Fundamental Duties Most Unfortunately Has Become A Forgotten Chapter Of The Constitution

“The source of right is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights, they will escape us like will of the wisp, the more we pursue them, the further they will fly. I learned from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved come from duty well done. Thus the very right to live accrues to us only when we do the duty of citizenship of the world. From this one fundamental statement, perhaps it is easy though to define duties of man and woman and correlate every right to some corresponding duty to be first performed. Every other right can be shown to be usurpation hardly worth fighting for.”

– Mahatma Gandhi when requested to give his thoughts on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

At the very outset, let me begin by saying that it grievously hurts me to painfully note that fundamental duties has more or less most unfortunately become a forgotten chapter of our Constitution. This most definitely should never have happened but we all have been watching this happening right before our own eyes. Communal riots breaking out on very small petty issues in which many people lose their precious lives, many children become orphan and homeless as their houses are burnt are all most painful reminders that fundamental duties have become more or less a forgotten chapter of our Constitution! Nothing on earth can be more unfortunate than this!

As if this is not enough, a new trend has started in India to block road and rail routes so that Centre or State can be compelled to toe the line which the protesters demand. We saw this abundantly in Shaheen Bagh which finally culminated in the Delhi riots in which there was huge violence as the protesters started blocking more and more roads and this led to unrest and clashes which left many dead and also many more injured. Now once again in protest against farmers bill the farmers of few states have occupied all key points to enter Delhi due to which thousands of crores of rupees worth business is suffering daily and the people are further made to face inconvenience since more than about fifty days and have threatened to carry out tractor rally on 26 January if their demand of withdrawing all the 3 farm bills are not complied with unconditionally and even Supreme Court has voiced its concern on the possibility of violence breaking out which cannot be dismissed lightly! Centre must promptly take adequate steps to ensure that road blockade is lifted and no one is allowed to hold the nation to ransom!

There can be no chapter in Constitution which is as important as the one on fundamental duties yet it has been mostly ignored. How often do we read articles on Constitution pertaining to fundamental duties? The obvious answer is once in a blue moon. This despite the fact that fundamental duties are most important as I have already noted above. No less than an eminent legal luminary of the stature of former Chief Justice of India – Justice RC Lahoti while delivering a guest lecture in memory of Justice KT Desai on 15 July, 2014 at Central Court Room in Bombay High Court, Mumbai on ‘Fundamental Duties – A Forgotten Chapter of the Constitution’ had himself most gracefully observed that, “I could not have chosen a subject better than the Fundamental Duties; more so, when as a student of Constitution I find that in the judicial circles and amongst the citizens, a significant provision like Article 51A is found to be conspicuous more by its absence. It is a beautifully well drafted piece of Constitutional enactment. Every word is so well chosen and placed as if a gem studded in necklace! To me, these 10 duties sound like incantations of some holy book.”

Having said this, I must now bring out here that Part IVA, Article 51A, providing for ten fundamental duties, was introduced in the Constitution not in 1950 when it was originally prepared but by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976. Let us all read the basic text of this all important Article 51A, as enacted by 42nd Amendment pertaining to fundamental duties. It runs as follows : –

51A. Fundamental duties – It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;

(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement;

(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

It is pertinent to mention here that it was in 2002 and by the 86th Amendment to the Constitution that one more fundamental duty was added as clause (k) in Article 51A and very rightly so. The basic education of children is most imperative and must always be provided to children between the age of 6 to 14 as very rightly provided in clause (k). There can be no two opinions on this.

A moot question arises here : Why it never occurred to the founding fathers of our Constitution of the dire need to include fundamental duties also in it? Most certainly, this was because the founding fathers had unflinching faith in all Indians that they would themselves voluntarily do their fundamental duties on their own without their mentioning it specifically in the Constitution. They were not wrong in doing so. It is the people themselves who have not risen to the occasion and abdicated from discharging their fundamental duties due to which it had to be specifically inserted in the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment.

We must also not forget here that there some provisions which are implicit like all the fundamental rights have corresponding duties also like Article 17 implies a duty not to practice untouchability and same goes the case with other fundamental right. Similarly Article 14 which deals with right to equality also implies a duty to treat all others equally. What is most hurting to note is that while most of us always remember by heart our fundamental rights, we very rarely bother about fundamental duties which are equally as important rather more important but whom we very conveniently ignore blithely for preserving our own vested interest! This is the most sad part which is just not done!

