1. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued For Restoration of Custody of Minor to the Parent Wrongfully Deprived Of It: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Holding that habeas corpus can be issued for restoration of custody of minor to the parent wrongfully deprived of it, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted relief to a father who had filed a petition alleging illegal custody by his wife and her parents.
The High Court went on to rely on the Supreme Court's observation in Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and others wherein it had rejected the contention that a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable if the child is in the custody of another parent and held that the court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the best interest of the child.
"Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in such cases is not solely dependent on and does not necessarily follow merely the determination of illegality of detention and is based on the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor child irrespective of legal rights of the parents."
The Court thus re-iterated that the welfare of the child was of paramount consideration. The fact that there was a pre-existing custody order of a foreign court was a factor that was to be reckoned in favour of the Petitioner but would not be determinative of the question of repatriation over and above the best interest and welfare of the child.
"It is open to the court to conduct either an elaborate enquiry or a summary enquiry on the question of whether the child's best interests would be served by repatriation. The facts and circumstances in the present case do not require an elaborate enquiry, and can be decided by summary enquiry."
The Court found that there was no material to suggest that the return of the minor child to the USA would result in psychological physical or cultural harm to him.
"In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the basis of the summary inquiry, I am of the considered view that it will be for the welfare and in best of interest of the minor child that order be passed for return of the minor child to the USA, from where he was removed and it will be appropriate that the question of appointment of guardian/handing over custody of the minor child to either of the parents is left for adjudication by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the USA on the basis of paramount consideration of welfare and best of the interest of the child. The natural process of grooming in the environment of his native country-USA is indispensable for the comprehensive and conducive development of his mental and physical faculties. There are compelling reasons to direct return of the minor child to the USA as prayed for by the petitioner and such return is not shown to be harmful to the minor child in any manner", added the Bench.
Source: Bar & Bench
2. Scientist Believe Cow Is The Only Animal That Inhales & Exhales Oxygen; No Fundamental Right To Eat Cow-Beef: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court observed that Cow should be given the status of National Animal in light of the fact that "Cow is part and parcel of the culture of India" and that eating/consuming Cow-beef can't be considered to be a fundamental right of any person.
The order passed by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav also observed that scientists believed that the cow is the only animal that inhales and exhales oxygen.
The Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, in its bail order written in Hindi, observed that Fundamental Rights are not only the prerogative of beef eaters, rather, those who worship the cow and are financially dependent on cows, also have the Fundamental Right to lead a meaningful life.
In this context, the Court observed thus: "The right to life is above the right to kill and the right to eat cow-beef can never be considered a fundamental right. Right to life can't be snatched away merely for another's pleasure of taste, and that the right to life is above the right to kill. The right to consume cow-beef can never be a Fundamental Right."
Importantly, the Bench stressed that cow protection and promotion is just about any one religion, but the cow is the culture of India and the responsibility to save this culture is of every citizen living in the country, irrespective of their religion.
"There are hundreds of examples in our country that whenever we forgot our Sanskriti, the foreigners attacked us and made us slaves, and even today if we do not wake up, then we should not forget the autocratic Taliban invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, it is not that only Hindus have understood the importance of cows, Muslims have also considered the cow as an important part of India's culture during their reign, the Slaughter of cows was banned by 5 Muslim rulers. Babur, Humayun, and Akbar also prohibited the sacrifice of cows in their religious festivals. The Nawab of Mysore, Hyder Ali, made cow slaughter a punishable offence," the Court added.
Source: Bar & Bench
3. Principle Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Cannot Be Applied Merely On Basis Of Designation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation.
In this case, the court had to examine the claims made by Private Secretaries (Grade-II) ("PS-II") employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways), for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service ("CSSS")/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service ("RBSSS")/Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT").
Interpreting the Sixth Central Pay Commission report, the court noticed that the aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making the recommendations. "Yet to some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect", the court observed.
"We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given", the court said.
Source: Bar & Bench
=======================
To help you out in your exam preparation, we suggest you take a free trial of CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course. Crack CLAT 2022 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course
Thanks
Sahi Prep Hai To Life Set Hai
Comments
write a comment