Karnataka High court's judgment on equal right to women.

Court upholds women’s right to property share


In a landmark judgement, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday struck down a Central amendment to the Hindu Succession Act limiting the right of women to a share of parental property, before December 20, 2004.

The Centre had carried out several amendments to the Hindu Succession Act. While the amendment gave equal right to daughters in the share of parental property and treated them on a par with their brothers, it was made applicable only after December 20, 2004. Thus, women had no right to a share of any property sold before that date. Other amendments to the Act were in respect of a will or testament and partition of property. The amendment had not recognised oral partition. The amendment to the Act had come into force from September 9, 2005.

A resident of Bangalore, Shanta, had challenged the limitation relating to sale of property before December 20, 2004. She had questioned the legality of the action of her father and her brothers in selling property and not giving her a share. She termed as illegal and ultra vires the amendment, saying that it ran against the spirit of equality. She also challenged the constitutional validity of proviso 39 to Section 6 (1) C of Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) 2005.

Justice Ananda Byrareddy upheld her contentions and struck down the proviso limiting the right of women to inherit a share of parental property.

The matter may be politicized, but, the lawyers should stand by the hon'ble judge.

Even as the opposition is mounting pressure on the government to name the minister who allegedly called and tried to influence Justice R Regupathi of the Madras High Court, former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee has demanded that the judge himself name the caller.

"The HC judge should name the minister. His silence is fuelling politicisation of the issue and giving an impression that people could call up judges and get away with it. Naming the minister would help send a strong signal that no one can mess around with judiciary," Sorabjee told TOI.

A day after the controversy broke, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan had taken strong exception to a minister calling up a judge and seeking favour in a pending case. He said the minister had committed gross impropriety, which amounted to interference in the administration of justice.

Even though Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley demanded the name saying "a minister is not a `raja' who is not accountable", the HC judge would not be game in revealing the identity of the caller, for even the Supreme Court judges have in the past shied away from naming persons in identical situations.

Take for example of the infamous Hawala scam case, which in 1997 was monitored by a three-judge Bench comprising then Chief Justice J S Verma and Justices S P Bharucha and S C Sen. During one of the hearings, the then CJI sparked high drama by blurting out that "we must tell of outside pressure on us for quite sometime now to see that we recuse ourselves from the case... People are trying to reach us. First a person tried to reach me. The same person approached brother Sen... Today they have contacted brother Bharucha."

None of them recused. But none of the judges, despite being contacted by "the same person" revealed the identity of the person, who clearly made an attempt to interfere with the course of administration of justice.

That was not the only incident. In 2005, Justice S N Variava heading a three-judge Bench whipped up a similar controversy during the hearing of a PIL filed by then MP and BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi and JD(U) leader Rajiv Ranjan Singh `Lallan' seeking cancellation of the bail of Lalu Prasad in a DA case.

Stunning everyone in the court, Justice Variava had revealed that "someone" from the Patna High Court had called him to know whether the trial court judge in the fodder scam case could be replaced. But, the judge never named him.

Two days later on March 17, 2005, Justice Variava suo motu clarified: "The person concerned has since clarified to me that the inquiry was just an academic query. I am satisfied that the explanation is correct and my original inference that there was an attempt to influence me was wrong."

Three months later, Prasad's lawyer B B Singh in open court dared the judge to name the person who made that innocuous query. When Justice Variava asked as to which person the lawyer was referring to, Singh had said: "This person is close to your Lordship and is from a particular caste."

But, Justice Variava refused to name the person saying: "As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. It was a social encounter and had no concern with the matter. There is no reason why the name should be disclosed."

"It is a gross impropriety," -CJI.

Chief Justice India K G Balakrishanan has strongly reacted to the sensational disclosure by Justice R Regupathi of the Madras High Court that a Union minister had called him to influence him to grant anticipatory bail to the accused in a forgery case.

"It is a gross impropriety," said a distressed Justice Balakrishnan.

Even though the CJI left it to the government to look into the matter and take a call on what action should be taken against the errant minister, he left little doubt as to what he expects of the government. "It is not done. It is a gross impropriety for a politician or anyone to call up the judge regarding a pending case. It is an interference in the course of justice," he told TOI.

Asked whether it required a probe, the CJI said it was for the government to look into the matter and take appropriate action so that no one, how so ever high he might be, dares to interfere with the course of justice.

