Day: January 15, 2021

TRUMP IMPEACHED; TRIAL TO START ON 20TH

For the second time, The United States President Donald Trump was impeached for “incitement of insurrection” by the House of Congress on 13th January 2021. President Trump was impeached for the first time last year on 18th December 2019, charged with “abuse of power and obstruction of congress”. However, in Feb 2020, the Senate voted to keep Donald Trump in office. Donald Trump became the first President in the history of The United States to be impeached twice.

The impeachment of Trump was carried out as an after effect of the Capitol Hill riot. On 5th and 6th of January 2020, the Trump supporters gathered at Washington D.C, supporting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election had been “stolen” from him. The crowd was demanding the Congress to reject Joe Biden’s victory. In the morning of 6th January, Trump summoned the protestors to march to Capitol Hill and told them to “fight like hell to take back our country”. After marching to the Capitol and surmounting police barricades, the protesters became violent and broke into the building which ended up in total commotion. Five people including a police officer lost their lives and many were severely injured in the events. Trump denied the guards to control the riot initially but was forced to disperse the crowd and establish order thereafter.

Trump’s impassioned speech at the rally which exasperated the mob to stand against the federal establishment is the provenance of the impeachment charge against him by the House of Representatives. The power to hold a trial and further conviction rights resides with the US Senate, the upper chamber of the Federal system of US Government. A two-third majority of the Senate is necessary for the conviction of Trump through which the Democrats would be able to bar him from running for the President seat in future.

Trump’s trial by the Senate could start by January 20th, the day Joe Biden will be taking charge as the 46th President of the United States.  All eyes are on the capital city as it will be witnessing events which have never occurred in the history of the US.

RESEARCHES REVEALS POTENTIAL COLLAPSE OF MARINE ECOSYSTEM BY 2050

Marine Biodiversity is a complex biological organization consisting of diverse levels of genes, species and other elements that forms a highly convoluted ecosystem having its own structural and functional  attributes. Since these elements contribute to form a larger structure, even a slight disturbance caused to one of its integrands can have a tremendous impact on the system as a whole. Analysis of local experiments, long term regional time series and global fisheries data over the past few decades have revealed an alarming rate of marine biodiversity depletion due to overfishing, pollution and global warming.

It is estimated that within 50 years from now, a major source of wild seafood will face a collapse; i.e., a 90 percent depletion of the species’ baseline abundance. The extensive depletion of the marine ecosystem and its biodiversity happening across the globe will affect the production of seafood, resistance to diseases, filtering of pollutants etc, resulting in the decline of their productivity and stability. According to marine ecologist Palumbi, the ocean is a great recycler which takes sewage and recycles it into nutrients. But to provide these services, he added, the ocean needs all of its working parts—the millions of plant and animal species that inhabit the sea. With the loss of marine species’, human lives will also be affected by notable consequences as the chances of disease outbreaks, noxious algal blooms, and the presence of invasive species will get higher. 

Each species bears a lot of significance in an interlinked ecosystem which points to the need  of preserving the marine ecosystem altogether rather than continuing with single species management. This century might encounter the end of wild seafood unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the ocean species together as working ecosystems. Researchers still believe that this situation can be turned around; though only one percent of the ocean is effectively protected now. Measures like integrated fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats and creation of marine reserves can help in stabilising and improving the quality of marine ecosystems. Though a rapid recovery is not possible, in many cases the species resurged more quickly than anticipated. 

Climate change and oceanic resource depletion is real and it’s high time for us to undertake actions to prevent the marine biodiversity loss that would have a serious impact not only on humans but also the entire  biome.

Special Marriage Act Violates Right To Privacy

In a most learned, most laudable, most landmark and most latest judgment titled Smt. Safiya Pandey & Anr vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. & Ors. in HABEAS CORPUS No. – 16907 of 2020 that was reserved on 14.12.2020 and then finally delivered on 12.01.2021 which is most rightly capturing the news headlines of major national newspapers, the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has held unequivocally that requirement of publication of notice of intended marriage under Section 6 and inviting/entertaining objections under Section 7 of the Special Marriage Act is not mandatory. Justice Vivek Chaudhary who most crucially has authored this extremely brilliant, bold and blunt 47-page judgment which is substantiated by the reports of Law Commission of India, latest Apex Court rulings among others minced no words to make it clear in no uncertain terms that making such publication mandatory would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned. 
Justice Vivek Chaudhary based his exceptionally brilliant judgment on three key observations:-
1. Law must keep evolving with the change in time and evolution in the society.
2. It shouldn’t violate privacy, fundamental rights and right to privacy as defined by Supreme Court.
3. When there is no provision of 30-day notice for getting married under various personal laws, why should this provision be made mandatory under Special Marriage Act? 
