Same sex marriage – Legal or illegal?

-

March 12, 2024

The legalization of same-sex marriage is a significant step towards increased equality and the recognition of LGBTQ+ rights in many countries around the world. The process of legalizing same-sex marriage typically involves legislative modifications, court decisions, or popular referendums, depending on the legal system of each country.

In most cases, same-sex marriage is legalized through legislative action, which often involves political debate, lobbying, and the support of lawmakers who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. In some countries, same-sex marriage legalization has been achieved through court rulings, which establish legal precedents that compel governments to recognize same-sex marriage. In a few instances, same-sex marriage legalization has occurred through popular referendums or initiatives, reflecting societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ rights.

International pressure and influence from organizations such as the United Nations or regional human rights bodies have also played a role in advancing same-sex marriage legalization in some cases. Diplomatic efforts, human rights reports, and international treaties promoting equality and non-discrimination can encourage countries to enact legislative changes. Same-sex marriage legalization may also occur gradually, with incremental changes such as the recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships preceding full marriage equality. These intermediate steps can pave the way for broader societal acceptance and eventual legalization of same-sex marriage.

Overall, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage reflects evolving attitudes towards LGBTQ+ rights, the recognition of fundamental human rights principles, and the efforts of activists, lawmakers, and advocates working towards equality and social justice.

Table of Contents

IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL?

It is crucial to mention that same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in India, as of the latest update in January 2022. Although the Indian Supreme Court made a historic decision in September 2018, striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which formerly criminalized same-sex relations, this ruling did not extend to the legal acceptance of same-sex marriages. It is essential to note that Section 377 was an outdated colonial-era law enacted in 1861 that remained in effect for over 150 years.

In India, personal laws based on religion govern marriage, and none of these laws currently permit same-sex marriage. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and other religious communities in India have their own personal laws that govern marriage and divorce. However, none of these laws currently recognize same-sex marriage as a valid form of union.

It is worth noting that the Indian government has not yet introduced any legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving the LGBTQ+ community without legal recognition of their partnerships. The lack of legal recognition implies that same-sex couples in India are unable to benefit from the same legal protections and advantages that heterosexual couples do, such as inheritance rights, property rights, and access to healthcare and other benefits.

Despite this, activists and advocates for LGBTQ+ rights in India are making ongoing efforts, with a specific emphasis on the legalization of same-sex marriage. The LGBTQ+ community in India has been actively campaigning for equal rights and recognition for many years, with a significant increase in activism and awareness in recent times. It remains to be seen how the legal landscape regarding LGBTQ+ rights in India will evolve in the future, through either legislative changes or judicial rulings.

RELATED CASE LAWS

As of the last update in January 2022, no specific cases in India have directly addressed the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, India has made significant progress towards achieving LGBTQ+ rights and recognizing same-sex relationships. Here are some key cases and initiatives:

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): This landmark case challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations. In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India struck down parts of Section 377, effectively decriminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults. This decision was a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India, as it recognized the inherent dignity and privacy of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

2. NALSA v. Union of India (2014): In this case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the rights of transgender individuals as a third gender and affirmed their fundamental rights, including the right to marry and form a family. This decision was a milestone in recognizing the rights of transgender people and their place in society.

3. Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Various public interest litigations have been filed in Indian courts advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage and recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. While these cases have sparked discussions and debates, none have led to specific rulings on the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, they have played a crucial role in raising awareness about the need for equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

4. Petitions and Advocacy: LGBTQ+ rights activists and organizations in India continue to advocate for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage through petitions, awareness campaigns, and public demonstrations. These efforts aim to bring attention to the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals and to push for legislative or judicial action on marriage equality. Some organizations have also created safe spaces for LGBTQ+ individuals to seek support and access to resources.

While there have been no direct cases on same-sex marriage in India, the legal landscape regarding LGBTQ+ rights is evolving, and there is ongoing activism and advocacy for the recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage equality. It’s possible that future legal challenges or legislative initiatives may address this issue more directly. However, India’s progress towards recognizing the inherent dignity and equal rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, is a testament to the tireless efforts of activists and advocates.

CONCLUSION

The topic of same-sex marriage is multifaceted and often generates differing viewpoints depending on cultural, religious, and personal beliefs. However, from a legal and human rights perspective, many parts of the world have been moving towards recognizing and legalizing same-sex marriage. Here are some key points to conclude this topic:

1. Equality and Human Rights: Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is a form of discrimination and violates their fundamental human rights. They emphasize the principle of equality before the law and the right to choose one’s partner regardless of gender. In essence, they believe that everyone should have the same legal right to marry the person they love.

2. Legal Recognition: Countries that have passed laws recognizing same-sex marriage grant same-sex couples the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. This recognition ensures that same-sex couples have access to spousal benefits, inheritance rights, and legal protections in areas such as healthcare and parental rights. Legal recognition provides same-sex couples with the same benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.

3. Social Acceptance and Progress: The acceptance of same-sex marriage reflects broader social progress towards LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion. Over time, societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships have evolved, leading to increased acceptance and support for marriage equality. Social acceptance is important in creating a supportive and inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ individuals.

4. Religious and Cultural Perspectives: Despite legal recognition in some jurisdictions, there are religious and cultural communities that continue to oppose same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds. This opposition is often rooted in traditional interpretations of religious texts or cultural norms. Religious and cultural beliefs can influence a person’s acceptance of same-sex marriage.

5. Ongoing Challenges: Despite advancements in legal recognition, challenges remain, including ongoing debates, legal battles, and resistance from conservative groups. Achieving full equality and acceptance for LGBTQ+ individuals, including in the realm of marriage, continues to be a work in progress in many parts of the world. Ongoing challenges emphasize the importance of continued advocacy and awareness.

6. Personal Freedom and Happiness: Ultimately, the conclusion on same-sex marriage often comes down to individual beliefs about love, freedom, and happiness. Supporters argue that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of gender, while opponents may hold different views based on religious, cultural, or personal convictions. Personal beliefs and values play a significant role in the acceptance of same-sex marriage.

In summary, the conclusion on same-sex marriage is complex, involving legal, social, cultural, and personal factors. While progress has been made towards marriage equality in many places, the issue remains contentious in some regions, highlighting the ongoing journey towards full acceptance and inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Dugdale vs Lovering: Contract of Indemnity

Case Studies

Shreya Sharma

-

March 7, 2024

0

Dugdale vs Lovering: Contract of Indemnity

Dugdale vs Lovering [1875] LR 10 CP 196 is a landmark case in English tort law that deals with the principles of negligence and liability in cases of road accidents. The case revolves around a collision that occurred between two vehicles on a highway, leading to a legal dispute between the parties involved.

The plaintiff, Mr. Dugdale, was driving his carriage along the highway when a collision occurred with a wagon drawn by horses, driven by the defendant, Mr. Lovering. The collision resulted in damages to Dugdale’s carriage, prompting him to seek compensation from Lovering for the losses incurred. The central issue in the case was whether Lovering’s negligence in controlling his horses and wagon amounted to a breach of duty of care owed to other road users, specifically Dugdale. The case raised important questions regarding the standard of care expected from individuals while operating vehicles on public roads and the legal consequences of failing to meet this standard.

Through its judgment, the Court of Common Pleas established key principles regarding negligence and liability in road accident cases, setting a precedent for future legal decisions in similar matters. Dugdale vs Lovering remains significant in shaping the framework of tort law, particularly in cases involving personal injury and property damage arising from negligent conduct on the roads.

Table of Contents

FACTS

Dugdale was driving his carriage on the highway on the day in question. Lovering, who was also on the same highway, was driving a wagon drawn by horses. Unfortunately, Lovering failed to control his horses, which caused a collision between Dugdale’s carriage and Lovering’s wagon. The force of the impact resulted in significant damage to Dugdale’s carriage.

Following the accident, Dugdale brought a legal action against Lovering to seek compensation for the damages caused by the collision. Dugdale argued that Lovering was negligent in failing to control his horses, which was the cause of the collision. The damages that Dugdale suffered included the cost of repairing the carriage, as well as the loss of income during the time it took to repair the carriage. The court reviewed the evidence presented by both parties.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment delivered by the Court of Common Pleas in this case was in favor of Mr. Dugdale, who had suffered damages as a result of a collision with the defendant, Mr. Lovering. The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and evidence presented, as well as relevant legal principles. The following key points were considered in arriving at the judgment:

1. Duty of Care: The court emphasized that all road users have a duty of care towards others on the road, including pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. The court established that Lovering had a duty of care towards Dugdale, which meant that he was expected to exercise reasonable care and skill while driving his wagon and horses to avoid causing harm to others.

2. Breach of Duty: The court found that Lovering had breached his duty of care towards Dugdale by failing to exercise reasonable care while controlling his horses and wagon. This breach of duty was a violation of the expected standard of care, which required road users to take reasonable precautions to avoid accidents and injuries.

3. Causation: The court established that Lovering’s breach of duty was the direct cause of the collision with Dugdale’s carriage. The court examined the sequence of events leading up to the collision and concluded that Lovering’s negligent behavior was the decisive factor in causing the accident.

4. Damages: Due to the collision, Dugdale suffered damages to his carriage, which required repairs and resulted in financial losses. The court awarded compensation to Dugdale for these losses, which were a direct consequence of Lovering’s negligence.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of exercising reasonable care and caution while operating vehicles on public roads. The court’s decision, in this case, serves as a useful precedent for future cases involving negligence and liability for road accidents, as it clarifies the legal principles that apply to such cases and highlights the responsibilities of road users towards one another.

ANALYSIS

The case of Dugdale vs Lovering is centered around the legal concept of negligence in tort law, which refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care that a prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. In this case, the court found that Lovering breached his duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable caution in controlling his horses and wagon and that this breach of duty led to the collision with Dugdale’s carriage, resulting in damages.

The judgment highlights the duty of care that individuals owe to others while using public roads. As the driver of a wagon drawn by horses, Lovering owed a duty of care to other road users, including Dugdale. The court established that Lovering neglected to meet this duty by negligently controlling his horses and wagon.