Justice Regupathi had stunned everyone on Monday by announcing in the open court that a Union minister had called him and tried to influecne him to grant anticipatory bail to father-son duo, C Krishnamurthy and S Kiruba Shridhar, both of whom were booked by the CBI for allegedly using the services of a Pondicherry University official and a middle man to inflate the marks of the latter.

Justice Balakrishnan said: "We in judiciary do not brook any interference in the course of justice. In my entire career, not a single minister, official or anyone has ever called me regarding a pending case."

"We do not approve of any such attempt," he said and gave a clean chit to most of the politicians, ministers and bureaucrats. "Mostly the ministers know how the judiciary functions in the country. They have never interfered in the justice delivery system," he said.

Justice Balakrishnan said that politicians should mind their business and leave the judiciary alone. "In politics, they may do whatever they like. But, they should leave the judiciary alone," he said.

Attack on Judiciary Continues... this time in a different way. Honesty of the judge triumphs...

In a stunning disclosure, a Madras High Court judge told an open court on Monday that a Union minister had called and tried to influence him to grant anticipatory bail to a medical student and his doctor-father in a CBI case concerning a forged marksheet.

Justice R Regupathi threatened to write to the government and the Prime Minister about the matter if the advocate appearing in the case failed to submit a written unconditional apology by Tuesday.

"A Union minister talked to me. He sought to influence me to release this petitioner on anticipatory bail," Justice Regupathi told startled advocates and officers in the court. He did not name the minister.

The matter relates to anticipatory bail pleas of S Kiruba Shridhar, a third-year MBBS student in a private medical college in Puducherry, and his father, C Krishnamurthy. The two have been booked by the CBI for allegedly using the services of a Pondicherry University official and a middleman to inflate marks.

The hearing began on Monday with Justice Regupathi saying he was not inclined to grant any relief and pointing out to their counsel that the pleas had already been rejected by him earlier on June 15. He said he would reject it this time as well. To this, the advocate complained that the judge was passing orders on the basis of the submission of prosecutors alone.

An enraged Justice Regupathi, noting that most of the orders passed by him since morning were in favour of the petitioners, said pressure was being exerted on him in this case. "A Union minister talked to me about the matter," he said. "You yourself know everything."

The judge said unless an unconditional apology was tendered, he would incorporate details of the conversation in his order.

He then referred the case to Chief Justice H L Gokhale with a request that the matter be posted before another bench for appropriate orders.

The CBI's case is that Kiruba Shridhar of Arubadai Veedu Medical College had failed his ophthalmology paper in the first two attempts. On the third and final attempt, he had got only nine out of 40 marks. With the help of a university section officer and a middleman, he had managed to get the original answer scripts replaced and inflated the marks to 16, which was the minimum pass mark, according to CBI.

The agency secured the original answer sheet that had been replaced by them. It also claimed to have found evidence to prove that the father paid off the culprits. While the university employee and the middleman were arrested in May 2009, the father-son duo are still at large. Investigations are on.

Merit and experience will hold the key to elevation to the bench...

Merit and experience will continue to be the sole criterion for selection of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Centre has no immediate plan to bring in reservation for backward classes in the higher judiciary, law minister Veerappa Moily said on Wednesday.

The entry level in judiciary -- appointment of judges to subordinate courts -- already had reservation for SCs, STs and OBCs and there was no proposal to bring in quota system in the selection of judges for HCs and the SC.

"Frankly speaking, we have not applied our mind to this issue (reservation in higher judiciary). There is no immediate plan to bring in quota. It is a policy decision and the government has not applied its mind on this issue," he said.

Moily is the first law minister in decades to make a statement that "judiciary alone cannot be blamed for the monster of pendency" and lay the blame at the government's door for clogging the wheels of justice by resorting to unnecessary litigation, which entails harassment of people.

"We have to take steps and drastically reduce government litigation. Even when there is no need to approach a higher court, appeals are filed. Someone has to be made accountable for taking a decision to file needless appeals," Moily said, adding, "As government, we should be doing justice and not leave it to the courts."

He is very serious about it and is shortly going to take up this issue -- making officials accountable for deciding to file appeals -- with all ministries and the state governments.

This means, babus who till now used to mechanically file appeals in higher courts whenever a decision went against the government could be asked to answer -- why the judgment was not accepted and the need for filing an appeal in the higher court.

"Why should people rush to judiciary when it is the government which should be granting relief to people," Moily said and gave this example -- If the land acquisition process is followed properly and the government ensures that there is no injustice, would people rush to courts and suffer for 15 years in search of justice.