What most of us tend to ignore is that our rich Indian culture never believed in duties being imposed on us as our forefathers always believed in sacrifice and this alone explains that why fundamental duties and directive principles of state policy are not binding on citizens and no penalty is imposed on anyone for not performing them. We must be always grateful to the founding fathers of our Constitution for this but we hardly care for it! Here is where we have gone grievously wrong which we must be honest enough to at least admit.

It is most unfortunate to note that the chapter on fundamental duties even after being inserted has been most blatantly disregarded and very conveniently overlooked everywhere. This alone explains why the former CJI – Justice RC Lahoti had to observe most painfully that, “The chapter on fundamental duties, inspite of having been introduced in the Constitution, is more neglected than noticed. I have not come across any textbook of schools incorporating the text of fundamental duties much less any discussion thereon. The commentaries on Indian Constitution which I have come across, do not deal with this chapter with any emphasis. Eminent jurists writing commentaries on Constitution have not written much on fundamental duties. The apex court of the country and the High Courts have also not much utilized the Article 51A while dealing with other constitutional provisions.”

HM Seervai who is one of the most eminent legal luminary and jurist that India has ever produced in his monumental work on Constitutional law of India has written just a para on fundamental duties which I feel it obligatory to mention here. I must go on to say here that two notable observations made by the eminent jurist Seervai deserves to be quoted here. He says most eloquently that, “[Article 51A] has been enacted under the mistaken belief that if Articles 14 to 32 confer fundamental rights on citizens, and Articles 38 to 51 impose ‘duties’ on the State, fundamental duties ought to be imposed on citizens…. If the directive principles are violated or ignored nothing happens; equally if fundamental duties are disregarded nothing happens. It is unnecessary to deal with Article 51A beyond saying that they are innocuous”. What Seervai has observed can under no circumstances be ignored. Centre must ponder most seriously on this and do what is best suited to meet the present circumstances. The eminent legal luminary Seervai further goes on to say that clauses (b) and (j) must appear ludicrous to people outside India and even to people within India.

Having said this, now let me turn my attention on how fundamental duties came into existence. It was during the term of former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi that it was decided that certain fundamental duties must be incorporated in the Constitution so that all citizens remain conscious of it and not think that they have no duty at all to perform. On February 26, 1976 the All India Congress Committee appointed Swaran Singh Committee to suggest certain changes in the Constitution to meet the changed circumstances. Swaran Singh Committee consisted of 12 members with former External Affairs Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh as its Chairman and Congress Secretary, AR Antulay, MP, as its Secretary.

While craving for my readers exclusive indulgence, let me point out here that it is interesting to note here that the Swaran Committee said nothing about the fundamental duties but in its supplementary report, it listed the fundamental duties, which had to be incorporated as a separate chapter in the Constitution. This Committee also laid special emphasis on the dire need of making people more aware of the duties they must perform along with enjoying rights. This is how fundamental duties were inserted in our Constitution.

For my readers benefit, I must mention here that actually the Swaran Committee had recommended only 8 fundamental duties but the Congress government in Centre headed by late Mrs Indira Gandhi decided to include 10 duties as fundamental duties. I must also mention here that some suggestions made by Swaran Committee were not accepted by Centre. As for instance, it was suggested by the Committee that there should be a penalty or punishment for non-compliance of the fundamental duties but these were not accepted. The other suggestions made but not accepted were : –

1. PK Deo (Kalahandi) suggested that, “Every young person, before graduation in any University or before being eligible for any employment in any service, shall serve in the Territorial Army or work in any factory, or farm, or irrigation project, at least for one year”.

2. Smt Maya Ray made a notable suggestion that payment of taxes be included as one of the fundamental duties.

3. Bibhuti Mishra suggested, “To observe celibacy in the interest of family planning and to abstain from excessive consumption of alcohol”. He had also suggested Article 51B and Article 51C being included in the Amendment, as under –

“51B Special duty of holders of public offices – It shall be the special duty of every member of the Council of Ministers either of the Union or of the States, and every person holding an office under the Government or every member or office bearer of any public institution to protect and safeguard interests of the country and abstain from doing anything which jeopardises or is likely to jeopardise the economic, social or political interests of the country in any manner whatsoever.”

