Not permitting mentally challenged rape victim to undergo medical termination of unwarranted pregnancy violative of her bodily integrity, says Madhya Pradesh HC - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Legally Speaking

Not permitting mentally challenged rape victim to undergo medical termination of unwarranted pregnancy violative of her bodily integrity, says Madhya Pradesh HC

Published

on

In a well-written, well-articulated, well-reasoned and well-substantiated judgment titled X vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Writ Petition No. 12155/2021 that was delivered just recently on July 14, 2021, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently, rightly and remarkably observed that not permitting a rape victim, suffering from severe mental problems, to undergo Medical Termination of unwarranted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity which would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects. This was held so while allowing medical termination of pregnancy of 23 year old rape victim survivor whose mental age was found to be that of minor, being only 6 years. It was a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh high Court comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla who pronounced this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment.

To start with, this latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment authored by Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq for himself and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla of Madhya Pradesh High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “This writ petition has been filed by praying for a direction to the respondents to allow her daughter (hereinafter referred to as “Victim-A”) to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at the State expense. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short “the MTP Act”) to the extent it stipulates a ceiling of 24 weeks for medical termination of pregnancy with the prayer the same be declared as ultra virus Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in MJC-R No.207/2021 rejecting application of the petitioner for permission to terminate pregnancy of Victim-A.”

While elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “The petitioner is resident of Village Baagratwa, Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad of State of Madhya Pradesh. She belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. She is wholly illiterate, living below poverty line. She does not have any moveable or immoveable property. According to the petitioner, she and her husband work as a labourer. Her daughter Victim-A is aged about 23 years and she is mentally retarded. The petitioner and her husband left their village for Ujjain for earning livelihood by doing labour work. When they returned back after some time, the petitioner found that her daughter Victim-A was behaving in a peculiar manner. Their daughter Victim-A informed them in sign language about certain stomach pain. On making further enquiry, she learnt that one of her neighbours had committed rape upon her. She immediately took her to the doctor, who found that she was pregnant. The petitioner lodged a First Information Report with the Police Station Babai. District Hoshangabad, which has been registered for offence under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC as Crime No.301/2021. The accused was arrested on 20.6.2021. The police got Victim-A medically examined and also obtained the medical report about her mental health. Victim-A was thereafter sent for further medical examination on 22.6.2021, upon which it was confirmed that she was carrying pregnancy of 22 weeks. The petitioner immediately filed an application under Section 3 of the MTP Act on 30.6.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad, seeking permission for termination of her pregnancy, who rejected the same on 2.7.2021. Since 3 rd and 4th July, 2021, being Saturday and Sunday, were holidays, the petitioner filed application under Section 3 of the MTP Act with the same prayer before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad on 5.7.2021, which was registered as MJC-R No.207/2021. The same was however rejected on the very next working day i.e. 6.7.2021 under the ignorance about the latest law whereby maximum length of pregnancy under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act, which was earlier 20 weeks, was raised to 24 weeks by amendment to that effect by the Act 8 of 2021 published in the Gazette of Government of India on 25.3.2021.”

To be sure, the Bench then after observing in para 7 that, “We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions, perused the material on record and studied the cited precedents.” then goes on to hold in para 8 that, “A perusal of the afore-quoted opinion of the Medical Board in condition no.1 indicates that the survivor is a case of severe mental retardation with behavioral problems. Mental age of the survivor is approximately 6 years. She is unable to take care of herself and therefore, obviously she will not be in a position to take care of the baby, if she delivers the one. In conclusion no.2 of the aforesaid opinion of the Medical Board, the victim-A is opined to be a single live intrauterine fetus of gestational age by USG is 25 week 5 days +/- 2 weeks with the possibility of age being either less or more by 2 weeks, which is indicated by “+/- of 2 weeks”. This is also the opinion given by the Radiologist. We have to therefore now examine whether in the facts like these, this Court would be justified in refusing to grant permission for medical termination of the pregnancy on the law available on the subject.”

It would be instructive to mention here that the Bench then points out in para 9 that, “Section 3 of the MTP Act is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present case, which reads as under:-

“Section 3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,-

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks, in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that,-

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health ; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.

Explanation 1.- For the purposes of Clause (a), where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Explanation 2.- For the purposes of Clause (a) and (b), where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

(2-A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner whose opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at different gestational age shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(2-B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of pregnancy by the medical practitioner where such termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.

(2-C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case may be, shall by notification in the official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called a Medical Board for the purposes of this Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(2-D) The Medical Board shall consist of the following, namely-

(a) a Gynaecologist;

(b) a Paediatrician

(c) a Radiologist or Sonologist; and

(d) Such other number of members as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.

(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen years, is a mentally ill person, shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian.

(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.””

Please read concluding on thedailyguardian.com

Be it noted, the Bench then found it quite strange as is mentioned in para 10 that, “It is indeed surprising that the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad relied on unamended Section 3 of the MTP Act rather than considering the amended provision, which has now increased the permissible outer limit for termination of pregnancy from 20 weeks to 24 weeks. This means that if the law was correctly read and applied by him, the permission of medical termination of the pregnancy could have been granted as the period of 24 weeks had yet not passed on the date the said Court was approached. Be that as may be, Section 3(2)(b), which is relevant for deciding the medical termination of pregnancy, inter alia provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith that; (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality. The first Explanation thereto relates to Clause (a), which provides that where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. This Explanation may not be relevant for deciding the present case, but the second Explanation of Section 3(2) would in the facts of the present case have bearing on the interpretation of Section 3(2)(i) of the MTP Act, which stipulates that where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. (emphasis supplied).”