The case underscores the standard of care that is expected from individuals while operating vehicles on public roads. It implies that drivers must exercise reasonable care and skill to prevent harm to others. Lovering’s failure to meet this standard resulted in liability for the damages caused by the collision. The court concluded that Lovering’s negligence was the direct cause of the collision and the resulting damages suffered by Dugdale. This principle of causation is essential in establishing liability in tort cases, where the negligent act must be the cause in fact, and the proximate cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Dugdale vs Lovering serves as an important legal precedent in tort law, particularly in cases involving negligence and liability in road accidents. It reaffirms the fundamental principles governing negligence claims, including the duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Overall, the case highlights the importance of exercising reasonable care and caution while using public roads and the legal implications of failing to meet this duty. It provides valuable insights into the application of negligence principles in road accident cases and continues to influence legal decisions in similar matters.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन आफ प्रेग्नेंसी (MTP) एक्‍ट क्या है?

Analysis

Shreya Sharma

-

March 6, 2024

0

मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन आफ प्रेग्नेंसी (MTP) एक्‍ट क्या है?

मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन ऑफ प्रेग्नेंसी (MTP) एक्ट भारत में एक कानूनी ढांचा है जो गर्भपात को नियंत्रित करता है। इसे कुछ शर्तों के तहत महिलाओं को सुरक्षित और कानूनी गर्भपात तक पहुंच प्रदान करने के लिए 1971 में अधिनियमित किया गया था। एमटीपी अधिनियम उन परिस्थितियों को निर्दिष्ट करता है जिनके तहत गर्भावस्था को समाप्त किया जा सकता है और प्रक्रियाओं का पालन किया जाना चाहिए।

Table of Contents

मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन ऑफ प्रेग्नेंसी एक्ट के प्रमुख प्रावधानों में शामिल हैं

1. गर्भपात की शर्तें: अधिनियम विशिष्ट परिस्थितियों में 20 सप्ताह तक के गर्भ को समाप्त करने की अनुमति देता है, जैसे महिला के जीवन या शारीरिक या मानसिक स्वास्थ्य को खतरा, भ्रूण की असामान्यताओं का खतरा, विवाहित के मामले में गर्भनिरोधक विफलता महिलाओं, या बलात्कार या अनाचार के मामले।

2. सहमति: गर्भपात के लिए महिला की सहमति आवश्यक है, और नाबालिगों के मामले में, अभिभावक की सहमति आवश्यक है।

3. अधिकृत प्रदाता: केवल पंजीकृत चिकित्सक ही एमटीपी अधिनियम के तहत गर्भपात कर सकते हैं। अधिनियम उन योग्यताओं और शर्तों को निर्दिष्ट करता है जिनके तहत गर्भपात किया जा सकता है।

4. गर्भपात का स्थान: गर्भपात सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदित सुविधाओं या अनुमोदित निजी क्लीनिकों में पंजीकृत चिकित्सा चिकित्सकों द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए।

5. गर्भावधि सीमा: ऐसे मामलों में जहां गर्भावस्था 12 सप्ताह से अधिक लेकिन 20 सप्ताह से कम है, समाप्ति के लिए दो चिकित्सा चिकित्सकों की राय आवश्यक है।

6. गर्भपात के बाद की देखभाल: अधिनियम प्रक्रिया से गुजरने वाली महिलाओं की भलाई सुनिश्चित करने के लिए गर्भपात के बाद की देखभाल के प्रावधान को अनिवार्य बनाता है।

7. दंड: अधिनियम गैर-अनुपालन के लिए दंड भी निर्दिष्ट करता है, जिसमें अनधिकृत प्रदाताओं या अनधिकृत परिस्थितियों में गर्भपात करने वालों के लिए जुर्माना और कारावास शामिल है।

गर्भपात को अधिक सुलभ बनाने और मूल कानून में कुछ कमियों को दूर करने के लिए एमटीपी अधिनियम में 2021 में संशोधन किया गया था। संशोधनों का उद्देश्य आयुर्वेदिक और होम्योपैथिक चिकित्सकों जैसे गैर-एलोपैथिक डॉक्टरों को कुछ शर्तों के तहत गर्भपात करने की अनुमति देकर प्रदाता आधार का विस्तार करना है। इसके अतिरिक्त, संशोधनों का उद्देश्य गर्भपात प्रदाताओं के लिए अनुमोदन प्रक्रिया को सुव्यवस्थित करना और पूरे भारत में महिलाओं के लिए गर्भपात सेवाओं तक पहुंच में सुधार करना है।

क्या एमटीपी एक्ट पति के अधिकार छीनता है?

एमटीपी अधिनियम महिलाओं के प्रजनन अधिकारों, विशेष रूप से उनकी स्वायत्तता, गोपनीयता और स्वास्थ्य देखभाल पहुंच के अधिकार को बनाए रखने के लिए बनाया गया है। यह महिलाओं के स्वास्थ्य और कल्याण को प्राथमिकता देता है, उन्हें असुरक्षित और अवैध गर्भपात प्रथाओं से बचाता है, और इसका उद्देश्य मातृ रुग्णता और मृत्यु दर को कम करना है। यह मानवीय गरिमा के तत्वों और एक महिला के अपने शारीरिक स्वास्थ्य के संबंध में निर्णय लेने के मौलिक अधिकार के विरुद्ध है।

सबसे बढ़कर, अदालत ने गर्भावस्था के चिकित्सीय समापन के बारे में भारतीय कानून की अवहेलना की है। इसके फैसले को मौजूदा कानून का विरोध करने के बजाय उसका समर्थन करना चाहिए था, क्योंकि इसका प्रभाव एमटीपी अधिनियम और एचएम अधिनियम, दोनों के बीच एक गैर-मौजूदा संघर्ष पैदा करने का है, क्योंकि अदालत ने यहां फैसला सुनाया है कि गर्भपात के परिणामस्वरूप गर्भपात होगा। बाद के तहत क्रूरता के आधार पर तलाक।

सुचिता श्रीवास्तव और अन्य बनाम चंडीगढ़ प्रशासन के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने घोषणा की कि प्रजनन स्वायत्तता संविधान के ए 21 के तहत गारंटीकृत व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का एक महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है। अदालत ने माना कि प्रजनन विकल्पों का प्रयोग संतान पैदा करने के साथ-साथ संतान पैदा करने से परहेज करने के लिए भी किया जा सकता है।

महिलाओं की निजता, गरिमा और शारीरिक अखंडता के अधिकार का सम्मान करना आवश्यक है। इसलिए, प्रजनन विकल्पों के प्रयोग पर कोई प्रतिबंध नहीं होना चाहिए, जिसमें यौन गतिविधियों में भाग लेने से इनकार करने का महिला का अधिकार और गर्भनिरोधक तरीकों का उपयोग शामिल है। इसलिए, पतियों के अधिकारों का कोई उल्लंघन नहीं है क्योंकि महिलाओं को शारीरिक स्वायत्तता और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार है। मुद्दे पर संवैधानिक प्रावधानों को ध्यान में रखते हुए,

अनुच्छेद 14 के अनुसार

भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 14 कानून के समक्ष समानता के अधिकार की गारंटी देता है
भारत के क्षेत्र के भीतर कानूनों का समान संरक्षण। हालाँकि, यह समझना महत्वपूर्ण है कि गर्भपात का अधिकार मुख्य रूप से एक प्रजनन अधिकार माना जाता है, जिसे आमतौर पर निजता के अधिकार के अंतर्गत आने के रूप में समझा जाता है।

भारत में गर्भपात कानून, जो मुख्य रूप से मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन ऑफ प्रेगनेंसी (एमटीपी) अधिनियम, 1971 द्वारा शासित होते हैं, कुछ परिस्थितियों में गर्भपात की अनुमति देते हैं, जैसे कि जब गर्भावस्था जारी रहने से गर्भवती महिला के जीवन को खतरा हो या गंभीर चोट लग सकती हो। उसके शारीरिक या मानसिक स्वास्थ्य के लिए जब यह पर्याप्त जोखिम हो कि यदि बच्चा पैदा होता है, तो वह शारीरिक या मानसिक असामान्यताओं से पीड़ित होगा, या विवाहित जोड़े में बलात्कार या सहमति गर्भनिरोधक की विफलता के परिणामस्वरूप गर्भावस्था के मामलों में।

अब, अगर हम उस पति के परिदृश्य पर विचार करें जो अपनी पत्नी के गर्भपात कराने के फैसले का विरोध करता है, तो सतही तौर पर ऐसा लग सकता है कि उसके अधिकारों का उल्लंघन हो रहा है। हालाँकि, प्रजनन विकल्पों सहित अपने शरीर के बारे में निर्णय लेने का अधिकार एक मौलिक अधिकार माना जाता है। यह विशेष रूप से सच है जब गर्भवती महिला और उसके पति के अधिकारों के बीच टकराव होता है। ऐसे मामलों में, अदालतें आम तौर पर गर्भवती महिला के अधिकारों को प्राथमिकता देंगी, क्योंकि वह गर्भावस्था और उससे जुड़े संभावित जोखिमों से सीधे तौर पर प्रभावित होती है।

यह प्राथमिकता शारीरिक स्वायत्तता और निजता के अधिकार के सिद्धांतों पर आधारित है, जो अनुच्छेद द्वारा गारंटीकृत जीवन और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार में निहित हैं। भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 इसके अलावा, एमटीपी अधिनियम एक महिला को उसके शारीरिक और मानसिक स्वास्थ्य के साथ-साथ उसकी सामाजिक-आर्थिक परिस्थितियों के आकलन के आधार पर उसकी गर्भावस्था के संबंध में निर्णय लेने की अनुमति देता है।

