The Indian legal system places a significant emphasis on protecting the rights and welfare of children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is a vital piece of legislation in this regard. It is designed to ensure that children in conflict with the law receive special care, protection, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of their rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
One of the key provisions of the Act is the establishment of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) at the district level. These boards consist of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class and two social workers, at least one of whom should be a woman. The primary function of the JJB is to determine the age of the juvenile, the circumstances in which the offense was committed, and whether the juvenile should be sent to a special home or released on probation.
The Act makes a clear distinction between a “child in conflict with the law” and a “child in need of care and protection.” A child in conflict with the law is one who has committed an offense, while a child in need of care and protection is a child who is vulnerable or at risk and requires special care and support.
The Act introduces a unique approach to dealing with children who are in conflict with the law. For children between the ages of 16 and 18, who have committed heinous offenses, they can be tried as adults, subject to a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board. This assessment considers the child’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offense. If the board determines that the child should be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to the regular criminal courts.
The Act also places restrictions on the publication of information that could lead to the identification of a juvenile offender. This is done to protect the privacy and future prospects of the child.
1. What is the primary objective of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?
2. Who makes up the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?
3. What is the role of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)?
4. What is the distinction between a ‘‘child in conflict with the law’’ and a ‘‘child in need of care and protection’’ ?
5. Under what circumstances can children between the ages of 16 and 18 be tried as adults?
6. What is the purpose of placing restrictions on the publication of information related to juvenile offenders?
In India, the legal landscape surrounding online defamation is a subject of significant interest and debate. With the rise of social media, and online platforms, cases of online defamation have become increasingly common. Defamation refers to making false statements about someone that harm their reputation. Online defamation includes defamatory statements made on the internet, including social media, blogs, forums, and other online platforms. One critical aspect of online defamation is determining the liability of intermediaries, such as social media platforms or websites, for defamatory content posted by users. Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides a safe harbor for intermediaries, stating that they are not liable for third-party content if they act as intermediaries and follow due diligence in removing or disabling access to the content once notified. However, determining whether an intermediary has fulfilled its due diligence obligations can be complex. The Indian judiciary has been actively interpreting this provision. One significant case is the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court clarified that intermediaries are required to act upon a valid court order or government directive for content removal, not upon private complaints.
The court also emphasized that the intermediaries should not take a proactive role in monitoring content, as this could potentially infringe on free speech. While the law provides a safe harbor, it does not absolve intermediaries from their responsibilities. Online defamation cases often involve a balancing act between the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation. The Indian legal system requires a careful examination of the content, context, and intent of the statements to determine whether they qualify as defamatory. Additionally, the plaintiff in an online defamation case must prove that the statement was false, damaging to their reputation, and made with a degree of fault, such as negligence or actual malice.
7. What is the primary focus of the passage?
8. What is online defamation, as described in the passage?
9. What is the significance of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as mentioned in the passage?
10. According to the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, under what circumstances should intermediaries act in response to content removal?
11. How does the Indian legal system balance the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Right to Reputation in online defamation cases?
12. In an online defamation case, what must the plaintiff prove about the defamatory statement?
13. What is the role of intermediaries in the context of online defamation cases?
The Supreme Court on September 1 held that a child born of a void or voidable marriage can inherit the parent’s share in a joint Hindu family property. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud however clarified that such a child would not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any other person in the family. A voidable marriage is one that is made invalid by the husband or wife through a decree. A void marriage is invalid at its very inception.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said the first step to the inheritance of a child from a void or voidable marriage would be to ascertain the exact share of his parent in the ancestral property. This could be done by means of conducting a “notional partition” of the ancestral property and calculating how much of the property the parent would have got immediately before his death. Once the share of the deceased parent in the property is ascertained through such a notional partition, his heirs, including his children by means of void or voidable marriage, would be entitled to their portions in the share. The Chief Justice said that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act has statutorily conferred legitimacy to children born out of void or voidable marriages. In fact, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that Section 16(3) stipulates that children from void and voidable marriages would have a right to their parents’ property. The court said the intent of granting legitimacy to such children in the Hindu Marriage Act should also be reflected in the Hindu Succession Act, which governs inheritance. Children from void or voidable marriages come within the ambit of “legitimate kinship” and cannot be regarded as illegitimate by the Hindu Succession Act when it comes to inheritance.