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 11 that, “Admittedly, in the present case, the Victim-A, daughter of the petitioner, was subjected to rape and according to experts, her mental age is only 6 years and therefore, regardless of her biological age, the consent for sexual intercourse in her case would be irrelevant. The First Information Report was lodged by her mother for the offence of Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC against the accused with the Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad in Crime No.301/2021. This therefore would bring the case of her daughter within the purview of Explanation (2) which provides that the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman, who in this case is Victim-A. Moreover, what is peculiar about this case is that the Medical Board itself has opined that duration of pregnancy is variable by two weeks. The victim is unable to take care of self, her hygiene is poor, her intellectual abilities are poor, her mental age is only 6 years and therefore, obviously she will not be in a position to take care of the baby, even if she delivers it.”

As it turned out, the Bench then observes in para 12 that, “This Court is cognizant of the fact that the Victim-A is mentally retarded, and her mental age having been adjudged by the experts to be only 6 years, therefore, all the steps on her behalf could be and were in fact taken by her mother, who is her natural guardian. She immediately filed an application before the Court of JMFC, Hoshangabad on 30.6.2021 which was rejected on 2.7.2021 and thereafter, immediately on the very first next working day i.e. on 5.7.2021, she filed the application before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, who being ignorant of the amended provision, which came into effect from 25.3.2021, rejected the same under the misconception that the outer limit for grant of permission of medical termination of pregnancy was 20 weeks and not 24 weeks. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 requires consent of the guardian of a minor, or a major who is mentally ill person. The exceptions to this rule of consent have been given in Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act, which provides that when the pregnant woman is below eighteen years of age or is a “mentally ill” person, then consent of her guardian would have to be obtained. Since in the present case the mental age of the Victim-A was determined approximately 6 years, her pregnancy can be medically terminated with the consent of the guardian who is actually natural mother of Victim-A. The permission/consent has to be therefore necessarily assumed.”

While citing the relevant case laws, the Bench then observes in para 13 that, “In Murugan Nayakkar (supra), the petitioner, who was 13 years of age, was a victim of alleged rape and sexual abuse. She preferred a writ petition for termination of her pregnancy. The Medical Board opined that termination of pregnancy at this stage or delivery at term will both have equal risk to the mother. The Supreme Court held that considering the age of the petitioner, trauma which she prima facie suffered due to sexual abuse and the agony she is going through at the present, it would be appropriate to allow termination of pregnancy. In Tapasya Umesh Pisal Vs. Union of India and others (supra), the victim, who was 24 years old, was seeking permission to undergo medical termination of the pregnancy, which had progressed to 24 weeks. The Supreme Court held that it is difficult to refuse the permission to the petitioner to undergo medical termination of pregnancy as it is certain that if the foetus is allowed to be born it would have a limited life span with serious handicaps which cannot be avoided. In Kalpana Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & others (supra), the victim had pregnancy of 25 weeks and 5 days, which was permitted to be terminated medically.”

Adding more to it, the Bench then while citing a landmark case observes in para 14 that, “The Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava and Another Vs. Chandigarh Administration reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1, held that there is no doubt that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reproductive rights include a woman’s entitlement to carry pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. However, in the case of pregnant women, there is also a “compelling State interest” in protecting the life of the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive choices. The Lordship further held that ordinarily a pregnancy can be terminated only when a medical practitioner is satisfied that a “continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health”. The Explanations to Section 3 however also contemplate termination of pregnancy when the same is the result of a rape or a failure of birth control methods since both of these eventualities have been equated with a “grave injury to the mental health” of a woman.”

Furthermore, the Bench then observes in para 15 that, “This Court in Writ Petition No.20961/2017-Sundarlal Vs. The State of M.P. & others, decided on 6.12.2017, was dealing with the case of minor daughter of the petitioner, who was kidnapped and a First Information Report at his instance was registered under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC read with Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. The police secured the custody of the minor daughter of the petitioner, who was handed over to the petitioner. On medical examination, she was found to be carrying pregnancy of about 16 weeks. The petitioner being guardian gave consent for termination of the pregnancy of his minor daughter. This Court while directing constitution of a committee of three medical practitioners to form bonafide opinion as to termination of pregnancy and retention of DNA sample of fetus and providing all medical assistance and care to the victim observed as under:-

“12. In Explanation I, the law makers made it clear that where pregnancy is alleged by victim because of rape, a presumption can be drawn that such pregnancy constitute a grave injury to the mental health of pregnant woman. In the present case, this is not in dispute that victim is a minor and petitioner is praying for termination of pregnancy because her daughter is a rape victim. This court in Hallo Bi (supra) (Hallo Bi @ Halima Vs. State of M.P. & others 2013 (1) MPHT 451) opined that we cannot force a victim of violent rape/forced sex to give birth to a child of a rapist. The anguish and the humiliation which the victim is suffering daily, will certainly cause a grave injury to her mental health. Not only this, the child will also suffer mental anguish in case the lady gives birth to a child.””

Going ahead, the Bench then observes in para 16 that, “The Rajasthan High Court in Victim (A) Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, S.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.148/2020, decided on 26.2.2020, was dealing with the case where the Medical Board had opined the age of the fetus to be 23 +/- 2 weeks. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meera Santosh Pal & others Vs. Union of India & others (2017) 3 SCC 462, where permission was granted for termination of pregnancy of a term of 24 weeks and another judgment of the same High Court in Nisha Vaishnav Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1271/2019, decided on 29.1.2019, the High Court allowed termination of pregnancy, in view of aforesaid Explanation (2) to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act as it was a case where a minor victim was subjected to rape and held that anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the petitioner.”