“51C – It shall be the duty of every member of the Council of Ministers and every officer of the Government responsible for taking decisions in matters relating to policy of the Government or internal administration of the Government or Departments to abstain from consuming alcohol in any public place whether called as such or private.”

4. Sardar Swaran Singh Sokhi suggested, “To have ceiling on expenditure and to have compassion for living creatures”.

5. Dr Karan Singh suggested, “A duty to sustain the unity and integrity of the nation.”; “A duty to act in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the land.” and “A duty to perform public duties and safeguard public property.”

6. Kartik Oraon suggested, “A duty to undergo compulsory military training for two years at the age of eighteen or on completion of education”.

7. Jambuwant Dhote suggested, “A duty to use swadeshi and indigenously manufactured goods only.”; “A duty to undergo military training in the armed forces for one year in case of a student/youth who attains the age of seventeen years.”; “A duty to learn how to read, write and speak ‘Hindustani language’.”; “A duty not to have either in cash or in a bank (Indian or foreign) an amount exceeding Rs 25,000.”; “A duty not to keep cash, jewellery, gold, silver, diamonds, pearls, jewels etc., in safe deposit vault either in his name or in the name of a member of his family.”; “A duty not to keep gold exceeding ten tolas in the form of ornaments or in any other form in case of a female and not to wear any ornaments made of gold in case of a male.”; “A duty to surrender to the Government cash, gold and jewellery in excess of the ceilings.”; “A duty to transfer immovable property exceeding the ceiling to the Government through a testament or any other instrument.”; “A duty to abjure vice.”; and “A duty to consider his foremost duty to build a clean, perfect and ideal character while translating into practice the aforesaid ten duties of a citizen and family.”

8. Priya Ranjan Das Munshi suggested, “A duty to get pass marks in the history of national struggle for independence in respective stages and volumes as specified by the legislation or guidelines of the Education Ministry, in all academic examinations and in all faculties from minor to graduate degree and in all competitive examinations like PSC, UPSC and IAS.”; “A duty to set compulsory military training in school and college level for able young men.”; “A duty to get compulsory physical culture and sports in all spheres of the youth and students”.

9. Dr Paras Diwan suggested, “A duty to work.”; “A duty to pay taxes.”; “A duty to maintain discipline at work and public order.”; “A duty to participate in public life.”; “A duty not to spread hatred, contempt or provoke strife on account of national, regional, lingual, racial and religious differences.”; “A duty to be vigilant against the enemies of the state.”; “A duty to discharge any public or social office vested in him conscientiously.”; and “A duty to receive education”.

It was on 1-9-1976 that finally the 42nd Amendment was introduced in the Parliament as Constitution 44th Amendment Bill by HR Gokhale who was the then Law Minister. The debate on the Bill which included Article 51A was a long debate and the motion was adopted with certain amendments on November 2, 1976. The reason why I mentioned above even those suggestions which were not accepted is that most of these suggestions are really laudable and we all must try and do our best to follow them to the best of our ability keeping our national interests above everything else.

There are many like me who very strongly feel that fundamental duties are mere “show pieces” or you may say more directly – “dead letters”. This is so because they are neither justiciable nor judicially enforceable unlike fundamental rights. There is no direct or even indirect provision in our Constitution or any other law for the time being in force in our country by which we can get fundamental duties enforced. There must be some penalty or punishment to ensure that fundamental duties are properly enforced.

This alone explains why most of the citizens care the least to ensure that they are discharging their fundamental duties properly! This alone explains why it was a “grave mistake” on the part of the Congress government led by Mrs Indira Gandhi to not accept the landmark suggestion of imposing penalty or punishment for non-compliance of fundamental duties! Under the Constitution of Greece and Cyprus, there is a fundamental duty, cast upon the citizens to exercise his right of franchise, founded on the doctrine of compulsory voting. A failure to exercise the right to vote is an offence punishable under the law.

