LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1986. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2014

Sec. 292 of I.P.C. - Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, - private complaint against STERN magazine and Anandabazar Patrika -The message,a picture of Boris Becker, a world renowned Tennis player, posing nude with his dark-skinned fiancée by name Barbara Feltus, a film actress- the photograph wants to convey is that the colour of skin matters little and love champions over colour. Picture promotes love affair, leading to a marriage, between a white-skinned man and a black skinned woman.- is not an offence - Lower court and high court failed to consider the settled postilion of law - Apex court quashed the proceedings = Aveek Sarkar & Anr. .. Appellants Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. .. Respondents = 2014 (February part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41203

›
  Sec. 292 of I.P.C. - Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)  Act,  1986,  - private complaint against STERN maga...
Monday, August 12, 2013

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 = question the constitutional validity of number of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti- Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Act 7 of 1986) (for short “the Act”) being violative of Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and 300A of the Constitution of India and further prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the First Information Report dated 2.5.2010 giving rise to Crime No. 100 of 2010 registered at Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat.= Thus, the accused under the Act is in a distinct category and the differentiation between the two, namely, a person arrayed as an accused in respect of offences under other Acts and an accused under the Act is a rational one. It cannot be said to be arbitrary. It does not defeat the concept of permissible classification. The majority in Kartar Singh (supra) has expressed thus: - “218. The principle of legislative classification is an accepted principle whereunder persons may be classified into groups and such groups may differently be treated if there is a reasonable basis for such difference or distinction. The rule of differentiation is that in enacting laws differentiating between different persons or things in different circumstances which govern one set of persons or objects such laws may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise between persons governed by different conditions and different set of circumstances.”= Tested on the touchstone of the abovestated principles, the irresistible conclusion is that the classification is in the permissible realm of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the submission that Section 12 invites the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution is sans substratum and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in repelling the same and we so do. 47. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we uphold the constitutional validity of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as it does not infringe any of the facets of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ex- consequenti, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

›
              published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40619        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA          ...