WOMAN CANNOT CLAIM RAPE FOR FAILED MARRIAGE PROMISE: MP HIGH COURT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a woman cannot allege rape simply because a long-term consensual relationship did not end in marriage. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi clarified that relationships lasting several years cannot be classified as rape if the promise of marriage is not honored, distinguishing between a false promise and a genuine change of heart.
Legal Framework and Provisions:
- Section 375 of IPC: Defines rape, emphasizing the necessity of lack of consent for an act to be classified as rape.
- Section 90 of IPC: Discusses consent under misconception of fact, stating that consent given under a misconception does not constitute valid consent.
- Court Precedents: The court referred to precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts that distinguish between consensual relationships and those based on deceitful promises.
- Equivalent Section of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Section 69 deals with the consequences of consent obtained under misconception, similar to IPC’s Section 90.
|
Source- Madhya pradesh High Court
BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE SAFEGUARDS CONSTITUTION: SUPREME COURT JUDGE
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar underscored that the Basic Structure doctrine prevents the Constitution from being completely overhauled through amendments. Addressing critiques of judicial review, he emphasized that while amendments can alter the Constitution, they cannot dismantle its core principles, such as judicial independence and the rule of law, ensuring the Constitution’s continuity and integrity.
Legal Framework and Provisions:
- Article 368 of the Constitution: Grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Established in Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine restricts Parliament from altering the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
- Judicial Review: Allows courts to examine the validity of constitutional amendments to ensure they do not violate the Basic Structure.
|
DELHI HIGH COURT DENIES EUTHANASIA REQUEST FOR VEGETATIVE STATE PATIENT
Case: Harish Rana v Union of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court rejected a petition for euthanasia for Harish Rana, who has been in a vegetative state for over ten years. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that Rana is not terminally ill and can sustain himself without mechanical support. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Common Cause v Union of India, the Court affirmed that active euthanasia remains legally impermissible in such cases.
Legal Framework and Provisions:
- Common Cause v Union of India (2018): Supreme Court judgment that legalized passive euthanasia under strict guidelines but prohibited active euthanasia.
- Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to life, interpreted to include the right to die with dignity under specific conditions.
- Indian Penal Code: Active euthanasia involving the administration of lethal substances remains illegal under existing penal laws.
- Equivalent Section of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita): Section 108, which pertains to abetment of suicide and other related acts, echoing the principles of IPC on euthanasia and right to life which was mentioned in section 306 of IPC.
|
Source- Delhi High Court
Also Read- DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (6 JULY 2024)