The American Constitution does not enumerate any fundamental duties of an individual and the UK does not have any written Constitution. But in general, the common law duties of a citizen are the same in USA and UK and they are as follows : –

1. Allegiance to the State,

2. To disclose any treason or felony of which he has the knowledge, and

3. To assist in the detection and suppression of a crime.

There are more than 35 nations whose Constitution contain specific provisions on fundamental duties. Chapter II of the Chinese Constitution of 1982 clubs “fundamental rights and duties” of citizens together. It merits attention to note here that Article 33(3) makes the performance of the duties an enabling condition for enjoyment of the rights. It would be worth recalling here some of the duties enjoined by Chinese Constitution and they are as follows : –

1. Duty towards motherland – to safeguard the security, honour and interest of the motherland; to defend the motherland and resist aggression; to maintain national unity and integrity,

2. To abide by the Constitution;

3. To protect public property;

4. To respect social ethics;

5. To pay taxes; and

6. To work etc.

The 1977 Constitution of the erstwhile USSR too places rights and duties on the same footing and this is best evident by Article 59 which says that, “Citizens exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations.” Article 61 lays down that every citizen of the USSR is obliged to preserve and protect socialist property. Persons encroaching in any way on socialist property shall be punished by law

The Yugoslavian Constitution of 1963 also assigns a high priority to the duties of citizen. Article 32 states that, “The freedom and rights shall be achieved in solidarity among the people by the fulfillment of their duties towards each other”. Article 36 says that, “The right to work and the freedom to work are guaranteed and whoever will not work, though he is fit to do so, shall not enjoy the rights and the social protection that man enjoys on the basis of work”. Article 61 further envisages that, “Every citizen shall conscientiously discharge any public or social office vested in him and shall be personally accountable for discharging it”.

Chapter III of the Japanese Constitution, 1946, is titled “Rights and Duties of the People” which clearly indicates that rights and duties are clubbed together and not separately thus clearly conveying that duties are as important as rights. Under Article 26, the parents have the obligation to send the children to receive the compulsory free education provided by the State and under Article 27, all people shall have the obligation to work.

Justice JS Verma, former CJI, had emphasized that discourse on fundamental rights and fundamental duties cannot be divorced from each other or else we do a dis-service to both. Eminent legal jurist DD Basu said that the fundamental duties can monitor fundamental rights. For instance, a person who burns the Constitution, in violation of the duty in Article 51A(a), cannot assert that the meeting or assembly at which it was burnt, by way of demonstration against the government, should be protected by the freedom of expression or assembly guaranteed by Article 19.

It was as early as in 1969 that the Supreme Court of India in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v The State of Mysore, (1969) 3 SCC 84 had stated most categorically that, “It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties. While rights conferred under Part III are fundamental, the directives given under Part IV are fundamental in the governance of the country. We see no conflict on the whole between the provisions contained in Part III and Part IV. They are complimentary and supplementary to each other. The provisions of Part IV enable the legislatures and the government to impose various duties on the citizens. The provisions therein, are deliberately made elastic because the duties to be imposed on the citizens depend on the extent to which the directive principles are implemented. The mandate of the Constitution is to build a welfare society in which justice – social, economic and political, shall inform all institutions of our national life. The hopes and aspirations aroused by the Constitution will be belied if the minimum needs of the lowest of our citizens are not met.” In this case, the court also held that freedom of trade does not mean freedom to exploit, nor do the provisions of the Constitution act as barriers to progress. They provide a balance for orderly progress towards the social order contemplated by the Preamble of the Constitution. Workers were held entitled to minimum rates of wages. In Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand, (1980) 4 SCC 162, the Supreme Court ruled that paucity of funds shall not be a defence to not carry out the basic duties by the local authorities.

Let me also mention here that in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1985) 2 SCC 431, a Bench of Chief Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice Ranganath Mishra in order to prevent imbalance in ecology and hazard to healthy environment being created due to working of lime-stone quarries, directed the cancellation of the leases which resulted in permanent closure of lime-stone quarries. These directions were issued in face of the fundamental right to trade and business and the right to earn livelihood assigning paramount significance to fundamental duties and rather placing the fundamental duties, owing to people at large, above the fundamental right of a few individuals. The court held that such closure would undoubtedly cause hardship, “but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment”. Similarly in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986(Supp) SCC 517, it was held by Apex Court that, “Preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only governments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.”

In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal, (1987)2 SCC 295, the Apex Court held that whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48A of the Constitution and Article 51A(g) which proclaims the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Policy decisions taken by State are not ordinarily to be interfered with by the courts. But if it is the question of giving effect to the directive principle and the fundamental duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy not to be touched by the court; the court may always give necessary directions.

