In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement that alleged harassment must leave victim with no alternative but suicide to constitute abetment, that failure to pay authorization fee within registered state doesn’t invalidate national permit, Madhya Pradesh HC’s order that dismissal after retirement is not valid, only governor can decide on pension, and Delhi HC’s order that not having a birth certificate due to socio-economic backwardness is no ground to deny participation in sports events.
SC: Alleged harassment must leave the victim with no alternative but suicide to constitute abetment
This case, Ayyub vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, arises from two related FIRs following the deaths of Ziaul Rahman and Tanu. Ziaul Rahman allegedly died due to injuries inflicted by Tanu’s family members, who suspected his relationship with her. His father, Ayyub, filed an FIR in November 2022, leading to a charge under Section 304 IPC. The family of Ziaul Rahman sought an enhancement to Section 302 IPC.
The next day, Vijay Saini (Tanu’s cousin) lodged an FIR against Ayyub and others, accusing them of abetting Tanu’s suicide. The complaint alleged that Ayyub and his associates humiliated Tanu the previous morning, blaming her for Ziaul’s death, which led her to take her own life later that day. The post-mortem revealed signs of hanging, and the police subsequently filed a charge sheet under Section 306 IPC.
The Judicial Magistrate reviewed this charge sheet and decided that the case should move forward, meaning the accused would have to face trial. In response, the accused (appellants) went to the High Court and asked for the case to be dismissed (quashed), arguing that there wasn’t enough evidence against them. However, the High Court refused to dismiss the case citing a proximate link between the alleged humiliation and Tanu’s suicide. This led the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court for relief.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan noted significant discrepancies in the investigation. It noted that the FIR was registered belatedly. The Court raised concerns about a one-sided investigation and questioned whether Tanu’s distress stemmed from her family’s involvement in Ziaul Rahman’s death.
The Supreme Court stated that to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, with an intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Furthermore, the alleged harassment must have been so severe that the victim had no alternative but to take their own life, and there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. In this case, it was observed that none of the legal requirements to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC were met. The Court quashed the proceedings against the appellants and ordered a reinvestigation by a Special Investigation Team to examine the case comprehensively.
SC: Failure to pay authorization fee within registered state doesn’t invalidate national permit
The appellant in the case, Binod Kumar Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd, owned a truck that was insured by National Insurance Company for a period from 18 September 2013, to 17 September 2014. On 08 June 2014, during the insurance coverage period, the truck caught fire due to a short circuit. The appellant filed a claim, which was denied by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle lacked a valid permit.
The appellant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, which ruled in his favour, directing the insurance company to settle the claim on a non-standard basis. However, the insurance company challenged this decision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which overturned the State Commission’s order. The NCDRC held that, in the absence of a valid permit, the insurance claim could not be granted, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amrit Paul Singh vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his National Permit was valid until 13 October 2017 and that additional authorization fees were required only when operating outside Bihar. Since the truck was being used within Bihar at the time of the fire, the insurer’s rejection of the claim was unjustified.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and S C Sharma examined the permit records and found that the permit was indeed valid. The requirement to pay an authorization fee was applicable only for operations outside Bihar, which was not relevant in this case. The Court criticized the insurance company for repudiating the claim on frivolous grounds.
The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order and reinstated the State Commission’s decision, directing the insurance company to process and settle the appellant’s claim within 60 days. Allowing the appeal, the Court awarded 9% interest per annum on the claim amount, payable from the date of filing before the State Commission until the actual payment.
Madhya Pradesh HC: Dismissal after retirement is not valid, only governor can decide on pension
The petitioner in Nausad Qureshi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, a police officer, was suspended in October 2012 after being accused in a criminal case. While the case was ongoing, a departmental inquiry was launched against him. During this process, he retired in March 2014, and his suspension was revoked just before retirement. However, the inquiry continued even after he retired, and the final report found him guilty of the charges. Based on this, he was dismissed from service on 27 November 2014.
The petitioner argued that once an employee retires, the department does not have the authority to dismiss him. As per the rules, only the Governor has the power to decide on withholding or reducing a retired employee’s pension. He also pointed out that he was later acquitted in the criminal case in 2015 and had requested his pension, but his request was ignored.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Rusia revisited the legislation and noted that after retirement, a government employee cannot be dismissed from service. The only action that can be taken is withholding or reducing their pension, and even that decision must come from the Governor. While departmental inquiries can continue after retirement, the final report should have been sent to the Governor for a decision instead of directly dismissing the petitioner.
On these grounds, the Court found the dismissal order invalid and cancelled it. It directed the concerned authorities to forward the inquiry report to the Governor, who would decide on any possible pension-related action.
Kerala HC: Taking care of aged parents is not only a moral and ethical obligation but also a legal duty
In the case, Unneen vs. Shoukathali, a 74-year-old father approached the court seeking maintenance from his three sons, who are well-employed in Kuwait. He claimed that he had no means to support himself, while his sons earned substantial incomes but refused to help him. The sons, however, argued that their father had independent income and was financially stable. Based on this argument, the Family Court dismissed the father’s plea for maintenance, stating that he could sustain himself.
Justice Kauser Edappagath of Kerala High Court found that the sons were financially well-off, with two working as managers in a supermarket and the third employed in an oil company. The father had clearly stated that he had no employment or income, and the sons failed to provide any concrete proof that he was financially independent. The court also noted that financial assistance from the father’s brother did not absolve the sons of their legal and moral duty to support him. Several laws clearly highlight that a son should maintain his father. Additionally, the court rejected the Family Court’s reasoning that the father’s second marriage was a ground to deny maintenance.
The High Court overturned the Family Court’s decision and directed the sons to pay Rs. 20,000 per month as maintenance to their father, emphasizing that children have a legal and moral obligation to care for their ageing parents.
Delhi HC: Not having a birth certificate due to socio-economic backwardness is no ground to deny participation in sports events
The petitioners in Deepak Jain and Others vs. Basketball Federation of India, challenged the eligibility criteria set by the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) for the 74th Junior National Basketball Championship, scheduled in May 2024. The contested rule required participants to submit a birth certificate issued within five years of birth as proof of age. The petitioners, despite meeting the age criteria, argued that this rule was arbitrary and deprived them of participation due to socio-economic hardships that prevented them from obtaining timely birth certificates. They contended that the National Code Against Age Fraud in Sports (NCAAFS), issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, mandates medical examinations as an alternative method for age verification, which BFI failed to follow.
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court noted that a similar issue had arisen in a previous case where it was observed that such a rigid rule disproportionately affected athletes from underprivileged backgrounds. It was reaffirmed that the NCAAFS applies to all National Sports Federations (NSFs), including BFI, and mandates medical testing for age verification.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, in its affidavit, supported the petitioners’ stance, emphasizing that BFI must adhere to the NCAAFS. The court rejected BFI’s justifications, which included concerns over fraud, lack of testing infrastructure, and high costs. It held that the NCAAFS provides a clear, government-funded mechanism for medical age verification, and BFI’s refusal to implement it was unjustified.
The court set aside the eligibility rule, directing BFI to comply with the NCAAFS. It held that socio-economic hardships should not bar otherwise eligible athletes from participating and that alternative age verification methods, such as medical tests, must be provided. The petitions were allowed, ensuring fair participation in the championship.
