Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

SC Orders All Courts Not To Mention Caste, Religion Of Litigants In Case Papers

Posted in: Supreme Court
Mon, Jan 29, 24, 19:50, 3 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 10151
Shama Sharma vs Kishan Kumar that all the courts must stop mentioning caste, religion of litigants in case papers.

While taking the most historic right step and also the most commendable right initiative in the right direction, we see that the Supreme Court which is the highest court of India in a most learned, landmark, logical, laudable and latest judgment titled Shama Sharma vs Kishan Kumar in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1957 of 2023 in the exercise of its civil original jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on January 10, 2024 has minced just no words to hold most commendably in no uncertain terms that all the courts must stop mentioning caste, religion of litigants in case papers.

It is most heartening to note that the Supreme Court has passed a general order directing its Registry, all the High Courts and so also all the Subordinate Courts to stop the pernicious practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers. It would be vital to note that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah while deprecating most strongly the pernicious practice of caste or religion of litigants in caste papers observed unequivocally that the practice should be shunned and stopped immediately. The Apex Court was astonished to observe that the caste of both the parties to the dispute that is the husband and the wife had been most specifically mentioned in the memo of the parties.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner-wife has filed the present petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing CM No. 136 of 2023, titled Kishan Kumar Vs. Shama Sharma pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot, Punjab.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that:
On 29th November, 2023 this Court had noted that none has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-husband. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that the parties were referred to mediation, but could not arrive at a settlement, it was deemed appropriate to await the presence of the respondent-husband. We had also directed that both the parties should appear virtually on the next date of hearing.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife states that he has given a written intimation of the order passed on 29th November, 2023 to the respondent-husband through speed post as well as whatsapp, but he has not responded.

It is worth noting that the Bench points out in para 4 that:
None is present on behalf of the respondent-husband even today.

As a corollary, the Bench then mandates and directs in para 5 that:
In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition and direct transfer of the petition bearing CM No. 136 of 2023, titled Kishan Kumar Vs. Shama Sharma pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot, Punjab.

Further, the Bench also directs in para 6 that:
The records of the case be transferred forthwith to the transferee Court.

Be it noted, the Bench notes and directs in para 7 that:
Further, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to move an appropriate application before the transferee Court for permission to participate in the proceedings virtually. If such a request is made, the transferee Court may grant such permission and direct the personal presence of the respondent-husband only when it is absolutely necessary. Further, if examination of outstation witnesses is required and a request is made for recording the evidence through a Court Commissioner, the transferee Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

What’s more, the Bench then further directs in para 8 that:
The Transfer petition is allowed.

In addition, the Bench then also directs in para 9 that:
Pending applications are disposed of.

Quite significantly, we see that the Bench then propounds in para 10 that, Before parting with this matter, we have noted with surprise that the caste of both the parties has been mentioned in the memo of parties, besides their other details. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the memo of parties as filed before the courts below is changed in any manner, the Registry raises an objection and in the present case as the caste of both the parties was mentioned before the court below, he had no option but to mention their caste in the Transfer Petition.

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most sagaciously, we then observe that the Bench hastens to add in para 11 propounding brilliantly that, We see no reason for mentioning the caste/religion of any litigant either before this Court or the courts below. Such a practice is to be shunned and must be ceased forthwith. It is therefore deemed appropriate to pass a general order directing that henceforth the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before this Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the courts below. A direction is also issued to all the High Courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties in any petition/suit/proceeding filed before the High Court or the Subordinate Courts under their respective jurisdictions.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by mandating and directing in para 12 that, The above directions shall be brought to the notice of the members of the Bar as well as the Registry for immediate compliance. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar concerned for perusal and for circulation to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for strict compliance.

In a nutshell, we thus see very clearly that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Hima Kohli and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah have left no stone unturned in making it indubitably clear that all the courts must definitely now stop mentioning the caste, religion of litigants in case papers. It is high time and the Registry must definitely from now onwards pay heed to what the Apex Court has directed so very clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case which must be implemented in all the courts most strictly! There can definitely be just no gainsaying that the earlier this is done in all the courts, the better it shall be! There can definitely be just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top