In MC Mehta v Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471, Article 51A, enacting fundamental duties of citizens, was read as casting duties on the government and for issuing certain directions consistently with Article 51A. The directions to be issued by government were –

1. The Central Government shall direct to the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week, lessons relating to protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes;

2. The Central Government shall get text books written for the said purpose and distribute them to the educational institutions free of cost;

3. The children shall be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness, commencing with the cleanliness of the house, both inside and the outside and with the street in which they live;

4. The Central Government shall consider training of teachers who teach this subject by the introduction of short-term courses for such training;

5. The Central Government, the Governments of the States and all the Union Territories shall consider desirability of organizing “Keep the city/town/village clean” week;

6. To create a national awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling all-round deterioration of the environment.

On this, the former CJI, Justice RC Lahoti rightly said that, “The logic behind the approach adopted by the Supreme Court seems to be that if Constitution ordains the citizens to perform certain duties then the State is equally ordained to perform all such functions as would enable the citizens to perform their duties.

Also, in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and MC Mehta v Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 715, the Supreme Court recognized ‘The Precautionary Principle’ and ‘The Polluter Pays Principle’ as essential features of ‘sustainable development’ and part of the environmental law of the country. It is worth mentioning here that Article 21, directive principles and fundamental duty clause (g) of Article 51A were relied on by the Supreme Court for spelling out a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The Apex Court held it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. In AIIMS Students Union v AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428, while striking down the institutional reservation in AIIMS as violative of Article 14, the Supreme Court has drawn liberal support and backing of the fundamental duties, giving them paramountcy of consideration with other provisions of Constitution to test the Constitutional validity of such reservation in AIIMS.

Having said this, let me reiterate here that just a few landmark Apex Court rulings even though laudable are woefully inadequate to deal with the endless number of cases of fundamental duties being thrown to the garbage! There are some more rulings which I have not mentioned but they are simply not enough. It is high time and now India too must seriously ponder over the dire need of clubbing duties and rights together so that duties are accorded the same high position as that of rights and to enjoy rights it must be obligatory that citizens discharge responsibly some duties also and not just keep enjoying fundamental rights and keep moving courts for enforcement of fundamental rights as we have been seeing happening in our country since independence till now! Also, it must be obligatory to render some basic fundamental duties and those not doing must be made to face strict punishment or heavy penalty or both! Blocking of rail and road routes must be permanently banned as it seriously endangers peace!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, UP

North Korea unveils new submarine-launched ballistic missile

North Korea has unveiled a new submarine-launched ballistic missile described by state media as the world’s most powerful weapon. Pyongyang unveiled the missile during a military parade yesterday.

The event did not showcase North Korea’s largest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which was unveiled at a much larger military parade in October.

States, UTs need to take prior approval from ECI for initiating disciplinary action against poll officials

The Election Commission of India, ECI has said that State and Union Territory governments will need its prior approval ,if any disciplinary action is initiated against the Chief Electoral Officers and other officers up to Joint Chief Electoral Officer during their tenure and also up to one year from the expiry of the last election conducted by them.

The ECI has said this in a letter marked to the Cabinet Secretary, Chief Secretaries of States, Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training and Chief Electoral Officers of all the States. The ECI also said that many instances have come to its notice wherein Chief Electoral Officers and some other officials working directly in the office of Chief Electoral Officers have been victimised after the elections are over.

The Commission said, ironically, in most such instances the concerned officers had discharged their duties in an impartial manner in order to ensure free, fair, robust and ethical elections. After a comprehensive review of this issue and keeping in view such specific instances, the Commission has addressed a communication to all concerned. The ECI has also directed that the State and Union Territory governments will not reduce facilities such as vehicle, security and other facilities and amenities provided to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer for proper discharge of duties.

51st International Film Festival of India to begin today in Goa

The 51st edition of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) is scheduled to open at 3PM today. All preparations are complete for IFFI. The opening ceremony will be held in the presence of Minister of Information and Broadcasting Shri Prakash Javadekar and Chief Minister of Goa Dr Pramod Sawant. IFFI is considered as a platform to project various dimensions of excellence in film art.

Like every year the city of Panaji is celebrating 51st edition of IFFI.All preparations are done for IFFI which is Asia’s first international film festival.This year IFFI is being organised in hybrid manner because of Covid19 pandemic.Delegates will have an option to participate in physical as well as virtual mode. More than 200 films are lined up. Italian cinematographer Mr Vittorio Storaro will be honoured with lifetime achievement award.For this year Bangladesh will be the country of focus.