Truth be told, Justice Vivek waxed eloquent to state that, “While giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954. Justice Vivek added that, in case they do not make such a request for publication of notice in writing, while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act, the Marriage Officer shall not publish any such notice or entertain objections to the intended marriage and proceed with the solemnization of the marriage. 
It must be mentioned here that the Court was considering a habeas corpus petition alleging that an adult girl is being detained by her father against her wishes to marry her lover who belongs to a different religion. The learned judgment came following a petition filed by Abhishek Kumar Pandey, who said that his wife Safiya Sultana, who had changed her religion to become a Hindu and renamed as Simran, married him as per Hindu rites. He alleged that her father was keeping her in illegal detention and prayed that she should be put at liberty.
To start with, this well-written, well-drafted, well-worded, well-articulated, well-reasoned and well-substantiated judgment sets the ball rolling when first and foremost a single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court points out in para 1 that, “The present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by Petitioner no.1-wife through Petitioner no.2-husband, claiming that detenue-Petitioner no.1, Smt. Safia Sultana, who after converting to Hindu religion and renamed as Smt. Simran, married Petitioner no.2 as per Hindu rituals. However respondent No.4, her father, is not permitting her to live with her husband. They both are adults, duly married with their free will and desire to live together. Thus the custody of the detenue by her father is illegal. The Court directed for the presence of the detenue and her father. They both appeared in person, wherein, the Petitioner no.1 accepted the averments aforesaid and had shown her desire to live with her husband. The Respondent no.4-father of the detenue also fairly accepted that since she is an adult, has married with her choice and wanted to live with her husband, he also accepts her decision and wished both of them best for their future.”
While stating the purpose of the petition, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “This matter could have come to an end at this stage, but, for the views expressed by the young couple while interacting with the Court on their personal appearance, the young couple expressed that they could have solemnized their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 but the said Act requires a 30 days notice to be published and objections to be invited from the public at large. They expressed that any such notice would be an invasion in their privacy and would have definitely caused unnecessary social pressure/interference in their free choice with regard to their marriage. The personal laws do not impose any such condition of publication of notice, inviting and deciding objections before solemnizing any marriage. They further state that such a challenge is being faced by a large number of similarly situated persons who desire to build a life with a partner of their own choice. Learned counsel for petitioners also stated that the situation may become more critical with notification of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, as the same prohibits conversion of religion by marriage to be unlawful. Learned counsel for petitioners further argues that looking into the changing pattern of the society, amendments made to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as well as the law declared by the Supreme Court in the last around a decade with regard to privacy, liberty and freedom of choice of a person, provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954, directing publication of a notice before marriage and inviting public objections, require a revisit to understand whether now with the said change they are to be treated as mandatory or directory in nature.” 
While continuing in a similar vein, Justice Vivek Chaudhary then states in para 3 that, “It is further submitted that such young couples are not in a position to raise these issues before solemnizing their marriages as any litigation further attracts unnecessary attention which invades into their privacy and also causes unnecessary social pressure upon them with regard to their choice of a life partner.”
While underscoring the immense significance of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, Justice Vivek then puts forth in para 4 that, “Since, the issues raised by the petitioners and their counsels involves right of life and liberty of a large number of persons, therefore, this Court is duty bound to consider their submissions. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and others [(2018) 7 SCC 192]. The relevant paragraph reads: 
“44. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for. It is the obligation of the constitutional courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty. Without sustenance of liberty, subject to constitutionally valid provisions of law, the life of a person is comparable to the living dead having to endure cruelty and torture without protest and tolerate imposition of thoughts and ideas without a voice to dissent or record a disagreement.””
Be it noted, Justice Vivek then observes in para 6 that, “For the purpose of the present case, following sections of Special Marriage Act, 1954 are of relevance: 
“4. Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the solemnization of marriages, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:― 
(a) neither party has a spouse living;
(b) neither party―
(i) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or 
(ii) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity 
(c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years;
(d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship: Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and
(e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends.
5. Notice of intended marriage: When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this Act, the parties to the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the form specified in the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the date on which such notice is given.
6. Marriage Notice Book and publication: (1) The Marriage Officer shall keep all notices given under section 5 with the records of his office and shall also forthwith enter a true copy of every such notice in a book prescribed for that purpose, to be called the Marriage Notice Book, and such book shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times, without fee, by any person desirous of inspecting the same. 
(2) The Marriage Officer shall cause every such notice to be published by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous place in his office.
(3) Where either of the parties to an intended marriage is not permanently residing within the local limits of the district of the Marriage Officer to whom the notice has been given under section 5, the Marriage Officer shall also cause a copy of such notice to be transmitted to the Marriage Officer of the district within whose limits such party is permanently residing, and that Marriage Officer shall thereupon cause a copy thereof to be affixed to some conspicuous place in his office.
7. Objection to marriage: (1) Any person may, before the expiration of thirty days from the date on which any such notice has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, object to the marriage on the ground that it would contravene one or more of the conditions specified in section 4. 
(2) After the expiration of thirty days from the date on which notice of an intended marriage has been published under sub-section (2) of section 6, the marriage may be solemnized, unless it has been previously objected to under sub-section (1).
(3) The nature of the objection shall be recorded in writing by the Marriage Officer in the Marriage Notice Book, be read over and explained if necessary, to the person making the objection and shall be signed by him or on his behalf.
8. Procedure on receipt of objection: (1) If an objection is made under section 7 to an intended marriage, the Marriage Officer shall not solemnize the marriage until he has inquired into the matter of the objection and is satisfied that it ought not to prevent the solemnization of the marriage or the objection is withdrawn by the person making it; but the Marriage Officer shall not take more than thirty days from the date of the objection for the purpose of inquiring into the matter of the objection and arriving at a decision. 
(2) If the Marriage Officer upholds the objection and refuses to solemnize the marriage, either party to the intended marriage may, within a period of thirty days from the date of such refusal, prefer an appeal to the district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Marriage Officer has his office, and the decision of the district court on such appeal shall be final, and the Marriage Officer shall act in conformity with the decision of the court. 
46. Penalty for wrongful action of Marriage Officer: Any Marriage Officer who knowingly and wilfully solemnizes a marriage under this Act,― 
(1) without publishing a notice regarding such marriage as required by Section 5, or
(2) within thirty days of the publication of the notice of such marriage, or 
(3) in contravention of any other provision in this Act, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”” 
It is worth noting that it is then pointed out in para 15 that, “In its 59th report submitted in the year 1974, the Law Commission, while proposing amendments in the Act of 1954 as well as in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states:
“1.11: The object of law, whether personal or public, must be to sustain the stability of the society and help its progress: – The structure of any society, which wants to be strong, homogeneous and progressive, must, no doubt, be steady but not static; stable but not stationary.” 
“1.16: It may sound platitudinous but is nevertheless true that revision of laws is a ‘must’ in a dynamic society like ours which is engaged on the adventure of creating a new social order founded on faith in the value-system of socio-economic justice enshrined in our Constitution. With the changing times, notions of fairness and justice assume newer and wider dimensions, and customs and beliefs of the people change. These, in turn, demand changes in the structure of law; every progressive society must make a rational effort to meet these demands. Between the letter of the law and the prevailing customs and the dictates of the current value-system accepted by the community, there should not be an unduly long gap. Ranade often said that the story of social reform, which involves reform in personal law, is an unending story; it continues from generation to generation. Each generation contributes to the continuance of the effort of social reform; but the effort is never concluded and the end is never reached in the sense that no further attempt to reform is required. It is in that sense that we believe that the revision of personal laws, and indeed, of all laws, has to be undertaken by modern societies. These thoughts have been present in our mind when we embarked upon the present inquiry” 
“1.20: In any civilised and progressive society, marriage is an institution of great importance. It is the centre of a family which in turn, is a significant unit of the social structure. Children who are born of marriage, also contribute to the stability of the institution of marriage.””
Para 16 then further states that, “Concluding the said report, the Law Commission proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill of 1974 suggesting amendments in the Act of 1954 as well as in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Act of 1954 was duly amended in the year 1976.”
Going forward, Justice Vivek then points out in para 17 that, “The Law Commission again submitted a report No.212, in the year 2008, titled “Laws of Civil Marriages in India – A Proposal to Resolve Certain Conflicts”. After taking into consideration the changes in the social norms as well as in law, the Law Commission made seven recommendations with regard to Act of 1954. Relevant for our purposes are:
“1. The word “Special” be dropped from the title of the Special Marriage Act 1954 and it be simply called “The Marriage Act 1954” or “The Marriage and Divorce Act 1954.” The suggested change will create a desirable feeling that this is the general law of India on marriage and divorce and that there is nothing “special” about a marriage solemnized under its provisions. It is in fact marriages solemnized under the community-specific laws which should be regarded as “special.”
2. A provision be added to the application clause in the Special Marriage Act 1954 that all inter-religious marriages except those within the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain communities, whether solemnized or registered under this Act or not shall be governed by this Act.
3. The definition of “degrees of prohibited relationship” given in Section 2 (b) in the Special Marriage Act 1954 and the First Schedule detailing such degrees appended to the Act be omitted. Instead, it should be provided in Section 4 of the Act that prohibited degrees in marriage in any case of an intended civil marriage shall be regulated by the marriage law (or laws) otherwise applicable to the parties.
4. The requirement of a gazette notification for recognition of custom relating to prohibited degrees in marriage found in the Explanation to Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 be deleted.” 
Furthermore, Justice Vivek then enunciates in para 18 that, “Again the Law Commission submitted report No.242, in the year 2012, titled “Prevention of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances (in the name of Honour and Tradition): A Suggested Legal Framework.” It states:
“4.1 The autonomy of every person in matters concerning oneself – a free and willing creator of one’s own choices and decisions, is now central to all thinking on community order and organization. Needless to emphasize that such autonomy with its manifold dimensions is a constitutionally protected value and is central to an open society and civilized order. Duly secured individual autonomy, exercised on informed understanding of the values integral to one’s well being is deeply connected to a free social order. Coercion against individual autonomy will then become least necessary. 
4.2 In moments and periods of social transition, the tensions between individual freedom and past social practices become focal points of the community’s ability to contemplate and provide for least hurting or painful solutions. The wisdom or wrongness of certain community perspectives and practices, their intrinsic impact on liberty, autonomy and self-worth, as well as the parents’ concern over impulsive and unreflective choices – all these factors come to the fore-front of consideration.””
More significantly, Justice Vivek then rightly brings out in para 19 that, “It recommended to simplify the procedure under the Special Marriage Act. It says:
“9: it is desirable that the procedure under the Special Marriage Act is simplified. The time gap between the date of giving notice of marriage and the registration should be removed and the entire process of registration of marriage should be expedited. The domicile restriction should also be removed. We are aware, that already an amendment is proposed to the Special Marriage Act by the Government of India by introducing a Bill in the Parliament. It is, therefore not necessary to make a detailed study and give specific recommendation on this aspect.” 
Equally significant is what is then stated in para 40 along with relevant case laws of Apex Court that, “The law as declared by the Supreme Court, since the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 till the decision in Navtej Singh Johar and others Vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, has travelled a long distance defining fundamental rights of personal liberty and of privacy. “once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes” (Lata Singh); “an inherent aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution would be the freedom of choice in marriage”(Indian Woman Says Gang-Raped on Orders of Village Court Published in Business and Financial News Dated 23-1-2014 in Re, (2014) 4 SCC 786); “choice of woman in choosing her partner in life is a legitimate constitutional right. It is founded on individual choice that is recognized in the Constitution under Article 19” (Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397); “the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock…..it is a manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution”(Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192); “Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters….. Social approval for intimate personal decisions is not the basis for recognising them.”(Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. and others, (2018) 16 SCC 368) and finally the nine-judges bench “Privacy is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value which straddles across the spectrum of fundamental rights and protects for the individual a zone of choice and self-determination…….privacy is one of the most important rights to be protected both against State and non-State actors and be recognized as a fundamental right. (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1) is a long chain of decisions growing stronger with time and firmly establishing personal liberty and privacy to be fundamental rights including within their sphere right to choose partner without interference from State, family or society.”
Quite remarkably, Justice Vivek then holds in para 41 that, “In view of the changed social circumstances and progress in laws noted and proposed by the Law Commission as well as law declared by the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, it would be cruel and unethical to force the present generation living with its current needs and expectations to follow the customs and traditions adopted by a generation living nearly 150 years back for its social needs and circumstances, which violates fundamental rights recognized by the courts of the day. In view of law settled in Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287 and Kashmir Singh vs. Union of India, (2008) 7 SCC 259 as stated above, it is the duty of this court to revisit the interpretation of the procedure under challenge as provided in the Act of 1954.”