As we see, the Bench then observes in para 17 that, “In ABC Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others, Writ Petition (C) No.2294/2021, vide judgment dated 25.06.2021, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dealing in a case of rape victim bearing pregnancy of 14 weeks and 3 days, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Meera Santosh Pal (supra) permitted the termination of pregnancy, holding thus:

“8. The explanation clause of Section 3 of MTP Act takes within its ambit not only the physical injury but also to mental injury and anguish. It is obvious that if the victim is subjected to rape and if she is forced to give birth to a child in the social scenario she has to face a life time anguish apart from the fact the child who is born will also have to face disdain of the society. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to Medical termination of pregnancy. In order to carry out the pregnancy State shall form a panel of expert doctors at the District Hospital Durg as early as possible. The hospital shall take due care of the petitioner’s health and provide her all medical support. It is further directed that the DNA of the child shall also be preserved considering the fact that the victim has already lodged a report under Section 373 which will eventually be required at a future date. The petitioner is directed to appear at District Hospital Durg on Wednesday i.e. 23.06.2021.””

Moving on, the Bench then brings out in para 18 that, “The Bombay High Court in X Vs. Union of India & others 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 46, was dealing with a case of victim who was mentally retarded, deaf and dumb and her pregnancy was of 18-19 weeks. The case of the guardian before the Court, like in the present case, was that the victim was unable to take care of herself and therefore, she would not be able to take care of the fetus. The Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava (supra) held as under:-

“13. The crucial question here is whether permission can be granted to terminate the pregnancy of 22 weeks in this case. The victim in this case is deaf, dumb and mentally retarded; therefore, she is unable to make a choice on her own whether to terminate the pregnancy or to continue with it. She has no such intellectual capacity, therefore, her guardian should be given that right to make choice. This case is also required to be considered from the physical point of view of the victim. Victim is deaf, dumb and mentally retarded. She is unable to take any decision. In fact, she is not even aware that she has been raped and she is pregnant. It has been stated by her guardian and brother that she is not even able to take care of herself. Question therefore arises under such circumstance as to how she would take care of child to be borne? It has been stated in the medical certificate that “On Paediatrics examination, survivor has gross development delay with Down Syndrome”. If we consider “Down Syndrome”, it means “is a genetic disorder caused by the presence of all or part of a third copy of chromosome”. It is typically associated with physical growth delays, characteristic facial features and mild to moderate intellectual disability. The medical literature would show that there is no cure to the “down syndrome”. No doubt, a person with down syndrome may lead a normal life, but in the present case, when the victim is unable to take care of herself, there is every possibility that she will not be able to take care of the foetus. Though the certificate states that the risk of termination of pregnancy is within normal acceptable limits; it would be hazardous to ask her to bear the pregnancy. It is not only dangerous to her, but dangerous to the unborn child also. Apart from danger to the life of the petitioner, this Court has to take note of the psychological trauma the petitioner is undergoing as a result of carrying unwanted pregnancy. The pregnancy of the petitioner is definitely unwanted for her and it is violative of her personal liberty. Since she is unable to take decision due to intellectual disability, her guardian is taking the said decision, which is in the best interest of the victim and her survival. In the circumstances, we do not notice any impediment in permitting petitioner to terminate unwanted pregnancy.” (emphasis supplied).”

Yet while mentioning another case law, the Bench then states in para 19 that, “In Z Vs. State of Bihar and others (2018) 11 SCC 572, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of mentally retarded rape victim, who was found to be pregnant and was also HIV positive. The issue before the High Court was whether medical termination of pregnancy should be permitted. The High Court having relied on doctrine of “parens patriae” and “compelling State interest” declined medical termination of pregnancy, which had advanced in 23-24 weeks. The Supreme Court on detailed analysis reversed the verdict of the High Court. Explanation 2 to Section 3(2)(b), which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was at that time Explanation 1, which provided that where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the same has to be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. The Supreme Court held that once such a statutory presumption is provided, the same comes within the compartment of grave injury to mental health of the victim. Following observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 23 are worth quoting:-

“23. We have already anlaysed in detail the factual score and the approach of the High Court. We do not have the slightest hesitation in saying that the approach of the High Court is completely erroneous. The report submitted by the IGIMS stated that termination of pregnancy may need major surgical procedure along with subsequent consequences such as bleeding, sepsis and anesthesia hazards, but there was no opinion that the termination could not be carried out and it was risky to the life of the appellant. There should have been a query in this regard by the High Court which it did not do. That apart, the report shows that the appellant, who was a writ petitioner before the High Court, was suffering from mild mental retardation and she was on medications and her condition was stable and she would require long term psychiatry treatment. The Medical Board has not stated that she was suffering from any kind of mental illness. The appellant was thirty-five years old at that time. She was a major. She was able to allege that she had been raped and that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy. PMCH, as we find, is definitely a place where pregnancy can be terminated.””

As if this is not enough, the Bench then further adds in para 20 that, “The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in a case on its own motion in XYZ Vs. Union of India and others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 560=(2019) 3 Bom CR 400 held that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a frivolous one. Abortion is often the only way out of a very difficult situation for a woman. An abortion is a carefully considered decision taken by a woman who fears that the welfare of the child she already has, and of other members of the household that she is obliged to care for with limited financial and other resources, may be compromised by the birth of another child. These are decisions taken by responsible women who have few other options. They are women who would ideally have preferred to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but were unable to do so. If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health. The Division Bench referred to certain international treaties concerning human rights. In that context, the Division Bench observed that the pregnancy takes place within the body of a woman and has profound effects on her health, mental well being and life. Thus, how she wants to deal with this pregnancy must be a decision she and she alone can make. The right to control her own body and fertility and motherhood choices should be left to the women alone. The basic right of a woman is the right to autonomy, which includes the right to decide whether or not to get pregnant and stay pregnant.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then observes in para 21 that, “While dealing with Explanation 1 of Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, which after amendment is now Explanation 2, the Bombay High Court in the above case observed that this Explanation expands the concept of “grave injury to mental health” by raising a presumption that anguish caused by any pregnancy as a result of rape shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman. In fact, the Explanation states that where pregnancy is alleged by a pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman. Therefore, for the purposes of Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, the expression “grave injury to mental health”, is used in a liberal sense by the legislature itself and further Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, in terms provides that in determining whether continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in Section 3(2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonable foreseeable environment. Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, makes reference not merely to physical injury but also to mental injury. In fact, the aspect of a pregnant woman’s actual or reasonable foreseeable environment has greater nexus to aspect of mental health as compared to physical health, particularly in the present context. This legislative liberality when it comes to expanding the concept of the grave injury to mental health cannot evaporate no sooner the ceiling of 24 weeks prescribed in Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act is crossed. If the expression “life” in Section 5(1) of the MTP Act is not to be confined to mere physical existence or survival, then, permission will have to be granted under section 5(1) of the MTP Act for medical termination of pregnancy which may have exceeded 24 weeks, if the continuance of such pregnancy would involve grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.”

Most significantly, the Bench then most commendably holds in para 22 that, “Curial question that we posed to ourselves at the beginning of this judgment still is whether this Court in the facts of the present case, would be justified in refusing to permit medical termination of pregnancy? According to Medical Board, the victim has history of delayed milestone, poor understanding, poor self-care, inabilities to speak, drooling of saliva since childhood. The Medical Board further opined that on examination, it was found that patient is unable to take care of self, her hygiene is very poor and her intellectual abilities are poor. In view of these factors, patient was opined to suffer from SEVERE MENTAL RETARDATION WITH BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. The Medical Board was further of the view that mental age of the victim is that of a minor, being only 6 years. According to them, she is unable to take care of herself and, therefore, she would not be able to take care of the fetus. In our considered view, in a situation like this, it would be hazardous to allow her to continue with the pregnancy till full duration. It may even be more dangerous to the unborn child too. In facts like these, this Court cannot lose sight of the psychological trauma the victim would have to undergo all this time. She being not in a position to take a decision due to her intellectual deficiency, decision of her guardian to consent for termination of unwanted pregnancy has to be accepted as a move in her best interest. Not permitting the rape victim in the present case to go in for medical termination of unwanted pregnancy would amount to compelling her to continue to bear such pregnancy for full duration and deliver the child, which would be violative of her bodily integrity, which would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects. This is violative of her personal liberty, to borrow the words of the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava (supra), (para 22) because “a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”. In the peculiar facts of the case, her personal integrity has to be respected.”

For the sake of clarity, the Bench then notes in para 23 that, “Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act has expanded the scope of “grave injury to mental health” by raising a presumption that “the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman”. “Such pregnancy” here refers to pregnancy “alleged to have been caused by rape”. Thus, the legislature has by providing for raising such presumption rather expanded the meaning of the expression “grave injury to mental health” of the rape victim for deciding whether it would constitute a grave risk to the mental health of the pregnant woman in the meaning of Section 3(2)(i) of the MTP Act. The Court would also be entitled to reasonably visualise the environment in which the victim will have to live in immediate foreseeable future to decide the question of her mental health.”

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 24 that, “In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of the Victim-A, daughter of the petitioner, is allowed. She shall be produced before the Medical Superintendent, Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal by tomorrow, who is directed to ensure the medical termination of the pregnancy of Victim-A under the supervision of the experts at the earliest by taking all the precautions. The Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad shall arrange for transportation of the Victim-A along with her parents to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. It is further directed that DNA sample of the fetus shall be saved for the purposes of evidence to be led by the prosecution before the Court in the criminal case of rape registered in the matter. All expenses shall be borne by the State.”

It is then stated in para 25 that, “Since this Court was persuaded to allow the writ petition on applying provisions of Section 3(2)(i) read with its Explanation-2 to the facts of the case, the question of constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(ii) was left untouched.” Finally, the Bench then states in para 26 that, “The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”

Overall, it is a very learned, laudable and landmark judgment by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla. It refers to latest and also relevant case laws like Z Vs. State of Bihar and others (2018) 11 SCC 572 Murugan Nayakkar Vs. Union of India & others (2017) SCC Online SC 1902 Meera Santosh Pal & others Vs. Union of India & others (2017) 3 SCC 462 Suchita Srivastava & Another Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1 Tapasya Umesh Pisal Vs. Union of India & others (2008) 12 SCC 57 XYZ Vs. Union of India & others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 560=(2019) 3 Bom CR 400 Kalpana Singh Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & others, WP(C) No.115/2021 decided on 11.1.2021 Sundarlal Vs. The State of M.P. & others, W.P.No.20961/2017-decided on 6.12.2017 Victim (A) Vs. State of Rajasthan & others, S.B.Criminal W.P.No.148/2020, decided on 26.2.2020 ABC Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others, W.P. (C) No.2294/2021 decided on 25.06.2021. A right decision was taken to protect the paramount interest of the mentally challenged rape victim and it was very rightly held that not permitting her to undergo medical termination of unwarranted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity. Very rightly so!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Legally Speaking

KERALA HC: BAIL GRANTED TO A DOCTOR ACCUSED OF POSTING DEFAMATORY ARTICLES AGAINST LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

Published

on

The Kerala High Court in the case Dr K P Hamsakoya vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep observed and granted an anticipatory bail to a senior doctor who has been accused of posting on facebook defamatory articles against officers of the Administration of Lakshadweep.

The bench comprising of Justice Viju Abraham observed and was essentially dealing with the pre-arrest bail plea of Dr. K P Hamsakoya, who is one of the senior-most doctors serving the Lakshadweep Administration and that presently, he is under suspension.

The Court observed that Dr. Hamsakoya has been accused of posting defamatory articles on Facebook against officers of the Administration of Lakshadweep, thus causing a negative effect amongst the public against the Administration. He has been booked under Sections 505 (1) (b), 505 (2) and 500 of the IPC and Section 66 (A) (b) of the Information Technology Act.