Centre notifies 3,566 posts in Central Government suitable for persons with disabilities

The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities has notified 3 thousand 566 posts in the Central Government establishments as suitable for persons with benchmark disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in a statement said that these posts include one thousand 46 in Group A, 515 in Group B, one thousand 724 in Group C and 281 in Group D posts.

Posts have also been identified suitable for new categories of persons with disabilities such as dwarfism, acid attack victims, muscular dystrophy, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, mental illness and multiple disability have been added. This list is not an exhaustive one and Central Ministries, Departments, Autonomous Bodies and Public Sector Undertakings may further supplement. This notification will broaden the scope for employment for persons with benchmark disabilities in Government establishments.

Prime Minister to address Startup India International Summit – Prarambh this evening

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will interact with startups and address ‘Prarambh: Startup India International Summit’ through video conferencing this evening. The two-day Summit is being organized by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. It is being organised as a follow up of the announcement made by the Prime Minister at the fourth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) Summit held in Kathmandu in August 2018 wherein India committed to host the BIMSTEC Startup Conclave.

The virtual summit will bring together speakers from around the world and India, facilitate discussions on technologies, innovation, robust policies, and initiatives, enable government and international organisations to share their views and set on fire the minds of young Indian entrepreneurs, driving them to solve the problems and challenges that matter, not just for India but also for the entire world.

The Summit marks the fifth anniversary of the Startup India initiative, launched by the Prime Minister on 16th January, 2016. With participation from over 25 countries and more than 200 global speakers, the summit will be the largest startup confluence organised by the Government of India since the launch of the Startup India initiative. In addition to deliberating on good practices from best of the ecosystems across the world, the sessions of the Summit are designed to showcase the spread and depth of entrepreneurship based on innovation in India. The objective is to focus attention of global capital for startups in India, mobilize domestic capital, provide opportunities for accessing international markets to our startups and evolve enabling policy provisions.

Country’s COVID-19 recovery rate reaches 96.56 per cent

The country’s COVID-19 recovery rate has reached 96.56 per cent. A total of 16 thousand 977 COVID patients recovered during the last 24 hours. The total number of recoveries has gone up to over one crore one lakh and 79 thousand 715. The Health Ministry said, the actual caseload currently comprises only 2 per cent of the total positive cases. Presently, the total number of active cases in the country is two lakh 11 thousand 33.

During the past 24 hours, 15 thousand 158 new cases were reported taking the total number of positive cases in the country to one crore five lakh 42 thousand 841. The Ministry said, currently, India’s Case Fatality Rate is at 1.44 per cent, which is one of the lowest globally. During the last 24 hours, 175 deaths were reported taking the toll to one lakh 52 thousand 93. According to Indian Council of Medical Research, more than eight lakh three thousand tests were conducted during the last 24 hours. The total number of samples tested so far has reached 18 crore 57 lakh.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi launches world’s largest COVID-19 vaccination campaign

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today said India’s COVID 19 vaccination campaign is based on very humane principles. Launching the world’s largest COVID-19 vaccination program through video conferencing, Mr Modi said people who need it the most will get the corona vaccine first.

He stressed that this type of large-scale vaccination campaign has never before been run in history. He pointed out that India is vaccinating three crore people in its first phase of vaccination. Mr Modi added that in the second phase, 30 crore people will be vaccinated. He said there are only three countries in the world with a population over 300 million – India, China and America.

The Prime Minister praised those scientists who had been involved in making the vaccine against Corona for the past several months. He exuded pride how two Made in India vaccines were readied in such a short period.

Mr Modi highlighted the need to have two doses of corona vaccine. Between the first and second doses, a gap of about one month will be kept. The body will develop the immunity against the corona only 2 weeks after the second dose. He said India’s fight against COVID 19 has been one of self-confidence and self-reliance.

Public Health Engineering

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

(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

Recent Research in English Literature

Title of Book	Recent Research in English Literature
Editor	SN Sharma
ISBN	978-93-86954-61-9
Year of publication	2021
Publisher	Pen2Print
Brief Description of Book	Recent Research in English Literature is an edited book that contains chapters about the recent researches being undertaken by scholars around the world.

How to Submit Book Chapters

Send book chapters for publication this Book to editor@eduindex.org

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

Rate this:

How to Submit Book Chapters

Rate this: