Free treatment for acid attack victims

The Supreme Court recently, while disposing off a 2006 PILordered that the state governments should provide that the acid attack victims are given free treatment including medicines and expensive reconstruction surgeries. The Court also directed the medical council of India to issue directives to all private hospitals to implement the said order. The court further ordered that the hospital upon receiving an acid attack victim should issue a certificate/document stating that the said person is an acid attack victim and such certificate would ensure that the victim gets further free treatment at later dates.
The court ordered that acid should be listed as a scheduled substance to curb its sale. Acid should be purchased only after showing photo identity card showing an address proof and not to be sold to anyone under the age of eighteen years.
The court ordered that acid attacks be made non-bailable offence and further ordered that a minimum compensation of three lakhs rupees be given to the victim for after care and rehabilitation and out of this amount one lakh should be given within fifteen days of the government getting the notice of the attack.
The court asked the state governments to issue directive to chief secretaries of state to give directions to the district magistrates to increase awareness about this subject.

Malta bans normalization surgery

Malta has become the first nation to ban the normalization surgery and genital mutilation of intersex babies, giving a boost to the LGBT rights movement. The surgery is performed on intersex babies to make them 'belong' to a particular sex and is called normalization as if being intersex is abnormal. It takes away the right of an individual as to what they want to do with their body. Further, the new law has given the right of gender self determination to the individual. The law passed makes it unlawful to perform any kind of surgery on an infant. A surgery can be performed only on a consenting individual and not on an infant child. It also makes involuntary sterilization as unlawful.

Air pollution

The Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, deals with the provisions relating to the formation, constitution, qualifications of central and state boards, and lays down their powers and also the punishments for causing air pollution.
The State boards have the power to inspect air samples, publish findings, advise governments, plan and implement policies regarding prevention and control of air pollution, provide technical assistance, collect, compile and publish statistical and technical  data, provide training, disseminate information about pollution, order directions and all other functions as maybe necessary. The Central Board has the power to coordinate the activate the activities of the States, plan and execute nationwide programmes, advise Central government, collect data, lay down standards of quality of air, and such other functions as may be necessary.
The State government after consultation with the State Board may declare by publishing in the official gazette any area as the pollution control area.(Section 19)
The State government may also after consultation with the State Board give instructions for ensuring the standard of emissions from automobiles.(Section 20)
Section 21 provides that no person shall without the permission of the State Board may establish or operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area. 

Medical termination of pregnancy

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently refused to allow the abortion of a 12 year old girl who is 28 weeks pregnant as a result of rape. In Kavita v State of Haryana, the petitioner(mother of the victim) alleged that her daughter being a minor, the continuation of the pregnancy is of danger to her daughter's health and life. However, the doctors contented that it is of no imminent danger though they conceded that teen pregnancies are high risk in nature.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, deals with the provisions related to when a termination can be justifiably done. The Act lays down the provisions relating to the conditions where termibation is lawful, the qualifications of medical practitioners, the place where such termination can be done, punishment for illegal abortions. Section 3 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a pregnancy can be terminated at 12 weeks by the opinion of one doctor and between 12 and 20 weeks by the opinion of two doctors who bonafidely believe that such a pregnancy is either harmful to the mental or physical health of the mother or the child if born will have physical or mental abnormalities to be handicapped. Such a termination can be done by the consent of woman alone if she is adult or with the consent of her guardian if she is minor. Pregnancy as a result of rape or failure of sterilization is said to amount to mental anguish.
Section 4 provides for the approval of space for termina of pregnancy.
Section 5 provides that where the continuation of pregnancy poses grave danger to the health of the mother, the provisions of Sections 4 and of 3 relating to term if pregnancy shall not apply. It further provides that a medical practitioner performing an abortion in contravention of this shall be punishable with a term of 2 years which may extend upto 7 years and the person providing space for such termination shall be punishable with a term of 2 years which may extend to 7 years.

Free speech on internet

The Supreme Court has held that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,2000, that lays down the punishment for publishing "grossly offensive" matter online is unconstitutional and untenable.
Section 66A provides that any person who posts any content online that is grossly offensive or has menacing character to another person ; or posts something that he knows to be false for the purpose of annoying or insulting or causing inconvenience to anyone or sends through electronic mail or message any offensive or annoying content shall be punishable with a term of three years and with fine.
The Court observed that the term grossly offensive is a vague term and what may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. Examples for the same were that a pro life person will find a mail supporting abortion as offensive and a believer of creationist theory will find an article on evolution as false.
The said Section was being misused by various ruling parties by punishing any dissenting individual who criticized them. Two girls in Thane were arrested for posting on the death of Bal Thakeray and recently a class XII student was arrested for posting against SP minister in UP.
The judgement is being hailed as a victory of free speech on Internet.

Rape and live-in relationships

In a recent PIL before the Delhi High Court, seeking for an order to keep live-in relationships outside the purview of rapes (section 366) and instead put such cases under fraud (section 420), the Court dismissed it saying that by doing so it would give the status of marriage to such relations while the legislature had not intended to do so. The PIL was in reference to cases where one live-in partner files a complaint against another, with the cases ending with acquittal of the accused though with loss of reputation.
The essential ingredient if the offence of rape is the absence of consent including the consent obtained by fraud, coercion, intoxication, misrepresentation. In such cases, the accused can show the consent as a valid defence. The court felt that live-in relations are very different from marriage and by keeping them outsid from the purview of rape would accord them the status of marriage.
The court observed that the defence of consent will be available to the accused and the present order does not take away such defence. The court further sought direction from the Centre and the State government to provide remedy in the form of securing the constitutional right of providing compensation for the loss of reputation to the acquitted party and also constituting legal proceedings against those who misuse the law.
The court further instructed that the investigating officer should not make arrest before conducting preliminary investigation and medical examination to avoid false implication.

Polygamy not an integral part of Islam

The Supreme Court of India has recently observed that polygamy is not an integral part of Islam and has in effect banned it. The Court observed that Atticle 25 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to profess, practice and propagate religion but it does not protect the right to practice polygamy. The court observed that the practice of polygamy may run counter to public order, health or morality. Article 25 lays down religious freedoms and it protects the practice of the integral tenets of religion. Article 25 cannot be evoked for protecting non-integral parts of practice that may run counter to public order, health or morality. Positive reforms in cultural practices maybe made and are unaffected by the protection laid down in said Article.
In the present case, the court upheld the decision of the government of Uttar Pradesh that fired an employee for marrying a second wife while his first marriage was still subsisting.
Earlier, the courts had held that a non-muslim man cannot marry a second time by converting to Islam and avoid punishment for bigamy. Conversions for the sake of committing bigamy have also been held invalid by the courts in previous decisions.
Under Islam, a man is allowed to take upto four wives provided he treats them equally and with justice. However, this provision is mainly to provide for maintenance of war widows and orphans and is not to be observed as a right if a muslim man.