Before the Court, the Counsels Ajit G Anjarlekar, G.P.Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, and Atul Mathews appearing argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case and has been booked under the offence punishable under Section 66 (A) (b) of the IT Act (a provision which has been struck down in its entirety by the Apex Court).

It was contended by the court that the offences under Section 500 IPC cannot be registered without a complaint being filed by a person who has been defamed.

The Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, the pre-arrest bail was granted by the court to the petitioner and the court dismissed his plea with the following directions:

On August 29, 2022, the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and shall co-operate with the investigation.

The court stated that in the event of the petitioner, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum as per the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

It was stated by the court that if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer of Minicoy Police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep has been given the liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

GUJARAT HC GRANTS RELIEF TO DIPLOMA HOLDERS: STUDENTS CAN’T BE FAULTED FOR PHARMACY COUNCIL’S FAILURE TO APPROVE MEDICAL STORES FOR IMPARTING TRAINING.

Published

on

The Gujarat High Court in the case Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai v/s State Of Gujarat observed and has come to the rescue of D.Pharm students who were denied registration as ‘Pharmacist’ by the State Pharmacy Council on the ground that they have not undertaken training from medical stores approved the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.

The Single bench comprising of Justice AS Supehia observed and noted that the Pharmacy Council of India has not approved any medical store under the Regulation for the purpose of imparting practical training of Diploma to the students in Pharmacy Course like the present petitioners.

Court Observations:

It was observed that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the action of the respondent authorities in not approving the medical stores under regulation 4.4 of the Regulation of 2015 and hence, no option was there to the petitioner to take their training from the respective medical stores.

It was claimed by the petitioner’s student that the State Council was not registering them as Pharmacists despite having undertaken the necessary training of 500 hours for three months from the respective medical stores.

Further, it was observed that the State had admitted that all documents of the Petitioners were genuine, however, the registration was denied solely for the aforesaid reason. Further, one of the governmental circulars had clarified that the process for granting approval of Chemist/ Pharmacy and Druggist will be notified through the online mode. But the same was targeted only at “prospective students” .

It was noted by the High Court that in order to avoid hardship to current students, who had already undergone or undergoing the D.Pharm course while taking the practical training under the Pharmacy, Chemist and Druggist licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as per precedence students will be considered for the registration, provided the students had undergone the D.Pharm course in an institution approved under PCI under section 12 of the Act.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the State Council to register the Petitioners as Pharmacists within three months.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

UTTARAKHAND HC SAYS UTTARKASHI’S BAN ON “MEAT SHOPS” WITHIN 500 METRES OF “RIVER GANGA” IN LINE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME

Published

on

It is interesting to note that while fully, firmly and finally very rightly and commendably upholding the ban that was imposed on meat shops that was enacted by the Zila Panchayat of Uttarkashi District, the Uttarakhand High Court in an extremely remarkable, robust, refreshing and rational judgment titled Naved Qureshi vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors in Writ Petition (MS) No. 2073 of 2016 that was pronounced recently on July 20, 2022 has expressed its consonance with a bye-law of Zila Panchayat, Uttarkashi to the effect that no shop for butchering animals and selling meat within 500m from the bank of river Ganga shall be permitted. It must be noticed here that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra said quite clearly that keeping in view the “special status” of Uttarakhand and the river Ganga that emerges from District Uttarkashi and the sanctity attached with the river Ganga by majority of population of Uttarakhand, the decision taken by the Zila Panchayat by making the said bye-laws is in line with the scheme of Constitution of India, as envisaged in Part IX. It very rightly ruled that the District Magistrate had not committed any error in not issuing a no objection certificate to the petitioner to run a mutton shop, at a premises situated at 105 metres distance from the bank of Ganga.

At the outset, this extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth lucidly in para 1 that, “By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the original record and pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.06.2016 (Annexure – 2) passed by the respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents that they shall not interfere in the peaceful business activities i.e. in running the mutton shop in his house situated at the roadside of Gangotri National Highway without any valid reason.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibition making declaration to the effect that after central enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 the bye-laws no. 3 framed by the respondent Zila Panchayat became illusionary and same are not applicable for the purpose of regulating food safety activities in rural area, therefore, no license from respondent Zila Panchayat is required to do business.””

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The facts of the case, not disputed at this stage, are that petitioner is a resident of village Hina Gaon, Police Station – Maneri, District – Uttarkashi. His father was recorded tenure holder having bhumidhari land bearing Khasra Nos. 1555 and 15556, situated in the aforesaid village. He was running a mutton shop since 2006 in a rented accommodation in village – Hina Gaon, after getting license from Zila Panchayat. Though, according to him, license was not required after enforcement of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “FSS Act, 2006” for brevity). In the year 2012, he also obtained a license from the designated authority under the FSS Act, 2006. Till the year, 2015, he ran his shop at aforesaid rented premises and after construction of his own shop over the bhumidhari land, he shifted his business of butchering and selling mutton into it. On 27.02.2016, respondent no. 3 – Zila Panchayat, Uttarkashi, through Additional Mukhya Adhikari, issued a notice to the petitioner to shift his mutton shop, within 7 days to another place, as his shop is situated 105 metre away from the bank of river Ganga, which is violative of the existing by-laws. As per the by-laws, operation of mutton/chicken shop within 500 metres from the bank of river Ganga is prohibited. On 15.03.2016, petitioner being aggrieved by the notice, preferred a Writ Petition (MS) No. 651 of 2016, which was disposed of, in limine, by this Court by giving opportunity to the petitioner to file a representation before the Authorities and with a direction to the Authorities to dispose of the same. Thereafter, on 09.05.2016, the petitioner served a copy of the aforesaid order on respondents no. 2 and 3 and prayed for issuance of license for the next financial year 2016-17 but the respondent no. 2 – District Magistrate, Uttarkashi vide order dated 09.05.2016 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the basis of the Resolutions of meeting held on 04.05.2016.”

