News and Views

Absence of a rape sentencing policy in India has led to a punishment, considered too low, being imposed on Ram Rahim.

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision, unanimously held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and as part of freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. What does it mean for the LGBT community in India?

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark, progressive judgment with significant consequences.

A nine-judge bench categorically held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It will be accorded the same protection as other fundamental rights under Chapter III of the Constitution.

These bunch of judgments run into 547 pages and have a lot of legalese, which often is not well understood by common people. There are a lot of lessons which this phenomenal judgment brings on the table.

Stop doing a million things when you eat! How you eat is making you sick!

The Supreme Court’s historic verdict banning triple talaq is both a boost and a challenge for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It’s a boost because the judgement validates his campaign against a pernicious practice that Muslim women have long struggled to get abolished.

The big question is, why did the court once again dodge the question of whether the law violated the rights of women since it discriminates against women based on sex?

Triple Talaq

Gender Equality

Halala

Khula

Risha's husband got angry and gave her triple talaq. He drove her and their son out of home. She was waiting for the Supreme Court's judgement on the issue hoping for some respite.

Chandni was 17 when she married Salman. Unhappy with their love-marriage, Salman’s parents allegedly connived with the local maulvi and tricked her into performing nikah halala. She was waiting for the Supreme Court's judgment on Triple Talaq. Listen to her audio to find out what she has to say.

On what basis did a court decide that a marriage between two consenting adults should be annulled because of allegations by a third party?

This is the question that Chief Justice of India JS Khehar and Justice Chandrachud should have been asking on Wednesday. They were hearing an appeal against a judgement of the Kerala High Court, which had annulled the marriage between 24-year-old Hadiya (formerly known as Akhila Ashokan) and 27-year-old Shafin Jahan, on the basis of a petition filed by Hadiya’s father.

Instead, the two judges of the Supreme Court decided to ask the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the case, with a view to determine whether Hadiya was influenced as part of a broader programme that converts women to Islam so that they can marry Muslim men – what the RSS and BJP call “love jihad”.

Video: The Quint