Most significantly, Justice Vivek then holds in para 45 that, “The interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 46 containing the procedure of publication of notice and inviting objections to the intended marriage in Act of 1954 thus has to be such that would uphold the fundamental rights and not violate the same. In case the same on their simplistic reading are held mandatory, as per the law declared today, they would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned. Further, note should also be taken of the fact that marriages in India can be performed either under the personal laws or under the Act of 1954. In fact, even today, majority of marriages are performed under the personal laws. These marriages under personal laws are performed by a priest of the religion followed by the parties. Such marriages under any personal law do not require publication of any notice or calling for objections with regard to such a marriage. The individuals intending to marry approach the priest who performs the marriage as per the customs and rituals of the said religion. Their orally saying that they are competent to marry is regarded sufficient for solemnizing marriage under the personal laws. In case any party violates any condition of the said personal law, for example, if one of the parties conceals his/her marital status and commits second marriage; marriage is barred under any law (one of the parties is a minor and conceals age or marriage is within the degrees of the prohibited relationship etc.); the consent of any party is obtained by deceit or under pressure; or any other such circumstances arises, the issues are later decided by a court of law. But, the marriage takes place without any interference from any corner, even if it is later to be declared void. However, under Sections 6 and 7 of Act of 1954 the persons intending to solemnize a marriage are required to give a notice and the Marriage Officer thereafter is made duty bound to publish the notice for a period of 30 days and invite objections with regard to the same. Any person can object to the marriage on the ground that it violates any of the condition of Section 4 of Act of 1954. None of the conditions under Section 4 of Act of 1954 is such, violation of which would impact rights of any person in any manner different than the same would in case of a marriage under any personal law. Even if a marriage takes place in violation of any of the conditions of Section 4, legal consequences would follow and the courts can decide upon the same, including declare such a marriage to be void, as they do under the personal laws. There is no apparent reasonable purpose achieved by making the procedure to be more protective or obstructive under the Act of 1954, under which much less numbers of marriages are taking place, than procedure under the other personal laws, more particularly when this discrimination violates the fundamental rights of the class of persons adopting the Act of 1954 for their marriage.”
No less significant is what is then stated in para 46 that, “However, in case, such individuals applying to solemnize their marriage under the Act of 1954 themselves by their free choice desire that they would like to have more information about their counterparts, they can definitely opt for publication of notice under Section 6 and further procedure with regard to objections to be followed. Such publication of notice and further procedure would not be violative of their fundamental rights as they adopt the same of their free will. Therefore, the requirement of publication of notice under Section 6 and inviting/entertaining objections under Section 7 can only be read as directory in nature, to be given effect only on request of parties to the intended marriage and not otherwise.”
As it turned out, it is then envisaged in para 47 that, “Thus, this Court mandates that while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954. In case they do not make such a request for publication of notice in writing, while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act, the Marriage Officer shall not publish any such notice or entertain objections to the intended marriage and proceed with the solemnization of the marriage. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the Marriage Officer, while solemnizing any marriage under the Act of 1954, to verify the identification, age and valid consent of the parties or otherwise their competence to marry under the said Act. In case he has any doubt, it shall be open for him to ask for appropriate details/proof as per the facts of the case.”
Now coming to concluding paras. It is held in para 48 that, “Since the matter relates to protection of fundamental rights of large number of persons, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall ensure that a copy of this order is communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. who shall forthwith communicate the same to all the Marriage Officers of the State and other concerned authorities as expeditiously as possible.” Finally, it is then held in last para 49 that, “With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of.”
No doubt, it is beyond the capacity of my pen to state in words how elegantly, effectively and eloquently Justice Vivek Chaudhary of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court has penned this brilliant judgment most magnificently along with relevant case laws of Apex Court and relevant reports of Law Commission of India along with the reasons which we have discussed most briefly. It is definitely a must read progressive judgment and it very rightly reads down Sections 4 and 5 of the Special Marriage Act which stipulates couples to notify marriage officers one month in advance of their marriage and for marriage officers to publicise such a notification and allows for any person to “object” to their marriage on the basis that it (allegedly) violates the provisions of the Act (Section 7). It merits no reiteration that young couples are bound to feel a sigh of relief now especially in case of love marriages as they were the worst affected especially after the passage of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Ordinance Bill 2020! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Life Imprisonment Must Be Abolished

“Supreme Court has said that life imprisonment meant behind bars for life. It is worse than death to keep a person confined for his entire life in jail rather than taking his life.”
– Justice VR Krishna Iyer in The Economic Times dated 11 February 2013
Most tragic that why no one barring a few exceptions like the eminent jurist and former Supreme Court Justice late VR Krishna Iyer ever demands the permanent abolition of life imprisonment from our lapidated legal system while we keep hearing every now and then repeated demands for abolition of death penalty? Why should life imprisonment not be abolished permanently now itself? Why should the life term punishment exist at all in our penal laws when it is worse than death penalty about which there can be no two opinions as Justice VR Krishna Iyer has very rightly pointed out? It is high time and now Centre and our law makers must seriously deliberate on this to arrive at the right conclusion.
Let me state this most upfront that India is no longer a slave of Britain that the laws made by them in 1860 cannot be adequately amended in 2021 to meet the present circumstances 161 years later. Laws should be retired precisely as they are made – routinely and continuously as our PM Narendra Modi keeps reiterating also! What I find most disturbing is that now the life imprisonment has been made most worst and we have left even the punishment given during British rule behind! During British rule, life imprisonment meant 14 years and after independence even though in some cases they approved it but of late it has been meant to mean whole life without any remission as the Supreme Court recently held also unless the Governments prefers to do so under the relevant provisions of the CrPC. This is most concerning to note! I am sure that in coming time Supreme Court too will realize this when a Judge of the wisdom of Justice VR Krishna Iyer will sit there. To be brutally honest, I see in Justice Dr DY Chandrachud that wisdom and I am sure that my unflinching faith in him shall stand vindicated in the years to come!
Let me ask few soul searching questions: Why can’t criminals be reformed? Why can’t they be rehabilitated? Why can’t they be taught in jail the values of humanity, tolerance and pardon? Why can’t they contribute to the betterment of society? Why can’t we shed off our age-old mental block and false prejudice that, “Once a criminal is always a criminal”? Why do we forget that one of the killers of late Rajiv Gandhi, our former PM scored more than 95% in an exam which he gave while in jail which most of us never have been able to score despite getting best facilities? Why can’t he be rehabilitated? Why do we forget that even many terrorists who are brainwashed on how best to destroy India in foreign hostile nations like Pakistan have been reformed and rehabilitated after they realize their utter folliness and after they are admonished by their own parents and relatives and have even later joined forces and sacrificed their lives fighting terrorists themselves? 
Needless to say: Life imprisonment is the worst crime that can ever be committed by anyone and even State cannot be given the licence to commit the most heinous crime on earth! But what we see on ground is completely astounding and life imprisonment keeps getting conferred at the drop of a hat which is most unfortunate, to say the least! Our law makers must pay some attention to this punishment of life imprisonment being vested in so many Sections of IPC more than 40 and being conferred so liberally and so also must human right activists and others raise this issue forcefully in each and every forum!
Yet, alas, we never hear even a whimper of protest from any human right or social activist or any eminent legal luminary barring certain notable exceptions and that too not very vociferously which is most regrettable, to say the least! I am yet to read a single article in my life on life imprisonment even though I have read endless number of articles on death penalty! I have myself written many times on death penalty but this is the first time that I am attempting to write on life imprisonment! This itself proves that this burning topic which is the worst form of human rights violations has never received any attention of any kind from anywhere in the world and even our Law Commission has never given it a food of thought even though it keeps on reviewing death penalty from time to time!
It goes without saying that the Sections in IPC or any other penal law which mandate death penalty can be counted in finger tips in one hand alone but life imprisonment is inundated in so many Sections and in so many penal laws that a lot of unremitting hard work has to be done to count the exact number of Sections which prescribe life imprisonment! Yet all the time we hear all the brouhaha over death penalty by not only human rights activists and eminent legal luminaries but also by our Central government, Law Commission, academicians etc! Isn’t it a supreme irony over which no one not even our Law Commission bothers to even brood over? You tell me if I am wrong on this score!
Let me be very direct in saying this from the innermost core or bottom of my heart – As a great civilization who has always followed the non-violent, love and tolerant ideas of Buddha, Nanak and Mahatma Gandhi, India must put the punishment of life imprisonment to where it truly belongs – in the museum and in the past pages of history. It is rightly said that, “Two wrongs cannot make a right”. The earlier we realize this, the better it shall be in the interest of humanity and justice!
Truth be told, there are many including me who also feel that terrorist too can be brainwashed not in the manner Pakistan or our other hostile nation does but in a real positive sense and they too once reformed should be allowed to come back to the mainstream and live a normal life like others. My best friend Sageer Khan once said to me way back in 1994 that, “Defend a rapist or a dacoit or a robber or a murderer or any other criminal but never ever in life defend a terrorist. I say so because a rapist or a dacoit or a robber or a murderer never goes to Pakistan or any other foreign nation to get training on how best to destroy India. Moreover, a rapist or a dacoit or any other criminal adversely affects one or a few individuals but terrorists are a potent threat not to just one or few individuals to the very existence of our whole nation.” I immediately asked him : “Does a country which has rapists or dacoits or corrupt or murderers or any other criminals really need Pakistan’s ISI or Pakistan’s Army trained terrorist to destroy India? Who trains our politicians to hold talks and dialogues with terrorists and swindle away unlimited money for their own pocket and allow millions of poor to die hungry?” Sageer Khan then endorsed my stand and admitted that, “Yes, you are right that criminals are criminals.” We have seen for ourselves how so many terrorists after being reformed have got absorbed in the mainstream. I do, however, agree that terrorists should be allowed to join the mainstream after it is thoroughly confirmed that he/she has reformed and shown genuine interest in leading a normal life again and still it should be made ensured that he/she again does not go back to the same old dirty path of terrorism which is the biggest threat to the very existence of our nation. 