In this same para 2, it is then further mentioned that, “Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2016 and minutes of meeting dated 04.05.2016, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition (MS) No. 1383 of 2016 wherein respondents were directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks and the said writ petition is still pending. In the meantime, petitioner again represented before respondent no. 2 – District Magistrate, Uttarkashi to grant him no objection certificate, which was again rejected. The said order of the learned District Magistrate, Uttarkashi is assailed in this writ petition.”

On the one hand, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only ground on which his application for grant of no objection certificate has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi is that his shop is situated within 500 metre from the bank of river Ganga. According to the petitioner, after passing of the FSS Act, 2006, the jurisdiction of Zila Panchayat is ceased to operate and it is only the Designated Authority, under the FSS Act, 2006 has authority to grant license or reject it in favour of the petitioner for running a shop for selling and butchering the animals. Therefore, he prayed that annexure no. 2 to the writ petition be quashed and it be declared that FSS Act, 2006 shall have overriding effect on the by-laws issued by the Zila Panchayat.”

On the other hand, the Bench then mentions in para 4 that, “Learned counsel for the State would submit that petitioner was granted license by the Designated Authority to run the shop at a particular place but he shifted his shop, after getting the license from the Designated Authority under the FSS Act, 2006, to another place, which came within 500 metre from the bank of river Ganga, therefore, no objection certificate was not granted to him and order passed by District Magistrate, Uttarkashi does not have any infirmity or perversity and requires no interference.”

Furthermore, the Bench then succinctly discloses in para 5 that, “Learned counsel for the State further submits that as per Section 106 (1) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the Zila Panchayats have powers to make by-laws. Section 106 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 is quoted as under:

“106 Powers of Zila Panchayat to make bye-laws (1) A Zila Panchayat may, and where required by the State Government shall, make bye-laws for its own purposes and for the purposes of {Kshettra Panchayats}, applicable to the whole or any part of the rural area of the district, consistent with this Act and with any rule, in respect of matters required by this Act to be governed by bye-laws and for the purposes of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the rural area of the district and for the furtherance of the administration of this Act in the Khand and the district.””

Needless to state, the Bench then notes explicitly in para 6 that, “Article 243 (Part IX) of the Constitution of India provides for formation of Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat. Article 243 G provides for the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats. For better appreciation of the matter, it is quoted below:

“243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats – Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to –

(a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice;

(b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.””

Quite ostensibly, the Bench then enunciates in para 7 that, “Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid Article that the Constitution recognises the Zila Panchayats, as sovereign authorities, having powers to plan for economic development and social justice, as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Article 243 G also provides that the Legislature of a State, may by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self government. Entry 4 in the Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of India provides for animal husbandry, dairying and poultry. Entry 22 provides for markets and fairs. Thus, it is clear that as far as markets and fairs and animal husbandry, dairying and poultry are concerned, the Zila Panchayat, as an institution of self government, may function to regulate animal husbandry etc. as mentioned above.”

Be it noted, the Bench then quite forthrightly holds in para 8 that, “Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the FSS Act, 2006, the powers of Zila Panchayat ceased to operate with respect to food items does not appears to be correct. Since, the Zila Panchayats have been granted powers to act as institutions of self government, the provisions made by Zila Panchayat has to be harmoniously constructed with the provisions of the FSS Act, 2006.”

Most significantly, what truly constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 9 wherein it is held that, “In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no objection certificate is mandatory to be obtained from the Zila Panchayat or the District Magistrate for running a mutton shop in the present matter. At the same time, keeping in view the special status of State of Uttarakhand and the river Ganga that emerges from District Uttarkashi and the sanctity attached with the river Ganga by majority of population of Uttarakhand, the decision taken by the Zila Panchayat by making by-laws to the effect that no shop for butchering the animals and selling the meat within 500 metres from the bank of river Ganga appears in line with the scheme of Constitution of India, as envisaged in Part IX. Hence, this Court is of the view that respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Uttarkashi has not committed any error in not issuing no objection certificate to the petitioner to run a mutton shop within 500 metres from the bank of river Ganga.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes aptly by directing in para 10 that, “Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is observed that any person, who runs a meat shop for selling and butchering the animals in District Uttarkashi, shall obtain no objection certificate from the concerned authority, in the light of by-laws made by the Zila Panchayat and also obtain license from the designated authority.”

In sum, the Uttarakhand High Court has very rightly held that Uttarkashi’s ban on meat shops within 500 meters of the river Ganga is in line with constitutional scheme. So it definitely merits no reiteration of any kind that the same has to be complied with accordingly in its entirety! No denying it!

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

GUJARAT HC GRANTS RELIEF TO PHARMACY DIPLOMA HOLDERS

Published

on

The Gujarat High Court in the case Oza Nikun Dashrathbhai v/s State Of Gujarat observed and has come to the rescue of D.Pharm students who were denied registration as ‘Pharmacist’ by the State Pharmacy Council on the ground that they have not undertaken training from medical stores approved the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.

The Single bench comprising of Justice AS Supehia observed and noted that the Pharmacy Council of India has not approved any medical store under the Regulation for the purpose of imparting practical training of Diploma to the students in Pharmacy Course like the present petitioners.

Court Observations

It was observed that the petitioners cannot be faulted for the action of the respondent authorities in not approving the medical stores under regulation 4.4 of the Regulation of 2015 and hence, no option was there to the petitioner to take their training from the respective medical stores.

It was claimed by the petitioner’s student that the State Council was not registering them as Pharmacists despite having undertaken the necessary training of 500 hours for three months from the respective medical stores.

Further, it was observed that the State had admitted that all documents of the Petitioners were genuine, however, the registration was denied solely for the aforesaid reason. Further, one of the governmental circulars had clarified that the process for granting approval of Chemist/ Pharmacy and Druggist will be notified through the online mode. But the same was targeted only at “prospective students” .

