Kids born out of live-in tie not illegitimate: Supreme Court

By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Adding a new dimension to the vibrant debate on legality of a ‘live in’ relationship and legitimacy of children born out of such tie, the Supreme Court has ruled that such kids are not illegitimate. The Apex Court has also held that these children have a right to inherit the properties left behind by any of the partners in such relationship.“If a man and a woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate,” said a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and BS Chauhan on Friday. The bench said the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubine.

Earlier, Delhi high court had said that the alliance is like “walk- in and walk-out without strings attached to it.’’ But the Supreme Court has held that the relationship is presumed to be marriage in the eye of law if the partners keep the bonding alive for a long time.The judgment that may have a strong bearing on several petitions raising the dispute on legitimacy of children born out of the live-in association among others was delivered in an appeal filed by one Madan Mohan Singh, challenging the judgments of Allahabad High Court and the two land consolidation tribunals which had allowed the right on the estate left behind by one Chandra Deo Singh, to the two sons and four daughters of Chandra Deo. Madan Mohan said he solely inherits the property left behind by Chandra Deo, but Rajni Kant, his brother Anjani Kumar and four sisters contested the claim by saying since they were born out of the decade-long live-in relationship between Chandra Deo and their mother Shakuntala, they were the inheritors of the landed property.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kids-born-out-of-live-in-tie-not-illegitimate-supreme-court_1424495

Centre’s treaty-making power must conform to Constitution: SC

NEW DELHI: Is the Executive’s treaty-making power outside the purview of the Constitution? Can the judiciary scrutinise whether entering into a treaty and its implementation violated the basic structure of the Constitution?  These tricky questions, which had gained currency during the controversy over the provisions of India-US nuclear deal, came to be answered by the Supreme Court on Monday, albeit in another matter relating to the multilateral WTO agreements signed by India. A petitioner, advocate Shiva Kant Jha, complained before a Bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justice K S Radhakrishnan that the executive was going ahead and signing a large number of multilateral treaties to fulfil its WTO obligations and was refusing to adhere to constitutional provisions. When he argued that Delhi High Court had dismissed his petition on the ground that treaty-making power of the executive was not subject to the constitutional framework, the Bench said, “Who says it is not. If you show us that a certain provision was in breach of the Constitution, certainly the apex court can examine it. Such treaties which violate the basic structure of the Constitution will be struck down. This is already stated in the HC judgment.” It dismissed Jha’s appeal as he could not pin-point the agreement which violated the Constitution.  Though the court did not entertain the petition, it surely showed a shift in approach in scrutinising the constitutional validity of the multilateral and bilateral agreements entered into by India.

In contrast, the apex court was not ready to entertain any of the four PILs filed during those days when there was a huge controversy over the India-US nuclear agreement. A Bench headed by then CJI K G Balakrishnan had dismissed the PILs challenging the nuclear deal. A PIL filed by Anil Chawla had alleged that the deal undermined India’s sovereignty as the Hyde Act of US would not permit India to go ahead with peaceful nuclear research work. “Can the executive sign an agreement with a foreign nation undermining the country’s sovereignty,” he had asked seeking a direction to place it before Parliament. The Bench had said, “The matter is for the PM and Speaker to consider whether it should be placed before Parliament or not. The decision to enter into an agreement has been taken by the executive, which is answerable to Parliament. Where does the Supreme Court figure in the scheme of things.” Dismissing another PIL filed by M N Ramamurthy, the SC had said, “It is the prerogative of Parliament to consider the matter. Let Parliament decide. India signs a host of bilateral and multilateral treaties. Some like TRIPPS agreement affected the prices of medicines. But the court cannot look into these. If something affects the country, Parliament is the body to look into it.”

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com