It merits no reiteration that life term under no circumstances can ever be justified. No matter how heinous any crime any criminal may have committed, there is always a possibility of reforming but life term forever closes that option which I strongly disapprove. We need to change our mental level of thinking and learn to be more tolerant even towards those who have gone on the wrong track! Of course, I don’t say that they should not be punished but simultaneously we must make sure that they too are given an opportunity of returning to the mainstream so that their whole family benefits especially those who are totally dependent on them like aged parents, wife, children etc!
Let me be direct in asking: What sense does it make to lock a person inside jail for whole life? Why should instead such person not be made to do service which can benefit the society at large without paying him/her anything in return and yes, if someone is dependent on him/her for survival then directly giving to the concerned dependent some money? Will this not benefit the whole society as also his/her family who were not partner in the crime while punishing him/her at the same time? Our lawmakers and Centre must seriously dwell on this!
Why should life imprisonment exist at all even for the most heinous crimes? Why can’t the criminals be punished and then allowed to contribute their bit to society by releasing them after few years? Why can’t we come out of our medieval slavish mindset which firmly believes in “Once a criminal always a criminal”? Why can’t such criminals who are guilty of committing the most heinous crimes be reformed and compulsorily made to contribute their service to the disabled, orphans, street dogs, other uncared animals and poorest of poor instead of just latching them behind bars for their whole life? Why don’t we realize that society gains nothing by just botching them inside Tihar jail or any other jail for the rest of their lives? It is high time that we at least now change our primitive mindset for the betterment of the whole society at large! The earlier we do this, the more better it shall be in the supreme interest of humanity!
What a supreme irony that according to the government itself, only 54 persons have been executed since independence as reported in ‘The Times Of India’ newspaper dated August 25, 2014 but yet so much of brouhaha is made of death penalty! On the contrary, endless number of persons have been sentenced to life imprisonment since independence and yet we hardly hear any voice of human rights activists to repeal it forever in the supreme interest of protection of humanity, life and personal liberty of not just common citizens but also criminals! Criminals too are like us, it is only that due to some circumstances and wrong company that they get involved in some wrong doing for which they certainly must be punished but condemning them to prison for life can in no way be the ideal solution!
It is high time and now not just Centre but even our Law Commission too must do a thorough introspection and deep research on it to get to the bottom of the matter. I am sure that they too will ultimately come to the logical conclusion that in a modern, civilised society, life imprisonment simply serves no relevant purpose other than satisfying few sadistic egos and must therefore be stamped off all our statutes and penal laws. Only then can we call ourselves tolerant, civilised and modern in the true sense! At least I feel in this manner. You or for that matter anyone else including Centre is fully entitled to differ with me on this count.
At least to the best of my knowledge, I have never heard even once of the Law Commission of India reviewing the abolition of life imprisonment even though it has reviewed death penalty in the past and now too has decided to embark on the same exercise with a fresh look and it needs no rocket science to conclude that it is only due to unremitting pressure of human rights activists, lawyers and other intellectuals! The Supreme Court earlier while rejecting the challenge to the death penalty had quoted the 1967 report of the Law Commission ( which was 35th Report ) which had said that, “Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of social upbringing of its inhabitants to the disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.”
The Law Commission of India in its 262nd report also rightly favoured abolition of death penalty for all offences except terror related offences and waging war against the state. But what about life imprisonment? Not a single word I have ever heard as the Law Commission has never reviewed its practical utility. But it is high time and now at least the Law Commission must review it and submit its enlightening recommendations in this regard so that this most inhuman form of punishment is very rightly thrown to the dustbin for the ultimate purpose of being consigned to the flames!
It is a no-brainer that the easiest way to die is by hanging. Don’t we know this simple basic fact which is a matter of common knowledge that how many people commit suicide every year by hanging alone? What to say about committing suicide by other means! Why did one of the accused in the Delhi Nirbhaya gang rape commit suicide? Even eminent lawyers, judges, senior army officers, police officers, doctors etc keep on committing suicide time and again because it is most difficult to stay alive and lead a frustrated life! We had seen how the ex DGP of Assam Shankar Baru committed suicide after his name figured in a scam! Such people cannot serve life term by staying alive even in open and opt for committing suicide! There are many more such instances!