It was noted by the High Court that in order to avoid hardship to current students, who had already undergone or undergoing the D.Pharm course while taking the practical training under the Pharmacy, Chemist and Druggist licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as per precedence students will be considered for the registration, provided the students had undergone the D.Pharm course in an institution approved under PCI under section 12 of the Act.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the State Council to register the Petitioners as Pharmacists within three months.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

BASICS, LEGISLATIONS AND NEED FOR A NEW LAW TO DEAL WITH 5G SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY

Satyajeet A. Desai

Published

on

Much like the evolution of humankind over the millennia, the inventions by humans have also evolved with the progress and advances in technology. Right from the invention of the telephone by Graham Bell to the present day wonder phone ; the cellular or mobile phone.

Cellular mobile technology has also benefited greatly from such advances, Think back to the first generation of mobile phones and connectivity options offered and you think of large phone instruments and only voice enabled phones.

Segue to the present day and we have now arrived at the threshold of a major revolution in cellular technology: the 5G network.

What is the 5G network technology? Simply expressed, it is an advancement of technology, but to put it in better terms, what this means is that with higher usage of mobile phones, which have morphed into office equipment or entertainment consoles due to their ease of usage and accessibility, this new technology has the capability of transmitting data at higher speeds, without any perceptible delay ( which is known as low latency in technical terms), which even the current 4G network could not perhaps address.

What are the laws governing 5G network technology? At present, there are no specific regulations or laws that govern this technological advance and it would thus be governed by the existing bouquet of legislations and rules, which are;

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: This legislation regulates the telecommunication sector, empowering the government to put up infrastructure and licensing of infrastructure.

The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933: This legislation regulates the usage of wireless telegraphs in the country.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997: This act was put into place in order to regulate and settle telecom disputes and an authority know as Telecom Regulatory Authority of India was setup under the legislation . The initial role of the authority was to look into disputes in the sector , its scope was however, expanded to regulate the sector in the country, which in the context of the mobile or cellular technology also includes the grant of licences.

Information Technology Act, 2000: As the name suggests, this act governed information technology, but was later amended in 2008 to include telecom service industry.

Apart from this the guidelines issued by the Government under these enactments would hold the field. Allocation of spectrum would be based upon technical evaluations carried out before granting licences.

What are the requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant telecom companies to obtain 5G spectrum licence? The company must hold a Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Licence or Unified Access Service Licence , Unified Licence with permission/authorisation for access services for the service area for which it has bid for (the region that it has bid for).

Apart from this, the additional or subsidiary conditions that have to be met are:

The company that bids for licenses must have a net worth of Rs. 100 crores for the service area that it has bid for amongst other ancillary requirements.

The stance of the Government: The stance of the Government as reflected on its website https://dot.gov.in/5g-india-2020 is that “ The 5G technology has been conceived as a foundation for expanding the potential of the Networked Society. A digital transformation brought about through the power of connectivity is taking place in almost every industry. The landscape is expanding to include massive scale of “smart things” to be interconnected. Therefore, the manner in which future networks will cope with massively varied demands and a business landscape will be significantly different from today. 

The economic benefits from the 5G technology are also quite immense. As per the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Committee on Digital Economic Policy, it has been stated that 5G technologies rollout will help in Increasing GDP, Creating Employment, Digitizing the economy.

For India, 5G provides an opportunity for industry to reach out to global markets, and consumers to gain with the economies of scale. Worldwide countries have launched similar Forums and thus, India has joined the race in 5G technologies.

The Government gave the go ahead for 5G spectrum trials as reported on the website,https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1715927,which stated that-The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India, approved permissions to Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) for conducting trials for use and applications of 5G technology.  The applicant TSPs include Bharti Airtel Ltd., Reliance JioInfocomm Ltd., Vodafone Idea Ltd. and MTNL.  These TSPs have tied up with original equipment manufacturers and technology providers which are Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and C-DOT.  In addition, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. will also be conducting trials using its own indigenous technology.

The permissions have been given by DoT as per the priorities and technology partners identified by TSPs themselves.  The experimental spectrum is being given in various bands which include the mid-band (3.2 GHz to 3.67 GHz), millimetre wave band (24.25 GHz to 28.5 GHz) and in Sub-Gigahertz band (700 GHz).  TSPs will also be permitted to use their existing spectrum owned by them (800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2500 MHz) for conduct of 5G trials.

The duration of the trials, at present, was for a period of 6 months. This includes a time period of 2 months for procurement and setting up of the equipment.

The permission letters specify that each TSP will have to conduct trials in rural and semi-urban settings also in addition to urban settings so that the benefit of 5G Technology proliferates across the country and is not confined only to urban areas.

The TSPs are encouraged to conduct trials using 5Gi technology in addition to the already known 5G Technology.  It will be recalled that International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has also approved the 5Gi technology, which was advocated by India, as it facilitates much larger reach of the 5G towers and Radio networks .The 5Gi technology has been developed by IIT Madras, Centre of Excellence in Wireless Technology (CEWiT) and IIT Hyderabad.

The objectives of conducting 5G trials include testing 5G spectrum propagation characteristics especially in the Indian context; model tuning and evaluation of chosen equipment and vendors; testing of indigenous technology; testing of applications (such as tele-medicine, tele-education, augmented/ virtual reality, drone-based agricultural monitoring, etc.);and to test 5G phones and devices.

5G technology is expected to deliver improved user experience in terms of data download rates (expected to be 10 times that of 4G), up to three times greater spectrum efficiency, and ultra low latency to enable Industry 4.0. Applications are across a wide range of sectors such as agriculture, education, health, transport, traffic management, smart cities, smart homes, and multiple applications of IOT (Internet of Things).

