A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan refused to interfere with the order of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board allowing a TV Cable service provider to provide television cable connection to officials of the government in their Housing Unit and held that it would have been rather sensible to deny the connection as the staff would have been more at peace without viewing these channels.
Brief Facts:
W.P. No. 659 of 2022 had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the proceedings of the fourth respondent/the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore and to quash the order dated 22.12.2021 and consequently, direct the said fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the annual fee for 1848 tenements in Koundampallayam Government Officials Housing Unit on the basis of an earlier order dated 21.10.2019. W.P. No. 633 of 2022 had been filed again in the nature of certiorari filed Mandamus again relating to the very same proceedings No. SPD-3/PLG/55/2019 and to quash the same and also consequently again direct the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the annual fee for 1848 tenements in Goundampallayam Government Officials Housing Unit on the basis of an earlier order dated 21.10.2019.
The only semblance of a difference between W.P. Nos. 633 of 2022 and 659 of 2022 is that in W.P. No. 659 of 2022 the petitioner has also impleaded as fifth respondent Mr. V. Prakash, Lakshmi Cable, Coimbatore. The whole matter revolved around the suitability and eligibility of the petitioner to claim as a preference, the permission to provide television cable to 1848 tenements at an officers’ complex.Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents were insistent that proper procedure had been followed and that the petitioner had not given or extended the performance guarantee. It was stated that it was well within the rights of the respondents not to give permission to the petitioner herein. With respect to the letter dated 21.10.2019, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that it was conditional subject to satisfaction of the pre-conditions imposed and it was therefore argued that since the petitioner had also not provided the indemnity bond, the petitioner cannot be considered for grant of the permission.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there was a condition that the petitioner should provide Bank Guarantee; a Bank Guarantee speaks for itself. Since it is an agreement extended by a party to a contract to ensure that he performs the covenants of the said contract, it comes into effect only when the contract comes into effect. Further, when there is no contract, there is no necessity to present a performance guarantee. In fact, there is nothing to be performed. Even if produced, it is just a piece of paper. It has to be simultaneously produced along with a contract.
However, there was a condition laid that the petitioner should provide a performance guarantee in advance. If it is to be done, then on the date when the contract is to be entered into, the respondent should have a performance guarantee in their hands. There should be an assurance extended that if the petitioner fails to provide television cable connections to all the 1848 tenements or there are complaints about the quality of service rendered, then the respondents would be able to enforce the performance guarantee as against the petitioner herein.
The performance guarantee expired in May 2021. As and from May 2021, the respondents would not have any hold over the petitioner herein. There was no contract between the two parties. There was no privity of contract between the two parties. It was open to the respondents to appoint any cable operator.
The Court was of the opinion that it cannot thrust a contract on the respondents and it cannot also sit as an appellate authority over a decision taken. It is an issue of subjecting satisfaction of the respondents herein.
The decision of the Court:
The court was unable to provide any relief to the petitioners and consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Case Title: M/s. Star Channel vs The Secretary to the Government and others
Coram: JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
Case No.: W.P. Nos. 663 & 659 of 2022 And W.M.P. Nos. 714, 715 & 711 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sivakumar, Mr. V. Arun
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. R. Bharath Kumar, Mr. R. Balasubramanian
Read Judgment ;
Second Battle: Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Ors.
In 2016, Shayara Bano was divorced by her husband Rizwan Ahmed, after 15 years of marriage, by way of triple talaq without any reason. She was one of the victims of domestic violence and dowry harassment. After receiving a divorce letter from her husband declaring instant talaq, she filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court. In the petition, she challenged the constitutionality of practices of talaq-ul-biddat, polygamy, and nikah halala. The petition also highlighted that these practices are in violation of fundamental rights including Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), and Article 25 (Right to Freedom of religion and conscience) of the Constitution of India. The plea was supported by women’s rights organizations including BMMA (Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan) and the Bebaak Collective. All India Muslim Personal Law Board, in opposition, argued that uncodified Muslim Personal law is not subject to judicial review. Also, it urged that under Article 25 of the Constitution divorce is a religious practice and thus protected. The case was referred to a larger bench as appealed by Shayara Bano and in 2017, a five-judge bench including Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Uday Lalit gave the decision on the matter.
The bench delivered the judgment in favor of Shayara Bano and declared triple talaq unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. The Supreme Court also ordered the legislature to take appropriate measures to stop abuse against women. While giving the judgment, Justice K.M. Joseph observed that talaq is against the Quran and said that “What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.” The other two judges, Justice Uday Lalit and Justice Rohinton Nariman said that talaq-ul-biddat is an unconstitutional practice as it is arbitrary as well as regulated by the Muslim Personal law (Shariat) application, 1937. Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Jagdish Singh Khehar stated that it is an essential religious practice in Muslim culture and is followed by a large number of people. Lastly, the Supreme Court stated that talaq-ul-biddat violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Through this verdict, the government of India took certain measures for improving the lives of Muslim Women and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
This Act was passed after the 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shayara Bano case focusing on the protection of the rights of married Muslim women as well as preventing instant divorce by pronouncing triple talaq. This Act introduced various changes in the context of Muslim law. Under Section 3 of this Act, it is illegal or void to pronounce triple talaq by a husband to his wife in any manner either written, verbal, or using any electronic media. According to Section 4 of this Act, any person who pronounces talaq in such a manner is subjected to imprisonment of 3 years or is fined. Moreover, Section 5 of this Act ensures Muslim women that they can seek allowance for maintaining themselves and their children from their husbands as well as Section 6 ensures that custody of a minor child is entitled to Muslim women. In addition to this, Section 7 of the Act
illustrates that bail can be granted to the accused by the Magistrate on reasonable grounds.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, there are more than one mode of divorce in Muslim law but talaq-ul-biddat is one of the most sinful and disapproved forms of divorce also known as triple talaq. Muslim women are not aware of the rights provided to them and are bound to the Muslim Personal Law. In early times, Muslim women who were disowned by their husbands were not able to reach the Court to fight for their rights. But after the Shayara Bano case, there had been various changes in the legislation for improving the lives of Muslim females. The most important legislation passed by the government after the 2017 case was the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 which declared instant talaq illegal or void.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments