News Leak Centre



The Supreme Court has passed an order where it says that consensual sex between live-in partners cannot be held as a rape charge if the relationship ends and the man fails to marry the woman due to problems beyond his control.

A bench of justices AK Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer said that if live-in partners are having consensual sex out of love under the promise of getting married, then the woman cannot file a case of rape if the relationship breaks.

Cases like those come under the case of breach of promise to marry and not under the case of false promise to marry. “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The case should carefully be examined whether the accused actually wanted to marry the woman or was it a false promise to satisfy his lust”, said SC bench.

The bench passed this order after receiving a criminal proceeding against a government doctor in Maharashtra. A nurse of the same hospital filed a complaint against this doctor where she mentioned that she and that doctor were in a live-in relationship after falling in love with him. They even have indulged in a physical relationship under the promise of getting married but the doctor married someone else. 

Singer Papon Accused of Sexually Abusing Teen Contestant in Reality Show

Singer Papon has been caught on camera forcing himself upon a minor girl. A complaint has been filed against him under the POCSO Act.

In a video going viral, Papon is seen kissing a minor girl. It reportedly happened during the shoot of a Holi celebration on the sets of a Hindi singing reality show. The girl is one of the contestants on the show that Papon is mentoring. The singer allegedly touched the minor inappropriately and kissed her.

A Supreme Court lawyer has filed a complaint against Assamese singer, Angarag Papon Mahanta, popularly known as Papon, with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights for an ‘inappropriate’ act of showing affection to a minor girl, reports Firstpost. The singer was allegedly seen kissing the girl – who is among the contestants of a reality show he is mentoring – on a Facebook live video. The video still features on the singer’s official page.

Lawyer, Runa Bhuyan, said in the complaint, “I am shocked to see the behaviour of the said singer Angarag Papon Mahanta towards a minor girl where he is seen to be applying colours on a minor girl and inappropriately kissing the said girl. On seeing the video, I am seriously concerned regarding the safety and security of minor girls participating in reality shows across India.”



Partha Gogoi, Papon’s manager, told a local website Guwahati Plus, “The act was not meant to hurt the sentiments of any individual, and that it was not wrong in any manner, which is why they see no reason to pull down the video from the official Facebook page of Papon.” He added that the girl’s father has also issued a statement requesting media channels to not “drag the issue.”

So guys, If you feel ashamed of this shameful act done by Papon, do share your views on the same in the below comment section.

End of triple talaq, draft Bill recommends 3-year jail term for husband

After Supreme Court strike down the practice of triple talaq in August this year and ordered Parliament to draft a law on the same, the draft committee has come up with the law to make the triple talaq a non-bailable, cognisable offence and illegal and void and husband practising will attract 3-years of jail term.

The draft was prepared by the group of ministers which is headed by the Home Minister Rajnath Singh. The ministers include External Minister Sushma Swaraj, Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley

Under the draft law, triple talaq in any form, spoken, in writing or by electronic means such as emails, SMS, and WhatsApp would be illegal and void. The draft will also have the provision of women to seek the legal custody of their minor children.

“The provision of subsistence allowance and custody has been made to ensure that in case the husband asks the wife to leave the house she should have legal protection,” the functionary said.

According to the draft law, this would be applicable to the entire country except for Jammu and Kashmir, which enjoys special privilege.

The functionary pointed out that after the Supreme Court order, the government was of the view that the practice would end. “But it continues. There have been 177 reported cases of instant talaq before the judgment and 66 after the order this year…Uttar Pradesh tops the list. Hence, the government planned a law,” he explained.

He also added further that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act were found to be of little help in such cases as the government and the Prime Minister’s Office were receiving complaints from women.

Though the subject of divorce and marriages come under the Concurrent list of the Constitution and Parliament is free pass laws on it in emergencies.

As of now, the bill is in prospective in nature. But if Parliament feels, it can be implemented retrospectively after it gets the President’s nod, he said.

Another official related to the draft law said that the women who were given triple talaq before the proposed law can also seek custody of minor children and subsistence allowance using its provisions.

Once the views of the states are received, the law ministry would move Cabinet with the proposal.

Even police are helpless as no action can be taken against the husband in the absence of punitive provisions in the law, they explained.

Despite advisories being issued to the members of the community against the archaic practice, there seemed to be no decline in the cases of divorce by ‘talaq-e-biddat’, they claimed.

In a recent case of ‘talaq-e-biddat’, a man working with a leading educational institution divorced his wife through WhatsApp and SMS, the functionary said quoting media reports.

NGT Stops Delhi Govt From Implementing Odd-Even Without Enough Proof Of Effectiveness

The National Green Tribunal rapped the Delhi government on its decision to implement the Odd-Even scheme from November 13, to curb the increasing pollution levels in the city.

The NGT which reviewed the decision on Friday has directed the govt to produce details of ambient air quality during earlier odd-even schemes.
It also showed apprehensions over its implementation, asking the govt why it was announced this year despite reports from CPCB and DPCC that it was ineffective.
The tribunal has directed the Delhi govt that it will not implement odd-even rule unless it establishes that the scheme is not counter-productive.
Nothing has been done from your end for the past one year, NGT told the Delhi Govt.
“The Supreme Court and the NGT have suggested 100 measures to curb pollution but you always opted for Odd-Even. Delhi Govt will have to justify this. When the situation is improving, the govt is trying to implement odd-even. you should have done this earlier if you wanted to. This will now cause inconvenience to people,” it said.
Hearing to continue tomorrow.

The odd-even car rationing scheme was scheduled to be rolled out in Delhi for five days from November 13 as part of a graded response plan to tackle the alarming level of pollution in the city.
A landmark IIT-Kanpur study, which covered the period 2013-14, said during winters, vehicles are the second largest and the “most consistent” contributing source of pollutants PM10 and PM2.5.
In terms of percentage, it comes to around 20-25 percent during winters, the report says. The contribution of road dust is negligible during the colder months unlike summer when it plays a bigger role, it adds.
However, there’s a catch.
The share of two-wheelers (which are exempt from the Odd-Even scheme) three-wheelers, four-wheelers, trucks and light commercial vehicles in the total vehicular contribution shows that trucks and two-wheelers are the major polluters.
According to the study, which was commissioned by the Sheila Dikshit government, the share of four-wheelers in the break up of vehicular contribution is 10 percent each in cases of both PM2.5 and PM10.
On the other hand, the share of trucks and two-wheelers stand at around 46 percent and 33 percent respectively.

Black day celebration gift: no action on late depositors of banned notes

The Centre ordered the Supreme Court that no criminal action would be taken against those who could not deposit the banned notes on time.

As the note ban inches its anniversary, the announcement comes as a sigh of relief for the Indian masses.
The court said the matter will now be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench.
The Constitution bench was set up last December to examine the validity of the Centre’s demonetisation move.

The SC bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, asked the petitioners to file interlocutory applications in the pending petitions, which will be taken up by the constitution bench.

Targeted at weeding out tax evasion and corruption, the last year’s sudden announcement of Demonetisation had thrown India’s cash economy into turmoil, leaving the country in chaos.

The deposited notes are being verified by the central bank at its offices to establish the total number of currency bills returned and to weed out the fake currencies.

The government had on November 8 last year banned the use of old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes and allowed the holders of these currency bills to deposit them with banks or use them at certain notified utilities.

The Reserve Bank of India’s annual report revealed the return of demonetised high-value currency of 15.28 lakh crore to the central bank, i.e 99% of the banned currency have returned to the banking system.

This cash ban prompted the central bank to print new currency, reducing its profit. The newly-minted currency of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 went through a sophisticated verification process.

Several opposition parties including the Congress and Mamata Banerjee’s TMC have announced that they would observe November 8, the first anniversary of demonetisation, as ‘Black Day.’

And to counter the opposition, the ruling BJP has decided to observe the note ban anniversary as “anti- blackmoney day”.

Whatever might be the parties concern but the announcement of decriminalizing the late currency depositors is sure to be a matured decision.

So here comes fine news amidst the first anniversary of ‘Black Day’ celebration.

Abort, sole prerogative of wife, need no husband’s consent: SC

The Supreme Court had ruled saying a woman, the lone decision maker of abortion. Giving birth or terminate a pregnancy does not need husband’s consent.

The apex court judgment comes dismissing a man’s petition seeking damages from his wife who underwent an abortion. His narration revealed that his estranged wife aborted without a prior consent of his.The judgment reads, “Woman has an unimpeachable right to give birth or terminate the pregnancy.”

The man has appealed to the SC after his plea has got rejected before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

“In view of the strained relationship between the husband and wife, the decision to terminate the unwanted fetus was precise,” appreciates the High Court.

According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,“No express or implied consent of the husband is needed in getting the pregnancy terminated.”

The Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra headed bench said, “She is a mother and an adult. How can she be made liable for it? Even a mentally retarded woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.”

The marriage history also revealed that the couple had a past sour relationship with no clear sign of improvement. Due to discord, the wife and their first son had been staying with her parents in Chandigarh since 1999 which made her terminating the “unwanted” pregnancy.

Objecting the wife’s decision, the husband declined to sign the hospital papers for medical termination of pregnancy. The woman went ahead with the abortion at a Chandigarh hospital.
Following which the man filed a suit seeking damages of Rs 30 lakh. The suit was however dismissed.

Consented to matrimonial sex does not mean consent to child conceive and giving birth to a child is a sole women’s decision, ruled the High Court.

SC cracks whip against killer Blue Whale game, orders daily shows on TV

Supreme Court has ordered the national broadcaster Doordarshan and other Television channels to telecast programme on the evil game Blue Whale.

Spreading awareness about the hazardous impact of the vice game, the highest judicial forum attempted to educate masses about the ill-effects of the online game.

The directed aired programme should be a compulsion of one-hour duration. The rule goes same for the private news channels as well.

The apex court comes up with this decision after hearing a petition filed by a 73-year-old Chennai advocate NS Ponnaiah who has blamed the game for 100 suicides throughout the country.

Ensuring the effective functioning of the implementation, the centre has further updated the apex court of setting up an expert committee to look into the ruthless issue. The filing of the updated information is confirmed by the court within a time-bound period of three weeks.

Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra reportedly said, “Lonely and frustrated children were trapped by the game BlueWhale.”

Initiated in Russia, the ‘suicide game’ energizes its online gamers to compete for the daily tasks over a period of 50 days.
What does the game demand you to do?
Cutting lips and poking the participant’s hands are the usual dares, one needs to qualify to stick engaged to the game.

Accelerating it to another level, the game further asks you to share the captured picture so that a proof-image can be recorded.

And the final round demands the participants to kill themselves.
The social media sites including the Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are the places where the online player can partake.

The government has demanded the internet giants, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Yahoo and Whatsapp for an immediate removal of the related links.

It’s historical! Supreme Court to install sanitary pads vending machine in it’s premises

On International day of women, the women lawyers in the Supreme Court of India get a much-needed attention. Woman lawyers, which accounts for around 1,000 and other woman staff, were rejoiced after a directive that was issued by a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra asked the SC Registry to install three vending machines for sanitary and three incinerators to dispose of used napkins.

In a time when menstrual hygiene is a complicated and challenging topic in India, this directive will prove a milestone for the same.

The champion behind this move is Advocate Nandini Gore, who is the Secretary of the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA).

Nandini Gore
Nandini Gore

The Supreme Court had taken the issue seriously and issued a directive.

Other than the funds for the vending and incinerating machines, the bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also allocated Rs 80 lakh for the Supreme Court Bar Association. The amount will go into a fixed deposit, whose interest will be used to provide medical assistance to lawyers, according to a report in Hindustan Times.

The funds, Rs 1.4 crore, come from two Gurugram-based doctors convicted for contempt by sheltering an absconding former MLA of Haryana.

The move to install vending machines plus incinerators has been gaining ground in government institutions. Earlier, the University Grants Commission (UGC) asked varsities and higher educational institutions to install sanitary napkin incinerators in women’s hostels.

Did my duty as per oath, had no desire to be shifted to Allahabad: Justice Patel on resignation

The senior judge, who declared resignation on Monday, was widely expected to take charge as the Acting Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC.

After sending in his resignation to the President, the senior-most judge of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Jayant M Patel said that those who stood against his elevation “must answer how it was done”. Justice Patel’s decision to resign came following the Supreme Court collegium’ order to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court. The senior judge, who declared resignation on Monday, was widely expected to take charge as the Acting Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC after Chief Justice SK Mukherjee’s retirement on October 9.

Being a part of a two-judge bench in the Gujarat High Court, Justice Patel, in 2011, had ordered a CBI probe into the killing of Ishrat Jahan and three others. The court’s order came after a Special Investigation Team (SIT) concluded that the police encounter, that killed the four terror suspects, was a fake one.

However, speaking to the Indian Express, Justice Patel did not link his 2011 decision in the Ishrat Jahan case with the recent denial of his appointment as the Chief Justice. Stating that he viewed cases in the court on merit, he said, “Those who have taken decisions must answer how it was done. I cannot say anything. Every day we take decisions. We do not look at whether the case is about X or Y and we cannot decide a matter like that. We do not see the name of the party and decide the course. This is what is expected of us. I don’t think this could be the reason (for my transfer) but I cannot answer as the decisions were taken by someone else. “

Further mentioning that the key reason behind his resignation was his transfer order to the Allahabad High Court, Justice Patel told Indian Express, “When I became aware of my contemplated transfer to the Allahabad High Court, I decided to resign. I have already sent my resignation to the President of India. From yesterday, I am relieved of responsibilities. How it happened and what happened is for you to consider,’’ he said. I had no desire to be shifted to Allahabad. I have worked with dignity for 16 years as a judge, and for (the remaining) ten months why should I go to another place. What I feel is that I did my duty as per the oath of my office. Punishment is ultimately in God’s hands. One thing I can say is that wherever I worked, it has been with all sincerity and strictly as per my oath of office.”

And amid mixed reactions among advocate bodies, over the transfer order of Justice Patel, the Gujarat High Court Advocate Association (GHCAA) had on Tuesday resolved to challenge the Supreme Court’s order. Reportedly, the GHCAA petition will be “seeking full disclosure of the reasons of the collegium of the Supreme Court or High Courts with regard to the recommendations of appointments, non-appointments, non-confirmation of High Court Judges and/ or elevation of a High Court judge to the Supreme Court or as Chief Justice of High Court, and for making full-fledged judicial review available in such situations.”

After having served as the Active Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court from August 2015 to February 2016, Justice Patel started working as a judge of the Karnataka High Court from February 13, 2016.

Article 35A: Now West Pakistani refugees in J&K move SC challenging provision

Amid soaring tensions across Jammu and Kashmir over the controversial issue of possible repeal of Article 35A, a section of West Pakistani refugees, who had migrated to India during the 1947 partition, have now challenged Article 35A at the Supreme Court. The Article 35A of the Constitution deals with special rights and privileges of permanent residents.

In a fresh plea to the apex court, the petitioners stated that while the original residents of the state avail the special privileges, around three lakh West Pakistani refugees, who are long settled in Jammu and Kashmir, are denied of the rights guaranteed under Article 35A. A bench of Justice at the apex court tagged the fresh plea by the refugees settled in Kathua district with similar pending matters. The SC had earlier, at the request of the state government, posted the matter for hearing after the Diwali holidays.

Added to the Constitution by a Presidential Order in 1954, Article 35A ensures special rights to the citizens of J-K and also empowers the state’s legislature to come up with any law without attracting challenge of violation of Right to Equality of people from other states or any other right under the Indian Constitution.

A Kashmiri Pandit named Dr Charu Wali Khanna had earlier challenged the provision in the Supreme Court. In another plea, petitioners Kali Das, his son Sanjay Kumar and one other mentioned, “The petitioners are persons who migrated from Pakistan to India in 1947. They were assured by the government that they should stay in the state of Jammu and Kashmir on the assurance that they would be granted Permanent Resident Certificates (PRC), which would permit them to purchase properties and own a house, opportunity to get a government job and reservation benefits, since most of them belong to SC/ST/OBC category and a right to vote in state and municipal elections.”

The petition further claimed that despite repeated assurance by successive governments, Pakistani refugees in Jammu and Kashmir have not yet received a PRC, even after more than 65 years of their immigration. Further citing the cruelty and bonded labour treatment faced by the refugees, the petitioners stated that the denial of the basic and necessary rights result in “denial of basic civilisational recognition to a set of humanity which defies basic human values and civilisational ethos.”

“Certain groups of citizens of India for whose rights this petition is being moved are subjected to extreme cruelty and bonded labour treatment. The state government granted permanent resident status to some of the West Pakistan refugees subject to an exception that they could be employed only as sweepers,” read the petition.

Further stressing on the continuing inequality in the valley, the petitioners mentioned that the refugees and their kin are not allowed to hold a position higher than a sweeper and also their children deprived of education in government universities or scholarships to gain education