DoT has specified that the trials will be isolated and not connected with the existing networks of TSPs.  Trials will be on non-commercial basis.  The data generated during the trials shall be stored in India.  TSPs are also expected to facilitate the testing of the indigenously developed use cases and equipment as part of the trials. One hundred applications/ use cases selected by DoT after conducting the recent Hackathon on 5G applications can also be facilitated in these trials. 

Pursuant to the above, trials were carried out successfully, and ultimately, the spectrum auction took place recently and the 5G network is set to be rolled out soon. This is of course, the offering of the network to subscribers for their usage as provided by telecom operators.

Captive usage of 5G spectrum: With huge interest being shown by some business entities for captive consumption of the spectrum, the Government has on 10th August,2022 undertaken to examine the demand for the same. Captive Non-Public Network (CNPN), or in other words, in-house network, in layman terms will help those entities who wish to avail of the same, to have easier and faster in- house capability, thus boosting its efficiency while providing a dedicated platform, different from the one provided to telecom operators. Different as a result of one customer or subscriber who will avail the same directly from the Department of Telecommunications.

Litigatin on 5G- A litigation against the rollout of the 5G spectrum was initiated before the Delhi High Court on the possible environmental hazards , which came to be dismissed.

At present, there is possibly no other litigation pending or initiated as regards the 5G spectrum rollout, maybe due to the freshness or infancy of the same. If there is any future litigation as regards the same, it would in all probablity be in the realm of awarding of spectrum as a larger issue. Another aspect of any probable litigation would be as regards awarding of Captive Non Public Network (CNPN) or captive usage, but that is likely to be litigation almost like the one that we see in the realm of contracts.

The way forward: As mentioned midway in this article, there is no specific law dealing with spectrum technology and the same is governed by the various enactments mentioned above. The pressing requirement is possibly to have a single law dealing with this area, instead of the bouquet of laws holding the field, which will pave the way for smoothening of the sector and help both the Government and parties in the sector to have a level playing field and do away with the uncertainties associated with various laws governing the field which could result into chaos as compared to a single special legislation which would look at existing and future requirements. A specific law is indeed the need of the hour.

Continue Reading

Legally Speaking

AN ANALYSIS OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

Published

on

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

Uniform civil code in general words means “One Nation, One Law”

Uniform civil code: The word is comprised of two words “uniform” and “civil code”

UNIFORM MEANS EQUALLY APPLICABLE ON EVERYONE

Civil code means collection of laws governing personal relationships between people. Few examples of civil code are contracts, property and marriage related laws.

The debate for uniform civil code started back in 1835 with the report of second law commission. During this time Britishers felt the need to unify various personal laws.

The concept of uniform civil code is embodied under article 44 of the Indian constitution in chapter IV (DPSP). The article states that: Uniform civil code for the citizens: The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

The words incorporated in article 44 imply that the state shall make great effort to implement Uniform civil code throughout the country.

Although directive principles of state policy are not enforceable in a court of Law, it obligates the state to apply the principles in implementation of laws.

The implementation of Uniform civil code was included by the Bhartiya Janta party in its manifesto during 2019 Lok Sabha election. Removal of Article 370 from constitution of India is the major step towards this agenda. India is a diverse country with various religions and various personal laws governing these religions with implementation of UCC all the religions will be governed by one uniform civil code which will reduce the dominance of personal laws over society.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND PERSONAL LAWS

Implementation of UCC has been a matter of dispute from long time because in country like India religious domination plays a crucial role and majority would prefer their dominance over others religions with its personal religious laws. The idea to integrate people of different religions under one civil law can only be possible if it’s for common good rather than for preservation of custom.

Custom as a source of law gives more importance to personal religious laws rather than one uniform law and if custom will be the focus behind this one unified civil law it will dominate one majority religion over minorities. The centre of attraction behind the uniform law should be Justice rather than antediluvian antifeminist customs.

It was contended during the debates of the constituent assembly that uniform civil code infringes the right to religion guaranteed under part III of the constitution of India.

In the case of John Vallamattom v. Union of India(MANU/SC/2003) it was held that directive principles incorporated under Article 44 do not infringe article 25 (freedom of religion) in any way. In addition to this clause (2) of article 25 saves secular activities associated with religious practices from the right available under clause (1) that empowers the state to regulate or restrict them.

Judicial pronouncements and article 25

The necessity of implementation of Unified Civil Code has been often recommended by Supreme Court. In the case of Nikhil soni v. Union of India the court stated unambiguously that trough a practice can be religious in nature but if may not constitute vital component of that religion.

UCC: THE DEBATE OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

The speech was given against the motion by several Muslim leaders when it was enacted. It was claimed that it violates fundamental right of religion. Dr. B.R Ambedkar even mentioned, “We have a uniform and COMPLETE CRIMINAL CODE OPERATING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. Which is contained in the penal code and the criminal procedure code. this country also has a civil code which is uniform in its content and applicable throughout the country. The only division in which civil law has not invaded is marriage and succession. It is this little corner which we have not been able to invade so far.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN GOA

Uniform civil code is contained under part IV of the Indian Constitution therefore not enforceable but Goa is the only state which has implemented Uniform civil code in its territory.

The Apex court in Jose Paulo coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pareira stated that the Uniform civil code of Goa is an ideal for applicability of uniform laws on different religions. However the personal laws in Goa are not uniform in all aspects.

Uniform civil code & elimination of gender biasness

The concept of Uniform civil code is highly associated with elimination of gender bias; every personal law is strongly prejudiced against women in some way or the other. The personal laws are highly patriarchal and male dominant in nature. No personal law is ideally suited to become a model for UCC.

Personal laws are mainly derived their authority and source from customs, but the combined effort of legislature and judiciary have played a major role towards achievement of UCC through legislations and precedents.

Continue Reading

Trending