI on this aspect." Further, he stated that a gender neutral interpretation of the Special Marriage Act may not be equitable and could result in women being exposed to vulnerabilities in an unintended manner. While recognising that denial of benefits such as a PF, ESI, pension etc to q***r partners may have an adverse and a discriminatory effect, Justice Bhat stated that addressing these concerns may involve a range of policy choices and thus, the High Powered Committee formed by the Union, as submitted by the SG, shall examine these aspects. Justice Bhat agreed with the CJI on the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry as per existing laws. However, he disagreed with the CJI on the right of q***r couples to adopt and stated that Regulation 5(3) of the CARA regulation could not be held unconstitutional. Justice Hima Kohli concurred with Justice Bhat.

***an ***anwedding ***ancouple ***r ***anpride

30/09/2023

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted relief to a live-in couple, the girl being a minor, seeking protection from alleged threats of the girl's family. Court said it wouldn't comment upon the legality of the relationship but,

" Mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age or that petitioner No.2 is still a minor, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India. "

The bench was referring to fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to every person under Article 21 of the Constitution. It directed the Chandigarh SSP to consider the couple's case for police protection.

A 16-year-old girl and a 19-year-old boy had moved the Court expressing their wish to get married against the wishes of their parents and seeking police protection based on perception of threats from them.

Court said, "Article 21 of the Constitution of India stipulates protection of life and liberty to every citizen and that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. As per the Constitutional mandate it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the life and liberty of every citizen."

It referred to Jobanpreet Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (2022) where the High Court had said that POCSO Act, which penalizes sexual relations with a minor, does not run contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution. It had also said that Courts must step into the shoes as a guardian of such minor and take all steps necessary to protect the life and liberty of such a minor.

In Khuspreet Singh (supra) the High Court had directed that when a minor approaches the court for police protection, the Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate decision with respect to the boarding and lodging of the minor and also to conduct enquiry on all issues relating to and affecting safety and well-being of the child/minor. It was also directed that the concerned SSPs/SPs/CPs will take steps against the threat perception to the minor and her next friend, through whom the minor approached the Court.

19/09/2023

In this case the matter revolves around a motor accident involving a car and a truck. The claimants, who are either or heirs of deceased in the , sought compensation from the owner and insurer of the truck. However, the New India Assurance , the truck’s insurer, contended that the owner and insurer of the car should also be impleaded as parties. The Tribunal directed the claimants to join the and insurer of the car as opposite parties. Thus, the claimants filed the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order.

Justice Sandeep Marne observed that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant has the right to sue only one of the joint tortfeasors.

“ It appears that the motor car is owned by one of the claimants. This is the plausible reason why the claimants do not want to implead the owner or insurer of motor-car. Be that as it may be, since the law permits a claimant to sue one of the two joint-tortfeasors, such a claimant cannot be forced by the Tribunal to seek relief against the other joint-tortfeasors also”.

The court referred to judgment in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. which clarified that in cases of composite of two vehicles, it is entirely within the claimant's rights to sue one of the joint tortfeasors. This is based on the principle that the of joint tortfeasors is joint and several, allowing the claimant to recover the entire from any one of them. Therefore, the law permits claimants to choose which party to sue, and they cannot be compelled by the Tribunal to implead the other joint tortfeasors.

The court emphasized that since the law allows claimants to sue one of the joint tortfeasors in cases of composite negligence, they cannot be forced to seek relief against other tortfeasors.

The court also pointed out that in Uma Naidu's claim related to the same accident, the directed only the truck’s company to bear the entire compensation.

18/09/2023

यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफला क्रिया:॥

Where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there.
And where they are Dishonoured, all actions remain unfruitful.

The Central Cabinet has approved a 33% reservation for women in legislative assemblies and Parliament.

The best thing about this bill is that almost all the members of opposition parties supported this (bill).