For God sake, at least now think about those who have to spend their entire life in prison? It is the worst form of torture and I personally consider it the worst form of crime on earth, worse than even murder, rape, dacoity or even terrorism! It is the worst form of crime perpetrated by State! Terrorists are trained in Pakistan and other foreign countries but who trains State itself to inflict this worst punishment which is termed as “life term”?
Why do most of us fail to appreciate the basic fact that rigorous life imprisonment is much more than painful than capital punishment where a criminal is killed in just one fell stroke only? It should not be lost on us that even Mohammad Afzal Guru who has been hanged in Parliament attack case had rued when alive that,“I don’t think the UPA government can ever reach a decision. Congress has two mouths and is playing a double game. I really wish LK Advani becomes next PM as he is the only one who can take a decision and hang me. At least my pain and daily sufferings would ease then. Cumbersome legal procedures and prolonged periods of solitary confinement are inhuman and cruel. Life has become hell in jail. I don’t wish to be a part of the living dead.” This itself is adequate testimony to prove my basic point that life term is worse than capital punishment which under no circumstances can ever be justified!
Even a criminal can be reformed and absorbed in the mainstream! Moreover let us not forget that it is our society which prepares the crime itself and the criminals only commit it falling prey for which they alone cannot be blamed. Definitely their crime cannot be condoned at all but just awarding life imprisonment is no solution rather is worse than the disease or problem itself. We must think from a more broader angle of devising more ways and means to curb the increasing crime by striking at the very root of the problem due to which more and more persons are becoming criminals and this again is possible if their basic mindset is changed and they are made to believe that their best interest lies in reforming themselves!
Before winding up, let me clarify to my esteemed readers: I am not a spokesperson of criminals nor do I justify in any manner the heinous crimes committed by them! All that I am trying to say is: They too must be given a chance to reform, rehabilitate and resurrect as good citizens after cooling their heels for some years in prison! Why can’t they be given a chance to live a normal life? Let us not forget: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of right to life and personal liberty of all citizens which certainly includes criminals also! To be sure, when such an eminent jurist like Justice VR Krishna Iyer who is a former Judge of the Supreme Court can belive in “Operation Valmiki” then why can’t we and our society as a whole believe in the same? Justice Krishna Iyer had hit the nail on the head when he had said a long time back that,“I believe in Operation Valmiki because every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.” Most unfortunately, this is what our lawmakers and successive governments in the Centre have always ignored! Rules made by our former colonial rulers – Britishers who treated Indians like servants are still continuing more or less intact and hardly few changes have been made which is the real tragedy! Just mourning won’t do. Such outmoded and archaic colonial laws needs to be thrown out or at least amended to meet the present circumstances! 
When Centre can be so large hearted to a Pakistani army invader like Gen Musharraf who even threatened to nuke India and heaped Kargil war on us which he masterminded in which we lost more than five hundred soldiers as per official figures even though the unofficial figure is quite high yet Centre welcomed him within three months in 1999 to accord him a grand reception and many big media houses welcomed him and honoured him grandly then why can’t we demonstrate an iota of kindness for our very own people who are Indians and give them an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and return to the national mainstream by which not only they but their entire family especially those who are wholly dependent will benefit immensely? Centre must really ponder in right earnest!
It is my humble request to our law makers, law commission, government and policy makers to please dwell over it and take a decision appropriately as per their own wisdom after weighing in all the factors! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be for not only those languishing in jails but also their families as a whole! These days all newspapers are flooded with reports that the Law Commission is seriously reviewing the growing demand of abolition of death penalty in India permanently! If death penalty can be abolished then why can’t life imprisonment be also abolished? How I wish there were more of Justice Krishna Iyer who could raise emphatically their voice against life imprisonment which is the worst punishment!
To put things in perspective, Centre must learn something from Punjab government who worked out the premature release of Gurmeet Singh Pinky, a Babbar Khalsa militant-turned-inspector convicted of murder where life term was done in 7 years and seven and a half months and will spend the rest of his life as a free citizen as was reported in ‘The Indian Express’ newspaper dated August 21, 2014! There are many such unreported cases but what is most unfortunate is that only a few offenders having some push and pull have been able to avail of such exclusive benefit and majority still are compelled to languish in jail for the rest of their life!
It is in the supreme interest of humanity that life imprisonment must be abolished once and for all. The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in the interest of humanity! There is not even an iota of doubt about it. This alone explains why such a legendary jurist and former Supreme Court Judge – Justice Krishna Iyer was unequivocal in advocating for abolishing of life imprisonment as it is the worst form of crime! That’s all I have to say on this! I hope students, law researchers, human rights activists and lawyers and also Judges do more introspection on this and seriously analyse what I have said most humbly!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut -250001, Uttar Pradesh