इसलिए, जबकि पति की गर्भावस्था के संबंध में राय या इच्छाएं हो सकती हैं, चिकित्सा पेशेवरों के परामर्श से अंतिम निर्णय गर्भवती महिला का होता है। निष्कर्ष में, हालांकि ऐसा लग सकता है कि जब पति अपनी पत्नी के गर्भपात कराने के फैसले से असहमत होता है तो उसके अधिकारों का उल्लंघन नहीं हो रहा है, लेकिन भारत में कानूनी ढांचा गर्भवती महिला के अधिकारों को प्राथमिकता देता है, विशेष रूप से उसके अपने बारे में निर्णय लेने के अधिकार को। शरीर और प्रजनन स्वास्थ्य. यह भारतीय संविधान में निहित समानता और गोपनीयता के सिद्धांतों के अनुरूप है

अनुच्छेद 21 के अनुसार

जब भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत गर्भपात और पति के अधिकारों की बात आती है, तो उस अनुच्छेद को समझना आवश्यक है। 21 जीवन और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार की गारंटी देता है। इसमें अपने शरीर और प्रजनन विकल्पों के बारे में निर्णय लेने का अधिकार शामिल है, जिसे आम तौर पर गर्भपात के अधिकार को शामिल करने के लिए समझा जाता है।

गर्भपात के संदर्भ में, एक महिला का अपनी गर्भावस्था को समाप्त करने का निर्णय प्राथमिक रूप से होता है l उसकी शारीरिक स्वायत्तता और निजता के अधिकार का मामला माना जाता है, जो दोनों हैं अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत संरक्षित। जबकि एक पति की गर्भावस्था के संबंध में राय या इच्छाएं हो सकती हैं, अंततः, गर्भपात कराने का निर्णय चिकित्सा पेशेवरों के परामर्श से गर्भवती महिला पर निर्भर करता है।

अनुच्छेद के तहत पति के अधिकार क्यों हैं, इसके संबंध में कई बिंदुओं पर विचार करने की आवश्यकता है। अनुच्छेद 21 उसकी सहमति के बिना गर्भपात कराने के उसकी पत्नी के निर्णय का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया है:

1. शारीरिक स्वायत्तता: अपने शरीर के बारे में निर्णय लेने का अधिकार मौलिक है, और इसमें गर्भावस्था को जारी रखने या समाप्त करने का चयन करने का अधिकार शामिल है। यह अधिकार ए 21 की व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता की गारंटी में अंतर्निहित है।

2. गोपनीयता: गोपनीयता के अधिकार में गर्भपात सहित प्रजनन विकल्पों के बारे में व्यक्तिगत निर्णय शामिल हैं। भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निजता के अधिकार को अनुच्छेद में निहित मौलिक अधिकार के रूप में मान्यता दी है। विभिन्न निर्णयों में अनुच्छेद 21, जिनमें न्यायमूर्ति के.एस. का ऐतिहासिक मामला भी शामिल है। पुट्टस्वामी (सेवानिवृत्त) एवं अन्य बनाम भारत संघ।

3. समानता और गैर-भेदभाव: जबकि अनुच्छेद 14 कानून के समक्ष समानता की गारंटी देता है
गर्भपात के संदर्भ में, दोनों पति-पत्नी के साथ समान व्यवहार करने का मतलब गर्भावस्था पर दोनों पक्षों को समान निर्णय लेने की शक्ति देना नहीं होगा। ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि गर्भावस्था का शारीरिक और भावनात्मक प्रभाव गर्भवती महिला के लिए अद्वितीय होता है, और उसके शरीर पर उसकी स्वायत्तता सर्वोपरि होती है।

4. चिकित्सीय विचार: गर्भपात के बारे में निर्णयों में अक्सर जटिल चिकित्सा शामिल होती है
विचार, जिसमें महिला के स्वास्थ्य के लिए जोखिम, भ्रूण की व्यवहार्यता और अन्य कारक शामिल हैं। ये निर्णय गर्भवती महिला द्वारा चिकित्सकीय परामर्श से लेना सबसे अच्छा है
अपने पति की सहमति के अधीन होने के बजाय पेशेवर।

5. कानूनी ढांचा: मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन ऑफ प्रेगनेंसी (एमटीपी) अधिनियम, 1971 कानूनी प्रावधान करता है।
भारत में गर्भपात के लिए दिशानिर्देश। जबकि कानून इसमें पति/पत्नी की भागीदारी की अनुमति देता है
कुछ परिस्थितियों में, अंततः, यह गर्भवती महिला के अपने शरीर और प्रजनन स्वास्थ्य के बारे में निर्णय लेने के अधिकार को प्राथमिकता देता है।

यह ध्यान रखना उचित है कि एक पति के विचार और चिंताएँ उसकी पत्नी के बारे में होती हैं
गर्भावस्था महत्वपूर्ण नहीं है, गर्भपात का अधिकार मुख्य रूप से गर्भवती महिला की स्वायत्तता और गोपनीयता का मामला है, जैसा कि अनुच्छेद के तहत गारंटी दी गई है। भारतीय संविधान के 21. इसलिए, कला के तहत उसके अधिकार। उसकी सहमति के बिना गर्भपात कराने के उसकी पत्नी के फैसले से 21 का उल्लंघन नहीं होता है।

सुचिता श्रीवास्तव और अन्य बनाम चंडीगढ़ प्रशासन के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने घोषणा की कि प्रजनन स्वायत्तता अनुच्छेद के तहत गारंटीकृत व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का एक महत्वपूर्ण पहलू है। संविधान के 21. अदालत ने माना कि प्रजनन विकल्पों का प्रयोग संतान पैदा करने के साथ-साथ संतान पैदा करने से परहेज करने के लिए भी किया जा सकता है। महिलाओं की निजता, गरिमा और शारीरिक अखंडता के अधिकार का सम्मान करना आवश्यक है। इसलिए, प्रजनन विकल्पों के प्रयोग पर कोई प्रतिबंध नहीं होना चाहिए, जिसमें यौन गतिविधियों में भाग लेने से इनकार करने का महिला का अधिकार और गर्भनिरोधक तरीकों का उपयोग शामिल है।

इसलिए, पतियों के अधिकारों का कोई उल्लंघन नहीं है क्योंकि महिलाओं को शारीरिक स्वायत्तता और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार है। उच्च न्यायालयों के कई निर्णय हैं जहां एमटीपी अधिनियम में प्रयुक्त मानसिक स्वास्थ्य वाक्यांश की उद्देश्यपूर्ण व्याख्या की गई है। उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने स्वयं के प्रस्ताव बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य, 1980 में बॉम्बे उच्च न्यायालय ने सही ढंग से माना कि किसी महिला को किसी भी अवांछित गर्भावस्था को जारी रखने के लिए मजबूर करना महिला की शारीरिक अखंडता के मौलिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन करता है, उसके मानसिक आघात को बढ़ाता है और हानिकारक प्रभाव डालता है। गर्भावस्था से होने वाले तात्कालिक सामाजिक, वित्तीय और अन्य परिणामों के कारण महिला के मानसिक स्वास्थ्य पर प्रभाव पड़ता है।

भारत में गर्भपात कानून IPC 1860 की धारा 312 से 316 और MTP ACT 1971 के अंतर्गत आते हैं। MTP ACT 1971 का विश्लेषण करने पर हम पाएंगे कि यह अधिनियम किसी महिला को अपनी गर्भावस्था को समाप्त करने के लिए गर्भपात का कोई अधिकार नहीं देता है। पूरा फैसला मेडिकल पर निर्भर करता है अभ्यासकर्ता। यदि चिकित्सक सद्भावनापूर्वक अनुमोदन करता है, तो गर्भधारण हो सकता है ख़त्म कर दिया गया. यहां आईपीसी और एमटीपी अधिनियम एक महिला के निजता के अधिकार, स्वास्थ्य के अधिकार और गरिमा के अधिकार का उल्लंघन करते हैं जिसकी गारंटी अनुच्छेद 21 द्वारा दी गई है।

यदि मांग पर गर्भपात (बलात्कार के मामले में या अन्य कारणों से) सुरक्षित परिस्थितियों में अनुमति नहीं है और प्रतिबंधित है, तो महिलाएं असुरक्षित गर्भपात का सहारा लेंगी, जिससे महिलाओं की मृत्यु हो जाएगी और स्वास्थ्य के अधिकार और मानवीय गरिमा के साथ जीने के अधिकार का उल्लंघन होगा। .

यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि पति के किसी भी मौलिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन नहीं होता है क्योंकि यह निर्धारित किया गया है कि महिलाओं की निजता का अधिकार पति की सहमति के बिना गर्भपात कराने के अधिकार तक फैला हुआ है।

सत्यब्रत घोष बनाम मुगनीराम बांगुर एंड कंपनी | Satyabrata Ghosh vs Mugnee Ram Bangur

Hindi

Shreya Sharma

-

March 6, 2024

0

Table of Contents

Satyabrata Ghosh vs Mugnee Ram Bangur

बेंच: बी.के. मुखर्जी, विवियन बोस, नटवरलाल एच. भगवती
निर्णय की तिथि:16/11/1953

ACT

भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम (1872 का IX), धारा. 56- भूमि बेचने का समझौता-निराशा का सिद्धांत-प्रयोज्यता-सिद्धांत क्या भारत में लागू है-एस का दायरा। 56 असंभव अर्थ- भूमि विक्रय का समझौता- क्रेता के अधिकार- अंग्रेजी एवं भारतीय कानून।

Brief

यह मामला एक भूमि बिक्री से संबंधित है, और अदालत के समक्ष मुख्य प्रश्न यह था कि क्या समझौते के आवश्यक हिस्से को प्रभावित करने वाली अप्रत्याशित घटनाएं इसे रद्द कर देंगी। अनुबंधों की निराशा का सिद्धांत तब लागू होता है जब कोई कार्य करना असंभव या गैरकानूनी हो जाता है और 1872 के भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम की धारा 56 के दायरे में आता है। किया गया अनुबंध शून्य हो जाता है। सत्यब्रत बनाम मुगनीरम मामले में, भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने आईसीए की धारा 56 के दायरे में मूल्यवान अंतर्दृष्टि प्रदान की, जो भारतीय अनुबंध कानून में एक महत्वपूर्ण प्रावधान है।

अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि “असंभवता” शब्द की व्याख्या शाब्दिक अर्थ के बजाय व्यावहारिक अर्थ में की जानी चाहिए। न्यायालय के अनुसार, यदि कोई कार्य वास्तविक अर्थों में निष्पादित करना असंभव है, तो अनुबंध को शून्य माना जा सकता है। हालाँकि, यदि कार्य संभव है लेकिन अप्रत्याशित घटनाओं के कारण अव्यावहारिक या व्यावसायिक रूप से अक्षम्य हो जाता है, तो अनुबंध शून्य नहीं हो सकता है।

इसके अलावा, अदालत ने इस बात पर जोर दिया कि भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम के वैधानिक प्रावधानों में अंग्रेजी कानून को शामिल करना स्वीकार्य नहीं है। अदालत ने माना कि अंग्रेजी कानून के तहत निराशा के सिद्धांत भारतीय कानून की तुलना में संकीर्ण हैं, और इसलिए, अंग्रेजी कानून को भारतीय मामलों पर लागू नहीं किया जा सकता है।

निष्कर्ष में, सत्यब्रत बनाम मुगनीरम मामला भारतीय अनुबंध कानून में एक ऐतिहासिक मामला है क्योंकि यह भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम, 1872 की धारा 56 के तहत अनुबंधों की निराशा के सिद्धांत की स्पष्ट समझ प्रदान करता है, और “असंभवता” शब्द की व्याख्या को स्पष्ट करता है।”

Fact

कंपनी के पास कलकत्ता में ज़मीन का एक बड़ा हिस्सा था और उसने इसे आवासीय उद्देश्यों के लिए विकसित करने की योजना शुरू की। भूमि को अलग-अलग भूखंडों में विभाजित किया गया था और कंपनी ने इन भूखंडों की बिक्री के लिए खरीदारों के साथ समझौता किया था। बिक्री के समय, कंपनी ने थोड़ी सी अग्रिम राशि स्वीकार की। कंपनी आवासीय उद्देश्यों के लिए आवश्यक सड़कों और नालियों के निर्माण के लिए जिम्मेदार थी। निर्माण और शेष राशि के भुगतान के बाद खरीदारों को प्लॉट दिए जाएंगे।

बिजॉय कृष्णा रॉय ने 5 अगस्त, 1941 को कंपनी के साथ एक समझौता किया, जिसमें उन्होंने 500 रुपये की अग्रिम धनराशि जमा की। 101. 30 नवंबर, 1941 को अपीलकर्ता को भूमि का नामांकित व्यक्ति बनाया गया था। हालाँकि, बाद में सैन्य उद्देश्यों के लिए भारत की रक्षा नियमों के तहत कलेक्टर, 24-परगना द्वारा भूमि की मांग की गई थी। परिणामस्वरूप, नवंबर 1943 में, कंपनी ने समझौते को रद्द करने का फैसला किया, लेकिन अपीलकर्ता को बयाना राशि वापस लेने या शेष राशि का भुगतान करने का विकल्प दिया। कंपनी ने अपीलकर्ता को आश्वासन दिया कि वह युद्ध की समाप्ति के बाद भी अपना काम जारी रखेगी। हालाँकि, अपीलकर्ता ने दोनों विकल्पों से इनकार कर दिया। इसलिए, अपीलकर्ता ने 18 जनवरी, 1946 को एक मुकदमा दायर किया, जिसमें दावा किया गया कि कंपनी समझौते की शर्तों से बंधी हुई थी।

Issues

क्या वादी के पास मुकदमा संस्थित करने का अधिकार था?
क्या आईसीए की धारा 56 के तहत अनुबंध निरस्त हो गया?
क्या अंग्रेजी कुंठा का नियम भारत में लागू होता है?

Judgment

भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एक फैसला सुनाया है जो भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम के वैधानिक प्रावधानों के लिए अनुबंध की निराशा के अंग्रेजी सिद्धांतों की प्रयोज्यता को स्पष्ट करता है। न्यायालय ने माना कि इस सिद्धांत पर आधारित उच्च न्यायालय का निर्णय मौजूदा मामले पर लागू नहीं होता, और आगे कहा कि विचाराधीन अनुबंध का निष्पादन असंभव नहीं हुआ है।

कोर्ट ने कहा कि जब जमीन की मांग की गई थी तब कंपनी ने अपना काम शुरू नहीं किया था, इसलिए काम में कोई बाधा नहीं आई। इसके अतिरिक्त, सड़कों और नालियों के निर्माण को पूरा करने के लिए अनुबंध में कोई समय सीमा निर्दिष्ट नहीं थी। विशेष रूप से, ट्रायल कोर्ट और निचली अपीलीय अदालत दोनों ने सर्वसम्मति से सहमति व्यक्त की कि अपीलकर्ता मुकदमे में बेजॉय कृष्णा रॉय के अधिकारों के संबंध में उनका वैध समनुदेशिती था। इस निर्णय के कारण अंततः न्यायालय को अपील की अनुमति देनी पड़ी।

अंत में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट का हालिया निर्णय भारतीय अनुबंध अधिनियम के संदर्भ में अनुबंध की निराशा के अंग्रेजी सिद्धांतों के आवेदन पर स्पष्टता प्रदान करता है। न्यायालय के फैसले से यह भी पुष्टि होती है कि विचाराधीन अनुबंध का निष्पादन असंभव नहीं हो गया था और अपीलकर्ता मामले में सही समनुदेशिती था।

SUPPORTING CASE

अल्लूरी नारायण मूर्ति राजू बनाम जिला कलेक्टर विशाखापत्तनम

अल्लूरी नारायण मूर्ति राजू बनाम जिला कलेक्टर विशाखापत्तनम के मामले में, पार्टियों ने याचिकाकर्ताओं को विशाखापत्तनम जिले की मद्दी ग्राम पंचायत में एक नदी से रेत निकालने के लिए पट्टे का अधिकार देने के लिए एक अनुबंध किया था। हालाँकि, क्षेत्र के ग्रामीणों ने खदान संचालन के कारण भूजल की संभावित कमी के बारे में अपनी चिंताएँ व्यक्त कीं, जो उनके सिंचाई चैनलों पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाल सकता है। ग्रामीणों ने सिविल अदालतों से निषेधाज्ञा प्राप्त की और याचिकाकर्ताओं के खिलाफ आपराधिक मामले शुरू किए।

परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए, आंध्र प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय लिया कि इसमें शामिल पक्षों के नियंत्रण से परे घटनाओं के कारण अनुबंध अक्षम्य हो गया है। इसलिए, हताशा का सिद्धांत लागू किया गया, और अनुबंध समाप्त कर दिया गया। अनुबंध अधिनियम 1872 की धारा 56 के दूसरे अंग के अनुसार, यदि निष्पादन कानून द्वारा अमान्यता के कारण बढ़ाया जाता है या अनुबंध की विषय वस्तु नष्ट हो जाती है या नहीं होती है, या यदि निष्पादन व्यक्तिगत रूप से प्रस्तुत किया जाना है, तो अनुबंध समाप्त हो जाता है। और व्यक्ति मर जाता है या विकलांग हो जाता है।

टेलर बनाम काल्डवेल

एक अन्य मामले में, टेलर बनाम काल्डवेल, काल्डवेल ने प्रति दिन एक सौ पाउंड की दर पर चार दिनों के लिए एक संगीत समारोह आयोजित करने के लिए टेलर को एक संगीत हॉल किराए पर दिया। टेलर ने कॉन्सर्ट के लिए सभी आवश्यक व्यवस्थाएं की थीं, लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से, कार्यक्रम से ठीक पहले हॉल आग से नष्ट हो गया, जिससे कॉन्सर्ट आयोजित करना असंभव हो गया। टेलर ने कैल्डवेल पर मुकदमा करके हुए नुकसान की भरपाई करने की मांग की। हालाँकि, अदालत ने फैसला सुनाया कि वादी उस नुकसान की भरपाई नहीं कर सकता क्योंकि प्रतिवादी की कोई गलती नहीं थी, और हताशा की अवधारणा लागू थी।

ANALYSIS

ऐसे मामलों में जहां अनुबंध में समय एक महत्वपूर्ण कारक है, अनुबंध के प्रदर्शन में किसी भी देरी के परिणामस्वरूप अनुबंध विफल हो सकता है। हालाँकि, दिए गए परिदृश्य में, युद्ध की समाप्ति के बाद भी काम जारी रखना संभव था। इसलिए, अनुबंध को शून्य नहीं माना गया क्योंकि यह कुंठित अनुबंध होने के मानदंडों को पूरा नहीं करता था। इसका तात्पर्य यह है कि अनुबंध को प्रभावित करने वाले बाहरी कारक मौजूद नहीं होने के बाद भी शामिल पक्ष अनुबंध के दायित्वों को पूरा कर सकते हैं।

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co

Case Studies

Shreya Sharma

-

March 3, 2024

0

Satyabrata Ghose vs Mugneeram Bangur & Co., And Another on 16 Nov 1953

Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 44, 1954 SCR 310, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 44, 1993 CALLJ 336
Bench: B.K. Mukherjee, Vivian Bose, Natwarlal H. Bhagwati
Date of judgement:16/11/1953

Table of Contents

Act

Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872), s. 56- Agreement to sell land-Doctrine of frustration- Applicability-Doctrine whether applicable in India- Scope of s. 56 Impossible meaning of- Agreement for sale of land-Buyer’s rights-English and Indian law.

Brief

This case is related to a land sale, and the central question before the court was whether unforeseen events that affected the essential part of the agreement would render it void. The doctrine of frustration of contracts applies when an act becomes impossible to perform or unlawful and falls under the purview of Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872. This section states that an agreement to do an act that becomes impossible or unlawful after the contract is made becomes void. In the Satyabrata v Mugneeram case, the Supreme Court of India provided valuable insights into the scope of Section 56 of the ICA, which is a crucial provision in Indian contract law.

The court clarified that the term “impossibility” should be interpreted in a practical sense rather than a literal sense. According to the court, if an act is impossible to perform in the real sense, then the contract may be deemed void. However, if the act is possible but becomes impracticable or commercially unfeasible due to unforeseen events, then the contract may not be void.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that it is not permissible to import English law into the statutory provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the principles of frustration under English law are narrower than those under Indian law, and therefore, English law cannot be applied to Indian cases.

In conclusion, the Satyabrata v Mugneeram case is a landmark case in Indian contract law as it provides a clear understanding of the doctrine of frustration of contracts under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and clarifies the interpretation of the term “impossibility.”

Fact

The company owned a large tract of land in Calcutta and started a scheme to develop it for residential purposes. The land was divided into different plots and the company entered into agreements with purchasers for the sale of these plots. At the time of sale, the company accepted a small amount of earnest money. The company was responsible for constructing roads and drains necessary for residential purposes. The plots would be given to the buyers after construction and payment of the balance amount.

Bejoy Krishna Roy entered into an agreement with the company on August 5th, 1941, paying an earnest money deposit of Rs. 101. On November 30th, 1941, the appellant was made the nominee of the land. However, the land was later requisitioned by the Collector, 24-Paragnas under Defence of India rules for military purposes. As a result, in November 1943, the company decided to cancel the agreement but gave the appellant the option of either taking the earnest money back or paying the balance money. The company assured the appellant that it would continue its work after the termination of the war. However, the appellant refused both options. Therefore, the appellant filed a lawsuit on January 18th, 1946, claiming that the company was bound to the terms of the agreement.

Issues

Did the plaintiff have a locus standi for instituting the suit?
Did the contract become frustrated under Section 56 of ICA?
Does the English law of frustration apply in India?

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a ruling that clarifies the applicability of the English principles of Frustration of Contract to the statutory provisions of the Indian Contract Act. The Court held that the judgment of the High Court based on this principle did not apply to the case at hand, and further stated that the performance of the contract in question had not become impossible.

The Court observed that the company had not yet commenced its work when the land was requisitioned, and therefore there was no disruption of work. Additionally, there was no time limit specified in the contract for the completion of the construction of the roads and drains. Notably, the trial court and the lower appellate court both unanimously agreed that the appellant was the legitimate assignee of Bejoy Krishna Roy concerning the latter’s rights in the lawsuit. This decision ultimately led the Court to allow the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent decision provides clarity on the application of the English principles of Frustration of Contract in the context of the Indian Contract Act. The Court’s ruling also confirms that the performance of the contract in question had not become impossible and that the appellant was the rightful assignee in the case.

SUPPORTING CASE

ALLURI NARAYAN MURTHY RAJU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISHAKHAPATNAM

In the case of ALLURI NARAYAN MURTHY RAJU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISHAKHAPATNAM, the parties had entered into a contract granting the petitioners leasehold rights for extracting sand from a river in Maddi Gram panchayat, Visakhapatnam district. However, the villagers of the area raised their concerns about the potential depletion of groundwater due to the quarry operations, which could adversely affect their irrigation channels. The villagers obtained a grant of an injunction by civil courts and initiated criminal cases against the petitioners.

Given the circumstances, the Andra Pradesh High Court decided that the contract had become unfeasible due to events beyond the control of the parties involved. Therefore, the doctrine of frustration was applied, and the contract was discharged. According to the second limb of section 56 of the Contract Act 1872, the contract stands discharged if the performance is extended by law invalidity or the subject matter of the contract is destroyed or does not happen, or if the performance is to be rendered personally, and the person dies or is disabled.

TAYLOR v. CALDWELL

In another case, TAYLOR v. CALDWELL, Caldwell rented a music hall to Taylor to organize a music concert for four days at a rate of one hundred pounds per day. Taylor had made all the necessary arrangements for the concert, but unfortunately, the hall was destroyed by fire just before the event, making it impossible to hold the concert. Taylor sought to recover the damages suffered by suing Caldwell. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover the damages suffered because the defendant was not at fault, and the concept of frustration was applicable.

ANALYSIS

In cases where time is a crucial factor in a contract, any delays in the performance of the contract may result in the contract being frustrated. However, in the given scenario, it was possible to continue the work after the termination of the war. Therefore, the contract was not considered void as it did not meet the criteria of being a frustrated contract. This implies that the parties involved can still fulfill the obligations of the contract once the external factors affecting the contract are no longer present.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Types of patents in intellectual property rights

Kritika Bhusari

-

March 3, 2024

0

Types of patents in intellectual property rights

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are unquestionably vital legal safeguards that creators and inventors are granted to protect their inventions. These rights give creators complete control over how their work is used and distributed, enabling them to profit from their creations and preventing unauthorized use by other people.

Different forms of creativity and innovation are protected by various forms of intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, and others. A person who owns intellectual property has the only right to use what they have created, meaning that others cannot duplicate or use it without the owner’s prior consent. We will continue to talk about what patents are and the various types of patents further in this article.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Indeed, as technology advances at a rapid pace, new inventions emerge all the time and become a part of our daily lives. To encourage innovation and guarantee that inventors can profit from their creations, these inventions must be protected. In India, the Patents Act of 1970 establishes the framework for the protection of invention.

The primary legislation governing patents in India is the Patents Act, 1970. It describes how patents are obtained, what rights are granted to patent holders, and what restrictions and exclusions apply to those rights. The Act seeks to achieve a balance between protecting the public interest and giving inventors limited exclusive rights.

Patent

The Latin word “patene,” which means “to open,” is where the word “patent” originated. Legally speaking, a patent is an exclusive right granted to the inventor of a new and practical invention for a predetermined period in exchange for the inventor disclosing the invention.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) defines a patent as, “an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem”.

A patent is a type of legal compensation that promotes the advancement of technology and industry. The Supreme Court ruled in the significant case of M/s. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries that, “The object of patent law is to encourage scientific research, new technological and industrial progress. Grant of exclusive privilege to own, use, or sell the method or the product patented for a limited period, stimulates new inventions of commercial utility. The price of the grant of the monopoly is the disclosure of the invention at the Patent Office, which after expiry of the fixed period of the monopoly, passes into the public domain”.

The grant of monopoly rights to an inventor encourages him to pursue research and development more and more. A country’s economic prosperity is largely dependent on research and development in the field of industrial enterprise.

Types of patents

Various kinds of patents are granted under The Patents Act, of 1970

Utility Patents

Utility patents, which cover a wide range of inventions that spur development and innovation across numerous industries, are the cornerstone of intellectual property protection. These patents are essential for protecting innovative and practical devices, machinery, manufactured goods, material compositions, and any novel advancements made therein. Utility patents give inventors the exclusive right to their inventions by emphasizing their functional aspects. This allows the inventors to bar anyone from using, producing, importing, or selling the patented invention without their consent for a set amount of time.

This exclusivity creates a competitive atmosphere that motivates innovators to spend money on R&D, which results in improvements in manufacturing techniques, scientific discoveries, and technology. Furthermore, by encouraging innovation, drawing capital, and advancing the commercialization of novel goods and technologies, utility patents support economic expansion. Inventors can fully realize the commercial potential of their inventions and benefit society as a whole by disseminating new and improved products and processes, all thanks to the protection provided by utility patents.
Design Patents

With a particular focus on ornamental features, design patents are essential for safeguarding the visual and aesthetic aspects of inventions. Design patents give inventors the exclusive right to stop others from copying or making similar products by protecting a product’s distinctive visual appearance, shape, configuration, or surface ornamentation. This protection is especially important for businesses like consumer goods, furniture, jewelry, fashion accessories, and electronics where a product’s look has a big impact on how successful it is in the marketplace.

By preventing unauthorized copying or infringement of distinctive designs, design patents not only foster innovation and creativity in product design but also advance fair competition. They also give designers and businesses the ability to stand out from the competition, improve brand recognition, and keep a competitive edge in their respective markets. In general, design patents support innovation, intellectual property rights protection, and the advancement of design aesthetics in a number of economic sectors.
Plant Patents

Plant patents are necessary to safeguard unique and novel plant varieties that have been produced through asexual reproduction and to make sure that the work of researchers and breeders is properly acknowledged. Unlike patents on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or naturally occurring plants, these patents cover plants created through techniques like grafting, budding, or other forms of asexual reproduction. Plant patents encourage investment in agricultural research and plant breeding programs by giving the inventor exclusive rights.

This promotes innovation in crop development, horticulture, and landscaping. This safeguard encourages the commercialization of new and improved plant varieties by giving inventors control over the propagation, use, sale, and distribution of the patented plant variety. Plant patents are essential for maintaining food security, biodiversity preservation, and sustainable agriculture because they encourage the creation and spread of improved plant varieties with higher yields, pest and disease resistance, and other desirable characteristics. In general, plant patents promote global food production, environmental sustainability, the protection of plant breeders’ rights, and the advancement of agricultural science.
Pharmaceutical and Chemical Patents

Patents about pharmaceuticals and chemicals play a crucial role in promoting innovation and development in these sectors by protecting a broad range of inventions that enhance healthcare and advance technology. These patents cover inventions pertaining to chemical compositions, pharmaceutical compounds, drug manufacturing processes, and treatment methodologies. Pharmaceutical and chemical patents encourage research and development efforts aimed at finding new medications, formulations, and manufacturing techniques by granting inventors the exclusive right to their inventions.

This legal protection promotes competition among pharmaceutical and chemical companies, which in turn leads to the development of safer, more effective, and more reasonably priced medications. It also encourages investment in novel therapies and technologies. Additionally, patents related to chemicals and pharmaceuticals make it easier for new discoveries to be commercialized, allowing businesses to recover their costs and make the money needed for additional R&D. In the end, society as a whole benefits from these patents because they advance healthcare, enhance patient outcomes, and address unmet medical needs.
Software and Business Method Patents

A wide range of inventions that support economic growth and technological advancement are protected by software and business method patents, which are essential for promoting innovation and advancing the technology and business sectors. Innovations in computer software, algorithms, computer-implemented processes, and other software-related technologies are protected by software patents. By giving inventors the exclusive right to their creations, these patents encourage investment in software development and stimulate the development of new and improved software systems, applications, and products. Furthermore, software patents encourage cooperation and competition in the technology sector, fostering additional innovation and raising the caliber of software solutions that are offered to consumers.

Similarly, business method patents grant inventors the exclusive right to their creative business processes while safeguarding innovative business or commercial activity methods. These patents are essential for fostering entrepreneurship because they stimulate the creation of novel business plans, tactics, and procedures that boost output, profitability, and market competitiveness. These patents encourage investment in new projects, boost economic growth, and create a dynamic business environment that is supportive of innovation and entrepreneurship by safeguarding business methods.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the different kinds of patents—such as software, business method, utility, design, plant, pharmaceutical, and chemical, and software patents—combine to provide the foundation of intellectual property protection and promote advancement in a wide range of sectors. These patents are essential for stimulating R&D, attracting capital for innovative products and methods, and fostering competitiveness and economic expansion.

Patents ensure that ingenuity and creativity are properly rewarded while also promoting knowledge dissemination and the advancement of society at large by giving inventors exclusive rights to their inventions. Strong patent protection is crucial because it fosters innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainable development in a world that is becoming progressively more interconnected by the day.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Article 370 – A controversial article

Shreya Sharma

-

March 3, 2024

2

WHAT IS ARTICLE 370?

Article 370 was a temporary provision in the Indian Constitution that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was introduced in the Constitution in 1949, shortly after India gained independence from British rule. The article specified that several provisions of the Indian Constitution would not apply to Jammu and Kashmir unless the state’s Constituent Assembly agreed to them.

WHAT ARTICLE 370 SIGNIFIES?

Article 370 granted significant autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. It allowed the state to have its own constitution, flag, and decision-making authority over all matters except defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications. Many laws passed by the Indian Parliament required the approval of the state government or its legislature before they could be applied in Jammu and Kashmir. The article gave Jammu and Kashmir a unique constitutional position, conferring special status on the state within the Indian Union.

The special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 became contentious over the years. Critics argued that it hindered the integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and impeded regional development. Supporters, however, viewed it as a safeguard for the unique identity and autonomy of the state. In August 2019, the government of India, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.

The state was also bifurcated into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The revocation of Article 370 was highly controversial and sparked widespread debate and protests within and outside of India. The Indian government viewed the revocation of Article 370 as a step towards fully integrating Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union and promoting development in the region. The move was aimed at facilitating the application of central laws to Jammu and Kashmir, which had been exempted from them under Article 370.

However, several political parties, human rights organizations, and some countries, particularly neighboring Pakistan, criticized the decision. They argued that it violated the rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and could lead to further unrest in the region.

The revocation of Article 370 remains a significant political issue in India, with ongoing debates about its implications for the region and its people. The Indian government has taken several measures to restore normalcy and promote development in Jammu and Kashmir, including the release of political detainees and the execution of several infrastructure projects. However, the situation in the region remains complex, and the long-term impact of the revocation of Article 370 is yet to be seen.

CASE DESCRIPTION

The Indian Union government, on August 5th and 6th, 2019, took a historic decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir by repealing Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Article 370 was a provision that granted Jammu and Kashmir a unique constitutional status, separate from other states in India. The provision aimed to allow Jammu and Kashmir to transition from an independent princely state to a democratic state under the Dominion of India.

The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 was the foundation of Article 370. This instrument acceded the state to India but limited India’s power to legislate for the state to matters of defence, external affairs, and communication. Article 370 consisted of all the conditions specified in the Instrument of Accession. The provision substantially limited Parliament’s power to legislate for the State, giving greater power to the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature. It aimed to ensure that the people of Jammu and Kashmir would have a complete say in their sovereignty, and all laws that applied to them came into force with their consent.

Article 370 had three main ingredients. Firstly, India would not make laws in Jammu and Kashmir except for three subjects included in the Instrument of Accession. The Parliament could make laws beyond them only with the “concurrence of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.” Secondly, no provisions of the Indian Constitution would be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir except for Article 1, which declared India as a “Union of States,” and Article 370.

The President of India could apply provisions of the Indian Constitution in Jammu and Kashmir through an executive order – this would insulate the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir from the influences of the Parliament of India. Thirdly, according to Article 370(3), the special status of Jammu and Kashmir could not be amended or repealed unless the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir recommended it.

PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

On August 5th, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind issued a presidential order (C.O. 272) amending Article 367 of the Constitution that explains how the Constitution should be interpreted. The amendment made it such that the reference to the “Constituent Assembly” in Article 370(3) became a reference to the “Legislative Assembly.” Initially, Article 370 could only be amended by the recommendation of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. C.O. 272 allowed the Union to amend Article 370 without the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly.

Since Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule at the time, the powers of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly were vested in the Union Parliament. So, a few hours after C.O. 272 was issued, the Rajya Sabha recommended the abrogation of Article 370 through a Statutory Resolution.

On August 6th, 2019, President Kovind issued a Proclamation, C.O. 273, putting into effect the Rajya Sabha’s recommendation. All clauses of Article 370 ceased to operate, except clause 1, which was amended to state that the Constitution of India applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This removed the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. On August 9th, 2019, the Union Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcating the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Only the former retained a legislative assembly.

Following this, three Article 32 petitions were filed, challenging the constitutionality of the dilution of Article 370. The first challenge pertains to the constitutionality of the presidential orders, and the second one challenges the bifurcation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. The petitioners applied the doctrine of colourable legislation, which means that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.”

The petitioners say that the President has indirectly amended Article 370, a Constitutional provision, without the concurrence of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. This was enabled by substituting “constituent assembly” with “legislative assembly”. They further argue that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, was unconstitutional under Article 3, which empowers the Parliament to form new states and alter or modify the boundaries of existing states.

The petitioners contend that Article 3 does not give the Parliament powers to downgrade federal democratic states into a less representative form such as a Union Territory. The petitioners further argue that in a federal democracy, the right to autonomous self-government, specifically the right to make laws, should be preserved.

CONCLUSION

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, providing considerable autonomy in various aspects of governance. However, the impact of this article on the integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and its implications for development in the region became a subject of debate over time. In August 2019, the Indian government decided to revoke Article 370, effectively removing the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir, a move that sparked widespread debate and controversy within and outside of India.

While supporters of the revocation argued that it would lead to the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and promote development and security in the region, critics raised concerns about the impact on the unique identity and autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the potential implications for human rights and regional stability. The revocation of Article 370 remains a significant and complex issue in Indian politics, with ongoing discussions about its consequences for the region and its people. The long-term effects of this decision are yet to be fully realized, and it continues to shape political discourse and developments in India and beyond.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act – Takes away rights of husband?

Analysis

Shreya Sharma

-

March 2, 2024

0

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act – Takes away rights of husband?

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is a legal framework in India that regulates abortions. It was enacted in 1971 to provide women with access to safe and legal abortions under certain conditions. The MTP Act specifies the circumstances under which a pregnancy can be terminated and the procedures to be followed.

Table of Contents

Key provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act include

1. Conditions for abortion: The Act allows for the termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks gestation under specific circumstances, such as risk to the life or physical or mental health of the woman, risk of fetal abnormalities, contraceptive failure in the case of married women, or cases of rape or incest.

2. Consent: Consent of the woman is required for the abortion, and in the case of minors, consent from a guardian is necessary.

3. Authorized providers: Only registered medical practitioners can perform abortions under the MTP Act. The Act specifies the qualifications and conditions under which abortions can be performed.

4. Place of abortion: Abortions must be carried out in government-approved facilities or by registered medical practitioners in approved private clinics.

5. Gestational limit: In cases where the pregnancy exceeds 12 weeks but is less than 20 weeks, the opinion of two medical practitioners is required for the termination.

6. Post-abortion care: The Act mandates the provision of post-abortion care to women undergoing the procedure to ensure their well-being.

7. Penalties: The Act also specifies penalties for non-compliance, including fines and imprisonment for unauthorized providers or those who perform abortions under unauthorized circumstances.

The MTP Act was amended in 2021 to make abortions more accessible and to address certain shortcomings in the original legislation. The amendments aimed to expand the provider base by allowing non-allopathic doctors, such as Ayurvedic and Homeopathic practitioners, to perform abortions under certain conditions. Additionally, the amendments aimed to streamline the approval process for abortion providers and to improve access to abortion services for women across India.

Whether MTP Act take away the rights of the husband?

The MTP Act is designed to uphold the reproductive rights of women, particularly their right to autonomy, privacy, and healthcare access. It prioritizes the health and well-being of women, protecting them from unsafe and illegal abortion practices, and aims to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. It is against the elements of human dignity and a woman’s fundamental right to decide regarding her physical health.

Above all, the court has disregarded Indian law about medical termination of pregnancy. Its ruling should have supported existing legislation instead of confronting it, as it has the effect of creating a non-existing conflict between the two, viz., MTP Act and HM Act, since the court has ruled here that an abortion would result in a divorce under the latter on the ground of cruelty.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Suchita Srivastava and Another v Chandigarh Administration, declared that reproductive autonomy is an important aspect of personal liberty as guaranteed under A 21 of the Constitution. The court held that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating.

It is essential to respect women’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. Therefore, there should be no restriction on the exercise of reproductive choices, including a woman’s right to refuse participation in sexual activity and the use of contraceptive methods. So, there is no violation of the rights of husbands because women have the right to bodily autonomy and personal liberty. Considering the constitutional provisions at issue,

As per article 14

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law and
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. However, it’s important to understand that the right to abortion is primarily considered a reproductive right, which is typically interpreted as falling under the right to privacy.