Highly Appreciable .......🔥🇳🇪🙏

16/09/2023

In this case, the FIR was lodged at the instance of Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing leader Aksh*t Agarwal, who alleged that Chaudhary, in a press conference organised in Sambhal, used derogatory words against the Prime Minister by stating that he had a love affair/homosexual relation with (Gautam) Adani.

As per the FIR lodged under Sections 153-A, 505(2), 504 IPC (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), the informant (Agarwal) has further stated that the Prime Minister is like a God to him as well as to the people associated with the BJP and due to the said derogatory statement of Chaudhary, the feelings of the people of his class and the members of Hindu organizations and many other religious organizations have been hurt.

The Special Leave Petition was filed assailing the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which refused to quash the FIR. The High Court observed that the offence alleged in the FIR would definitely fall within the ambit of Section 153-A and Section 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of IPC which are cognizable offence and hence, the FIR, cannot be quashed.

The Bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, while delving into the petitioner's contention that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the IPC, observed:

“This argument of the petitioner has been summarized in the order of the High Court, in which the quashing plea of the petitioner has been rejected. The law enforcement agency is still investigating the alleged commission of offences, and they ought to decide on a future course of action after the completion of an investigation. At this stage, we do not think it is a fit case for interference.”

14/09/2023

......................The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice B.V.L.N Chakravarti accordingly dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a married man to produce a woman whom he had been living with, who was allegedly taken away by her father.

" One’s choice to live outside wedlock does not mean that the married persons are free to live in live-in relationship with others outside wedlock during subsistence of marriage. That would be transgressing valid legal framework. The right to live out of wedlock is to be understood, living without solemnizing marriage, if they are major. They are not bound to marry each other. But that does not mean living in live-in relationship with others outside wedlock, during continuance of marriage."

"Filing of the writ petition appears to us to be a device adopted to have a seal and signature of this Court on the illegal act of the petitioner, transgressing the valid legal framework of his marriage. There is no factual foundation supported with material, to inspire confidence that it is a case of violation of one’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, or of any illegal custody of 'A', by her father respondent No.5"

"Filing a Writ for Habeas Corpus seeking production of alleged detenue in Court and setting him or her free from the parental home in particular, and that too at the instance of a person, as the present petitioner, a married person seeking liberty of a girl, may be major, on the ground of the petitioner allegedly living in relationship with her, in our view, cannot be encouraged."

"If the report was not received, the petitioner could have approached the Senior Superintendent of Police or/and could also have sent the complaint through registered post and he could also have approached the competent Court of law under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) of even under Section 200 Cr.P.C. But nothing has been brought on record, except bald allegation without any evidence."

13/09/2023

..................Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that "privately" watching obscene photos or videos on one’s phone without distributing or publicly exhibiting it will not attract the offence of obscenity under IPC. It added that watching such content is a person’s private choice and the Court cannot intrude into his privacy.

" The question to be decided in this case is whether a person watching a p**n video in his private time without exhibiting it to others amounts to an offence? A court of law cannot declare that the same amounts to an offence for the simple reason that it is his private choice and interference with the same amounts to an intrusion of his privacy, "

“I am of the considered opinion that, watching of an obscene photo by a person in his privacy by itself is not an offence under Section 292 IPC. Similarly, watching of an obscene video by a person from a mobile phone in his privacy is also not an offence under Section 292 IPC. If the accused is trying to circulate or distribute or publicly exhibits any obscene video or photos, then alone the offence under Section 292 IPC is attracted.”

“ Instead of purchasing food from restaurants through ‘swiggy’ and ‘zomato’, let the children taste the delicious food made by their mother and let the children play at play grounds at that time and come back home to the mesmerizing smell of mother’s food. I leave it there to the wisdom of the parents of minor children of this society. ”

The Court examined the law of obscenity and held that for attracting an offence of obscenity, there must be evidence to show that the accused sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever.

**n

12/09/2023

The Apex Court was considering whether the claim pertaining to an arbitral award, in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), could be admitted after the resolution plan had been approved by the COC. “We find it difficult to unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution applicant” the Apex Court said while dismissing the plea of the claimant.

“The mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has yet not approved the plan does not imply that the plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process. This would result in the reopening of the whole issue, particularly as there may be other similar persons who may jump onto the bandwagon. As described above, in Essar Steel, [1 (2020) 8 SCC 534] the Court cautioned against allowing claims after the resolution plan has been accepted by the COC.”

“The IBC is a time bound process. There are, of course, certain circumstances in which the time can be increased. The question is whether the present case would fall within those parameters. The delay on the part of the appellant is of 287 days. The appellant is a commercial entity. That they were litigating against the Corporate Debtor is an undoubted fact. We believe that the appellant ought to have been vigilant enough in the aforesaid circumstances to find out whether the Corporate Debtor was undergoing CIRP. The appellant has been deficient on this aspect. The result, of course, is that the appellant to an extent has been left high and dry.”

10/09/2023

Don't Forget Your Roots
Don't Forget Your Ancestors
Don't Forget Your Culture
Don't Forget Who You Are

UK Prime Minister along with his wife Akshata Murthy offered prayers at Akshardham temple!

🇳🇪🛕🙏🏻

Always stay connected to your roots! 😇

10/09/2023

Section (96)- Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Right of private defence cannot be said to be an offence in return. The right of self-defence under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defence.

The general proverb or adage that “necessity knows no law” does not find a place in modern jurisprudence. The right of self-preservation is inherent in every person but to achieve that end nothing could be done which militates against the right of another person. In the other words, “society places a check on the struggle for existence where the motive of self-preservation would dictate a definite aggression on an innocent person”.

Kamparsare vs Putappa:

Where a boy in a street was raising a cloud of dust and a passer-by therefore chased the boy and beat him, it was held that the passer-by committed no offence. His act was one in exercise of the right of private defence.

09/09/2023

The leaders of G20 countries have reached a consensus on New Delhi G20 Leaders Declaration.

This announcement is significant as the deliberations on the Delhi declaration were clouded by the different positions on . Here's the full text of the New Delhi G20 Leaders Declaration.

Here are the top points from the New Delhi Leaders Declaration:-

(1) Concerning the war in Ukraine, while recalling the , we reiterated our national positions and resolutions adopted at the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly (A/RES/ES-11/1 and A/RES/ES-11/6) and underscored that all states must act in a manner consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in its entirety. In line with the , all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial and or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible."

(2) We ( ) recognise the critical role of in accelerating growth and driving sustainable .

(3) We ( ) welcome the African Union as a permanent member of the G20 and strongly believe that inclusion of the African Union into the G20 will significantly contribute to addressing the global challenges of our time. We commend the efforts of all G20 members which paved the way for accession of the as a permanent member during India’s Presidency of the G20."

(4) We ( ) reaffirm our commitment to support migrants, including migrant workers and refugees in our efforts towards a more , in line with national policies, legislations and circumstances, ensuring full respect for the human rights and their fundamental regardless of their migration status."

(5) We ( ) condemn in all its forms and manifestations, including those on the basis of xenophobia, and other forms of intolerance, or in the name of religion or belief, recognizing the commitment of all religions to peace. It constitutes one of the most serious threats to ."

(6) "The G20 reaffirms that is of fundamental importance, and that investing in the empowerment of all women and girls, has a multiplier effect in implementing the . Commit to eliminate gender-based violence including , harassment, and abuse against women and girls both online and offline, and ensure safe workplaces in this regard."

(7) We ( ) Support and increase women’s participation, partnership, decision-making and leadership in climate change mitigation and adaptation, and disaster risk reduction strategies and policy frameworks on environmental issues."

The Black Coat

17/10/2023

30/09/2023

19/09/2023

18/09/2023

16/09/2023

14/09/2023

13/09/2023

12/09/2023

10/09/2023

10/09/2023

09/09/2023

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category