The case before the three-judge Bench was focused on an amended provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 16(3). The case was referred to a larger Bench in 2011 after a Division Bench of the apex court refused to follow past precedents and championed the cause of children born out of illegitimate marriages. […]
“With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today. The concept of legitimacy stems from social consensus, in the shaping of which various social groups play a vital role,” Justice Ganguly, who authored the 2011 judgment, had observed. During the hearings on the reference, Chief Justice Chandrachud had agreed with the Division Bench’s findings that children from void and voidable marriages had rights over the property, whether self-acquired or ancestral, of their parents.
14. Ashima and Ashok got married to each other in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Kolkata, after which they both moved to the USA, where Ashok had a job. In the USA, they had a child, whom they named Gogol. Many years later, Ashima found that Ashok was already married to Sushma before their wedding in Kolkata. Ashok and Sushma also had a child from their marriage, Arpita, who was older than Gogol by 4 years. Ashok explained to Ashima that although he had no intention of cheating on her, he had to keep his marriage to Sushma a secret since his parents would have never agreed as Sushma belonged to a different caste. Ashima is shocked to learn that her marriage to Ashok is void as per Hindu marriage laws since Ashok was already married before their wedding. She is trying to explore possibilities so that Gogol doesn’t lose his inheritance from his father’s side of the family. Based on your reading of the passage, what do you think is the correct position with respect to Gogol’s inheritance rights?
15. In the above fact scenario, consider a property that was purchased by Ashok from his own earnings in the USA, thereby not making it part of ancestral property but instead falling in the category of self-acquired property. Upon Ashok’s death, who would have inheritance rights over the said property?
16. Based on your reading of the passage, how did the Hindu Marriage Act influence the outcome of the case on inheritance? Select one option from below:
17. 12-year-old Kausalya was married off to 23-year-old Dashrath in her maternal home in Uttar Pradesh. She completed her education after her marriage and went on to get a job as a teacher at a government school. Dashrath’s family, however, was opposed to her taking up a job outside the house and insisted that she should stay at home and look after her 2 sons, Ram and Lakshman. Kausalya, however, was very excited about starting her new job and sought advice from her younger sister, Vershini, who was training to be a lawyer. Vershini advises her that since she was married before she turned 18, her marriage was voidable and she could get it annulled. Kausalya, who was not very happy in her marriage, considers this option but is worried that her sons may lose their inheritance. Select the option that denotes correctly the status of Ram and Lakshman to inherit their father’s ancestral property.
18. Ajay is married to 2 women, Diya and Riya, and both don’t know of each other. He was married to Diya first, when they were both around 23 years of age and studying together in college. They have no children. He later got married to Riya in a temple, and she had no idea about his first marriage with Diya. Ajay and Riya have 2 children, Raj and Rani. One day, Riya found out about Diya from one of Ajay’s college friends. She wants to divorce Ajay but finds out that her marriage to him is void since he was already married at that time. At a loss, she goes to a lawyer to find out about the rights of her children to inherit property. Which is the most legally sound advice that the lawyer could give to her?
19. In the above scenario, Riya wants to know if there is any way in which the judgment can come to her aid while inheriting property owned by Ajay. What would the correct position of law?
20. Srimati’s first marriage was void due to being within the prohibited degree of relationship. Dhanalakshmi, who is the daughter of Srimati from her first marriage confronts her mother once she finds her identity, demanding her share in her mother’s ancestral property. Srimati, however, subsequently married Dhrupad and has 2 daughters with him- Ira and Shira and is not interested in giving any property to Dhanalakshmi. Dhanalakshmi decides to assert her right in a court of law. How would Dhanalakshmi’s share be determined?
