Plea challenges maternity Act provision

Plea challenges maternity Act provision

New Delhi:02.10.2021

The Supreme Court Friday sought response from the Centre on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of a provision of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which states that a woman would be eligible for maternity leave who legally adopts a child below the age of three months.

A bench of Justices S A Nazeer and Krishna Murari issued notices to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Women & Child Development while seeking their responses on the PIL which said Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was discriminatory and arbitrary.

A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to thesadopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be. PTI

TN orders man-eater tiger to be shot dead

TN orders man-eater tiger to be shot dead

Udhagamandalam:02.10.2021

With the elusive man eater tiger killing one more person on Friday, the fourth in recent days, the Chief Conservator of Forests Sekhar Kumar Niraj issued orders to shoot it dead immediately.

After the tiger, which had killed a shepherd in an estate near Gudalur, about 80 km from here, on Friday last, the forest department started search operations to trap the feline by tranquilising it.

However, the tiger, with injuries, gave the slip to nearly 100 forest department staff and officials, including some from the Special Task Force from Kerala and two tamed elephants for the last six days.

The carnivore was found roaming in Mayfield, two km from the spot on September 29 and it killed a goat. The tiger entered Attakarai, coming under Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, some 40 km from the estate and killed an 85-year old man this afternoon, creating panic among villagers, who demanded action to trap it.

Gudalur MLA Pon Jayaseelan had also sought immediate action.

The tiger has so far killed four people, 20 cows and a goat.

Department sources said Niraj gave the order, considering the seriousness of the situation and failure to tranquilise the animal. PTI

Court: Insurer can’t stub claim of non-smokers

Court: Insurer can’t stub claim of non-smokers

‘No Proof Of Smoking Link To Patient’s Lung Cancer’

Saeed.Khan @timesgroup.com

Ahmedabad:02.10.2021

A consumer court here has ordered an insurance company to reimburse the expenditure on medical treatment for lung cancer after the company refused Mediclaim on the grounds that the patient was a chain smoker and contracted cancer due to his smoking. The consumer court said there was no proof that the cancer had been caused by the patient’s smoking habit.

The case involved one Alok Kumar Banerjee from Thaltej, who underwent treatment for adenocarcinoma of the lung from Vedanta Institute of Medical Science in July 2014 and incurred a medical bill of Rs 93,297. He had medical insurance cover. But his claim was rejected by the insurer.

After Banerjee passed away, his widow, Smita Banerjee, sued the insurer in 2016 in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (additional), where the insurance company took the defence that Banerjee was treated in different hospitals for his illness, which had a direct nexus with his smoking habit, and that this was reflected in his case papers.

The consumer commission did not agree. It cited a higher forum’s order and said that a discharge summary itself cannot be treated as primary or conclusive evidence in the absence of any independent proof. There was no evidence in this case to show that the patient got cancer because of smoking.

The insurance company’s doctor gave a medical opinion that those who smoke have a 26 times higher risk of getting cancer. To this, the commission said that merely on the basis of this opinion it cannot be concluded that the patient got cancer due to his smoking habit. Those who do not smoke also get lung cancer and it cannot be believed that all those who smoke have lung cancer. It cannot be accepted that the complainant’s husband got cancer because of his smoking habit and the insurer had wrongly rejected the claim.

Hospital beds full of kids, health official sounds 3rd wave warning

Hospital beds full of kids, health official sounds 3rd wave warning

Siddharth Shankar Pandey

Jabalpur:02.10.2021

Paediatric experts are saying that the third Covid wave has begun, in context of children, regional director-health services, Jabalpur, Dr Sanjay Mishra said on Friday.

“Majority of the hospitals are full beyond capacity. Most of the children have pneumonia. Several child disease experts say that the third wave is already on, but, thankfully most of the patients don’t have serious ailments. All the arrangements for their treatment are being taken care of,” Dr Mishra said. Hospitals in Jabalpur — be it the paediatric ward of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College or Victoria Hospital or the district hospital — have well over 100% occupancy. There are two children per bed in many hospitals. Medical officer at Victoria Hospital, Dr Shilpi Jain said, “There is a 50% rise in OPD footfall of children, and a similar increase in the wards too. Floor beds have also been put up and appropriate treatment is being provided.”

Superintendent of NSCB Medical College, Dr R Tiwari said, “In the medicine ward, at least 70 children are admitted on 40 beds. It’s the same in other wards.” On Thursday, TOI had reported how paediatric wards across Madhya Pradesh are overwhelmed by a sudden surge in fever hospitalisations, with at least 20-25% of them suspected to be post-Covid syndrome. Even ICUs have two children per bed.

Several doctors told TOI that a significant percentage of the kids they are treating were infected with Covid-19, which went undetected because they were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms, but its longterm effects are erupting now. It’s extremely difficult to diagnose this syndrome because it mimics many other more common ailments.

DNA test not must to establish inheritance right: SC

DNA test not must to establish inheritance right: SC

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:02.10.2021

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot force DNA test on one of the siblings, who are engaged in a civil suit, for crystallising inheritance rights as it has the possibility of stigmatising a person as a “bastard” and violating his right to privacy, which is part of right to life.

Three daughters of a Himachal Pradesh couple requested a trial court, where their brother had filed a suit for a declaration that he was the sole inheritor of their parents’ properties, to subject their ‘brother’ to DNA test while claiming that he was not the biological son of their parents, which disentitled him from inheriting their parents property. The man refused to undergo a DNA test. The trial court dismissed the application saying he can’t be forced to undergo the blood test. The HC reversed the decision and asked the man to take a DNA test.

On appeal, a bench of Justices R S Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said, “In a case like the present, the Court’s decision should be rendered only after balancing the interests of the parties, that is, the quest for truth, and the social and cultural implications involved therein. The possibility of stigmatising a person as a bastard, the ignominy that attaches to an adult who, in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also intrude upon his right of privacy.”

Referring to the nine-judge bench decision in K S Puttaswamy case that had given right to privacy the status of a fundamental right being part of right to life, the bench said, “When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Roy said DNA is unique to an individual (barring twins) and can be used to identify a person’s identity, trace familial linkages or even reveal sensitive health information. “Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K S Puttaswamy case, wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India,” he said.

Referring to the dispute in hand, the Supreme Court bench said, “In such a kind of litigation, where the interest will have to be balanced and the test of eminent need is not satisfied, our considered opinion is that the protection of the right to privacy of the Plaintiff should take precedence.”

The Suprme Court said the plaintiff, without subjecting himself to a DNA test, is entitled to establish his right over the property in question, through other material evidence. “Since the plaintiff has already led evidence from his side to prove the relationship between the parties, at this stage the High Court should not have directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test,” it said.

Supreme Court Holds 9 Tamil Nadu Govt Officers Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Not Implementing Orders

Supreme Court Holds 9 Tamil Nadu Govt Officers Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Not Implementing Orders

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

1 Oct 2021 7:30 PM

The Supreme Court on Friday held 9 officers of the Tamil Nadu Government guilty of contempt of court for not implementing a direction to revise the seniority list of officers in the Public Works Department.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that the officers have committed civil contempt of court for not following the order passed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2016.

The following are the officers who the Court held as contemnors (their designations at the relevant time given in brackets) :

1. M. Vijayakumar IAS (Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission).

2. S. Thinakaran( Engineer-in-Chief, WRD and Chief Engineer (General), TN PWD)

3. S. Swara IAS (Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, P & AR Dept)

4. K. Ramamoorthy (Engineer-in-Chief(WRO) and Chief Engineer(General), TN PWD).

Also Read - The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021- Progressive But Not Far Enough

5.K. Nanthakumar IAS (Secretary, TNPSC).

6. K. Shanmugham (Chief Secretary to the Govt of Tamil Nadu).

7. Dr. K. Manivasan IAS(Principal Secretary to Govt of TN).

8. S.K Prabhakar (Secretary, PWD).

9. S. Bhaktavachalam.

In the order dated January 16, 2016, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Government's special leave petition against a judgment of the Madras High Court, held that seniority list should be drawn on the basis of merit list of selection and not on the basis of roster point.

The contempt petitions were filed stating that the respondents published a revised seniority list breaching the principle laid down by the Supreme Court.

The respondents argued that the judgment of the High Court had no general application and was confined to individual cases. It was also argued that the doctrine of merger is not applicable to an order dismissing Special Leave Petition, and hence contempt, if any, should be agitated before the High Court and not the Supreme Court.

The bench rejected the arguments of the contemnors. It noted that the High Court had specifically declared that the judgment was not confined to individual cases. Also, the bench stated that a principle of law declared in an order dismissing a special leave petition is binding on the parties, even though the doctrine of merger is not applicable to it. In this connection, the bench referred to the precedent in Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2000) 6 SCC 359.

"In that view of the matter, the respondents were bound to follow the law laid down by this Court and determine the inter se seniority on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point", the bench noted in the order.

The Court directed the respondents to revise and publish the seniority list of the selectees, who were selected in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th September 1999, strictly on the basis of the merit determined by it in the selection process and not on the basis of the roster point.This was directed to be done within a period of 12 weeks.

The Court posted the matter to January 10, 2022 for hearing the contemnors on the quantum of punishment. They were asked to be present before the Court on that day for the hearing.

Case Title : V. Senthur and another versus M. Vijayakumar IAS and others |Contempt Petition(Civil) 638/2017

Coram : Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai

Appearances : Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners); Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan(for TNSPC), Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, V Giri and P Wilson(for respondents)

Citation : LL 2021 SC 526

Click here to read/download the judgment

Clear all patta applications in two weeks: HC

Clear all patta applications in two weeks: HC

Madurai:01.10.2021

Noting that more than six lakh patta transfer applications are pending despite earlier directions issued by it, the Madras high court has directed the state government to dispose of the pending applications within two weeks.

While disposing of a batch of petitions in October 2020, Justice D Krishnakumar took serious note of the pendency of lakhs of patta transfer applications and directed the state to dispose them before March 2021. Recently, when the case was listed before the court for reporting compliance, the commissioner of land administration and the director of survey and settlement submitted status reports that revealed 6,13,218 were pending as of September 1. TNN