Abortion laws in India, governed primarily by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, allow for abortion under certain circumstances, such as when the continuation of the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or could cause grave injury to her physical or mental health when there is a substantial risk that the child if born, would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities, or in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or failure of consented contraception in a married couple.

Now, if we consider the scenario of a husband who opposes his wife’s decision to undergo an abortion, it may seem on the surface that his rights are being infringed upon. However, the right to make decisions about one’s own body, including reproductive choices, is considered a fundamental right. This is especially true when there’s a conflict between the rights of the pregnant woman and those of her husband. In such cases, the courts would generally prioritize the rights of the pregnant woman, as she is the one directly affected by the pregnancy and the potential risks associated with it.

This prioritization is based on the principles of bodily autonomy and the right to privacy, both inherent in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the MTP Act allows a woman to make decisions regarding her pregnancy based on her assessment of her physical and mental health, as well as her socio-economic circumstances.

Therefore, while the husband may have opinions or desires regarding the pregnancy, the ultimate decision rests with the pregnant woman, in consultation with medical professionals. In conclusion, while it may seem that a husband’s rights are not being infringed upon when he disagrees with his wife’s decision to undergo an abortion, the legal framework in India prioritizes the rights of the pregnant woman, particularly her right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health. This is consistent with the principles of equality and privacy enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

As per article 21

When it comes to the issue of abortion and a husband’s rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it’s essential to understand that Art. 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This includes the right to make decisions about one’s own body and reproductive choices, which is generally interpreted to include the right to abortion.

In the context of abortion, a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy is primarily
considered a matter of her bodily autonomy and right to privacy, both of which are
protected under Article 21. While a husband may have opinions or desires regarding the pregnancy, ultimately, the decision to undergo an abortion rests with the pregnant woman, in consultation with medical professionals.

Several points need to be considered regarding why a husband’s rights under Art. 21 are not violated by his wife’s decision to have an abortion without his consent:

1. Bodily Autonomy: The right to make decisions about one’s own body is fundamental, and it includes the right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This right is inherent in A 21’s guarantee of personal liberty.

2. Privacy: The right to privacy encompasses personal decisions about reproductive choices, including abortion. The Supreme Court of India has recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right implicit in Art. 21 in various judgments, including the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India.

3. Equality and Non-Discrimination: While Art. 14 guarantees equality before the law, in the
context of abortion, treating both spouses equally would not mean giving both parties equal decision-making power over the pregnancy. This is because the physical and emotional impact of pregnancy is unique to the pregnant woman, and her autonomy over her body is a paramount consideration.

4. Medical Considerations: Decisions about abortion often involve complex medical
considerations, including risks to the woman’s health, the viability of the fetus, and other factors. These decisions are best made by the pregnant woman in consultation with medical
professionals, rather than being subject to the consent of her husband.

5. Legal Framework: The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, provides legal
guidelines for abortion in India. While the law allows for the involvement of the spouse in
certain circumstances, ultimately, it prioritizes the pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health.

It is pertinent to note that while a husband’s views and concerns about his wife’s
pregnancy is not important, the right to abortion is primarily a matter of the pregnant woman’s autonomy and privacy, as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, his rights under Art. 21 are not violated by his wife’s decision to have an abortion without his consent.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Suchita Srivastava and Another v Chandigarh Administration, declared that reproductive autonomy is an important aspect of personal liberty as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The court held that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. It is essential to respect women’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. Therefore, there should be no restriction on the exercise of reproductive choices, including a woman’s right to refuse participation in sexual activity and the use of contraceptive methods.

So, there is no violation of the rights of husbands because women have the right to bodily autonomy and personal liberty. There have been numerous decisions of the High Courts where a purposive interpretation is given to the phrase mental health as used in the MTP Act. In High Court on its Own Motion v.State of Maharashtra., 1980 the High Court of Bombay correctly held that compelling a woman to continue any unwanted pregnancy violates a fundamental right of a woman’s bodily integrity, aggravates her mental trauma and has a deleterious effect on the mental health of the woman because of the immediate social, financial and other consequences flowing from the pregnancy.

In India, abortion laws are coming under S.312 to 316 of IPC 1860 and MTP ACT 1971. By analyzing the MTP ACT 1971 we will find that this act does not give any right to abortion to a woman for terminating her pregnancy. The complete decision depends upon the medical
practitioners. If the medical practitioner in good faith approves, then the pregnancy can be
terminated. Here IPC and MTP ACT infringe on the right to privacy, right to health, and right to dignity of a woman which has been guaranteed by Art.21.

If abortion on demand (in case of rape or for other reasons) is not allowed under safe conditions and is restricted, then women will go for unsafe abortion which leads to mortality and death of women infringing right to health and right to live with human dignity.

It becomes clear that no fundamental rights of the husband are infringed as it has been laid down that right to privacy of women extends to right to seek abortion without the consent of the husband.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

Shadwell vs Shadwell

Case Studies

Kritika Bhusari

-

March 2, 2024

0

Name of the case: Lancelot Shadwell vs Cayley Shadwell and Another
Citations: [1860] EWHC CP J88
Date of Judgement: 1 January 1858

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The case of Shadwell vs Shadwell is regarded as a watershed moment in the evolution of contract law, particularly in England during the mid-19th century. This period saw a significant evolution in contract law principles, fuelled by societal changes and increased commercial activity. The case revolved around a promise made between family members: Richard Shadwell promised to pay a sum of money to his nephew, James Shadwell, if he married a specific woman.

When James married the specified woman, his uncle refused to keep the promise after their marriage. This situation raised important questions about the nature of consideration (the exchange of something of value in a contract) and the enforceability of contracts based on personal relationships.

In traditional contract law, consideration was a necessary component for a contract to be enforceable. It typically involved each party providing something of value, such as goods, services, or a promise, in exchange for what the other party was offering. However, in cases involving promises within familial or close relationships, the issue of consideration may be more complicated. Historically, courts were hesitant to enforce agreements made between family members or friends, often viewing them as lacking the necessary intent to establish legal relations or genuine consideration.

FACTS

In the case, the plaintiff, Richard Shadwell, was the uncle of the defendant, William Shadwell. The relationship between the two parties was familial. William Shadwell made a promise to his uncle, Richard, stipulating that he would pay him £150 annually if Richard married a specific woman named Emma. This promise was made with the anticipation of Richard’s marriage to Emma.

In reliance upon his nephew’s promise, Richard Shadwell proceeded to marry Emma, thereby fulfilling the condition set forth by William for the payment of £150 annually. However, despite Richard’s compliance with the condition by marrying Emma, William failed to fulfill his promise to pay the agreed-upon amount annually.

This breach of promise prompted Richard Shadwell to take legal action against his nephew, William Shadwell, seeking enforcement of the promise and the annual payment of £150 as agreed upon. The case was most likely decided using contract law principles, particularly those involving the formation of a legally binding contract, consideration, and breach of contract.

ISSUES RAISED

The primary issue before the court was whether the promise made by William to pay £150 annually to Richard upon his marriage to Emma constituted a legally binding contract.
Another crucial issue was whether the consideration provided by Richard’s marriage to Emma was sufficient to support the promise made by William.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment was rendered in favor of Richard Shadwell, the plaintiff, Chief Justice Pollock and the court found that the promise made by William Shadwell to his uncle Richard constituted a valid and enforceable contract. The court reasoned that Richard’s act of marrying Emma constituted valid consideration for the promise made by William.

Consideration is a fundamental element of contract law, referring to something of value exchanged between parties to a contract. In this case, William promised to pay £150 annually to Richard if Richard married Emma. Richard, in turn, relied on this promise and married Emma, thereby fulfilling the condition set forth by William.

The court likely reasoned that Richard’s act of marrying Emma constituted valuable consideration because it involved a significant change in his legal status and lifestyle. By marrying Emma, Richard incurred potential legal obligations and responsibilities, as well as potential financial implications. Therefore, his act of marriage represented a tangible benefit to William, providing a basis for upholding the validity of the contract.

Additionally, the court also considered the intention of the parties to create legal relations. In this case, the fact that the promise was made in a familial context, between an uncle and his nephew, might have suggested a less formal arrangement. However, the court determined that the parties intended for their agreement to be legally binding, as evidenced by William’s explicit promise and Richard’s reliance on it.

Chief Justice Pollock and the court’s decision to uphold the contract demonstrates the principle that contracts can arise from promises made in familial relationships, provided that the essential elements of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations are present. This ruling reaffirms the importance of honoring promises and upholding contractual obligations, even in the context of family relationships.

ANALYSIS

The case is noteworthy for its contribution to the doctrine of consideration. It established that consideration need not always flow directly from the promisee to the promisor. Instead, consideration can be provided by a third party if it benefits the promisor.

The judgment carved out an exception to the pre-existing duty rule. Typically, the performance of a pre-existing duty owed to the promisor does not constitute valid consideration. However, in this case, the court recognized Richard’s marriage to Emma as consideration, even though Richard was already under a pre-existing duty to marry her.

The case underscores the court’s willingness to enforce contracts based on the principle of consideration, even when the agreement involves personal relationships between family members. The judgment reaffirms the importance of honoring contractual obligations.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India

शैडवेल बनाम शैडवेल Shedwell vs Shedwell

Hindi

Kritika Bhusari

-

March 1, 2024

0

मामले का नाम: लैंसलॉट शैडवेल बनाम केली शैडवेल और अन्य (Shedwell vs Shedwell)
फैसले की तारीख: 1 जनवरी 1858

Table of Contents

मामले की पृष्ठभूमि:

Shedwell vs Shedwell के मामले को अनुबंध कानून के विकास में एक महत्वपूर्ण क्षण माना जाता है, खासकर 19वीं शताब्दी के मध्य में इंग्लैंड में। इस अवधि में अनुबंध कानून सिद्धांतों में एक महत्वपूर्ण विकास देखा गया, जो सामाजिक परिवर्तनों और बढ़ी हुई व्यावसायिक गतिविधि से प्रेरित था। मामला परिवार के सदस्यों के बीच किए गए एक वादे के इर्द-गिर्द घूमता है। रिचर्ड शैडवेल ने अपने भतीजे, जेम्स शैडवेल को एक विशिष्ट महिला से शादी करने पर कुछ धनराशि देने का वादा किया था।

जब जेम्स ने निर्दिष्ट महिला से शादी की, तो उसके चाचा ने उनकी शादी के बाद वादा निभाने से इनकार कर दिया। इस स्थिति ने प्रतिफल की प्रकृति (एक अनुबंध में मूल्य की किसी चीज़ का आदान-प्रदान) और व्यक्तिगत संबंधों के आधार पर अनुबंधों की प्रवर्तनीयता के बारे में महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उठाए। पारंपरिक अनुबंध कानून में, किसी अनुबंध को लागू करने के लिए प्रतिफल एक आवश्यक घटक था। इसमें आम तौर पर प्रत्येक पक्ष दूसरे पक्ष द्वारा दी जा रही पेशकश के बदले में कुछ मूल्यवान चीजें प्रदान करता है, जैसे सामान, सेवाएं या कोई वादा। हालाँकि, पारिवारिक या करीबी रिश्तों में वादों से जुड़े मामलों में, विचार का मुद्दा अधिक जटिल हो सकता है। ऐतिहासिक रूप से, अदालतें परिवार के सदस्यों या दोस्तों के बीच हुए समझौतों को लागू करने में झिझकती थीं, अक्सर उन्हें कानूनी संबंध स्थापित करने या वास्तविक विचार-विमर्श के लिए आवश्यक इरादे की कमी के रूप में देखती थीं।

तथ्य:

मामले में, वादी, रिचर्ड शैडवेल, प्रतिवादी, विलियम शैडवेल के चाचा थे। दोनों पक्षों के बीच संबंध पारिवारिक थे. विलियम शैडवेल ने अपने चाचा रिचर्ड से एक वादा किया था कि अगर रिचर्ड एम्मा नाम की एक विशिष्ट महिला से शादी करेगा तो वह उसे सालाना £150 का भुगतान करेगा। यह वादा रिचर्ड की एम्मा से शादी की प्रत्याशा में किया गया था। अपने भतीजे के वादे पर भरोसा करते हुए, रिचर्ड शैडवेल एम्मा से शादी करने के लिए आगे बढ़े, जिससे विलियम द्वारा सालाना £150 के भुगतान की शर्त पूरी हो गई।

हालाँकि, एम्मा से शादी करके रिचर्ड द्वारा शर्तों का अनुपालन करने के बावजूद, विलियम सालाना सहमत राशि का भुगतान करने के अपने वादे को पूरा करने में विफल रहा। वादे के इस उल्लंघन ने रिचर्ड शैडवेल को अपने भतीजे विलियम शैडवेल के खिलाफ कानूनी कार्रवाई करने के लिए प्रेरित किया, और वादे को लागू करने की मांग की। और सहमति के अनुसार £150 का वार्षिक भुगतान। इस मामले का निर्णय संभवतः अनुबंध कानून सिद्धांतों का उपयोग करके किया गया था, विशेष रूप से वे जो कानूनी रूप से बाध्यकारी अनुबंध के गठन, विचार और अनुबंध के उल्लंघन से जुड़े थे।

उठाए गए मुद्दे:

अदालत के समक्ष प्राथमिक मुद्दा यह था कि क्या विलियम द्वारा एम्मा से शादी के बाद रिचर्ड को सालाना 150 पाउंड का भुगतान करने का वादा कानूनी रूप से बाध्यकारी अनुबंध है।
एक और महत्वपूर्ण मुद्दा यह था कि क्या रिचर्ड की एम्मा से शादी द्वारा प्रदान किया गया विचार विलियम द्वारा किए गए वादे का समर्थन करने के लिए पर्याप्त था।

निर्णय:

वादी, मुख्य न्यायाधीश पोलक और अदालत ने रिचर्ड शैडवेल के पक्ष में दिए गए फैसले में पाया कि विलियम शैडवेल द्वारा अपने चाचा रिचर्ड से किया गया वादा एक वैध और लागू करने योग्य अनुबंध था। अदालत ने तर्क दिया कि एम्मा से शादी करने का रिचर्ड का कार्य विलियम द्वारा किए गए वादे के लिए वैध विचार है।

प्रतिफल अनुबंध कानून का एक मूलभूत तत्व है, जो अनुबंध के पक्षों के बीच मूल्य के आदान-प्रदान की बात करता है। इस मामले में, विलियम ने वादा किया कि अगर रिचर्ड एम्मा से शादी करेगा तो वह रिचर्ड को सालाना 150 पाउंड का भुगतान करेगा। बदले में, रिचर्ड ने इस वादे पर भरोसा किया और एम्मा से शादी कर ली, जिससे विलियम द्वारा निर्धारित शर्त पूरी हो गई।

अदालत ने संभवतः यह तर्क दिया कि एम्मा से शादी करने का रिचर्ड का कार्य मूल्यवान विचारणीय है क्योंकि इसमें उसकी कानूनी स्थिति और जीवनशैली में महत्वपूर्ण बदलाव शामिल था। एम्मा से शादी करके, रिचर्ड को संभावित कानूनी दायित्वों और जिम्मेदारियों के साथ-साथ संभावित वित्तीय निहितार्थ भी वहन करने पड़े। इसलिए, उनके विवाह के कार्य ने विलियम के लिए एक ठोस लाभ का प्रतिनिधित्व किया, जो अनुबंध की वैधता को बनाए रखने के लिए एक आधार प्रदान करता है।

इसके अतिरिक्त, अदालत ने कानूनी संबंध बनाने के पक्षों के इरादे पर भी विचार किया। इस मामले में, यह तथ्य कि यह वादा पारिवारिक संदर्भ में, एक चाचा और उसके भतीजे के बीच किया गया था, एक कम औपचारिक व्यवस्था का सुझाव दे सकता है। हालाँकि, अदालत ने निर्धारित किया कि दोनों पक्ष अपने समझौते को कानूनी रूप से बाध्यकारी बनाना चाहते थे, जैसा कि विलियम के स्पष्ट वादे और उस पर रिचर्ड की निर्भरता से प्रमाणित है।

मुख्य न्यायाधीश पोलक और अनुबंध को बरकरार रखने का अदालत का निर्णय इस सिद्धांत को प्रदर्शित करता है कि अनुबंध पारिवारिक रिश्तों में किए गए वादों से उत्पन्न हो सकते हैं, बशर्ते कि प्रस्ताव, स्वीकृति, विचार और कानूनी संबंध बनाने के इरादे के आवश्यक तत्व मौजूद हों। यह फैसला पारिवारिक रिश्तों के संदर्भ में भी वादों का सम्मान करने और संविदात्मक दायित्वों को कायम रखने के महत्व की पुष्टि करता है।

विश्लेषण:

यह मामला विचार के सिद्धांत में अपने योगदान के लिए उल्लेखनीय है। इसने स्थापित किया कि प्रतिफल को हमेशा वादा करने वाले से वादा करने वाले तक सीधे प्रवाहित होने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। इसके बजाय, किसी तीसरे पक्ष द्वारा प्रतिफल प्रदान किया जा सकता है यदि इससे वचनदाता को लाभ होता है।

इस फैसले ने पहले से मौजूद शुल्क नियम को एक अपवाद बना दिया। आमतौर पर, वादा करने वाले पर पहले से मौजूद कर्तव्य का प्रदर्शन वैध विचार नहीं बनता है। हालाँकि, इस मामले में, अदालत ने एम्मा के साथ रिचर्ड की शादी को विचार के रूप में मान्यता दी, भले ही रिचर्ड पहले से ही उससे शादी करने के कर्तव्य के तहत था।

मामला विचार के सिद्धांत के आधार पर अनुबंधों को लागू करने की अदालत की इच्छा को रेखांकित करता है, भले ही समझौते में परिवार के सदस्यों के बीच व्यक्तिगत संबंध शामिल हों। निर्णय संविदात्मक दायित्वों का सम्मान करने के महत्व की पुष्टि करता है।

यह भी जानें:

IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL?

RELATED CASE LAWS

CONCLUSION

FACTS

JUDGEMENT

ANALYSIS

मेडिकल टर्मिनेशन ऑफ प्रेग्नेंसी एक्ट के प्रमुख प्रावधानों में शामिल हैं

क्या एमटीपी एक्ट पति के अधिकार छीनता है?

अनुच्छेद 14 के अनुसार

अनुच्छेद 21 के अनुसार

Satyabrata Ghosh vs Mugnee Ram Bangur

बेंच: बी.के. मुखर्जी, विवियन बोस, नटवरलाल एच. भगवती निर्णय की तिथि:16/11/1953

ACT

Brief

Fact

Issues

Judgment

SUPPORTING CASE

अल्लूरी नारायण मूर्ति राजू बनाम जिला कलेक्टर विशाखापत्तनम

टेलर बनाम काल्डवेल

ANALYSIS

Act

Brief

Fact

Issues

Judgment

SUPPORTING CASE

ALLURI NARAYAN MURTHY RAJU v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISHAKHAPATNAM

TAYLOR v. CALDWELL

ANALYSIS

Introduction

Patent

Types of patents

Utility Patents

Design Patents

Plant Patents

Pharmaceutical and Chemical Patents

Software and Business Method Patents

Conclusion

WHAT IS ARTICLE 370?

WHAT ARTICLE 370 SIGNIFIES?

CASE DESCRIPTION

PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

CONCLUSION

Key provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act include

Whether MTP Act take away the rights of the husband?

As per article 14

As per article 21

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

FACTS

ISSUES RAISED

JUDGEMENT

ANALYSIS

मामले की पृष्ठभूमि:

तथ्य:

उठाए गए मुद्दे:

निर्णय:

विश्लेषण:

TESTIMONIALS

FOLLOW US

बेंच: बी.के. मुखर्जी, विवियन बोस, नटवरलाल एच. भगवती
निर्णय की तिथि:16/11/1953