Lok Sabha Passes Personal Laws Amendment Bill 2018 To Remove Leprosy As Ground For Divorce

Must Read

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Legal Profession

In recent times, we have seen the introduction of artificial intelligence on a small yet phenomenally successful scale in...

Approaching the von Neumann Bottleneck: Neuromorphic Computing & beyond

“There are one trillion synapses in a cubic centimeter of the brain. If there is such a thing as...

Is India Truly Following the Footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi?

On October 2, 2020, it was the 151st birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. India couldn’t celebrate it due to...

Follow us

The Lok Sabha passed the Personal law Amendment Bill 2018 which removes Leprosy as a ground for Divorce. The advancement in the medical field has thereby made leprosy curable. The Statement of objects and reasons of the bill stated that the leprosy patients were isolated and segregated from the society as leprosy was not curable and the society was hostile to them. However, with the technological advancements and the outcomes of the intensive healthcare facilities to cure the disease, the attitude of the society towards them began to change. The discriminatory provision contained in various statutes against the person affected with leprosy was made prior when adequate medical facilities were not available to cure such disease but with the medical advancement has rendered leprosy a curable disease. Presently leprosy is completely curable disease and can be treated with multidrug therapy. However the old legislative provision discriminating person affected by leprosy continued by various laws. The National Human Rights Commission on 3rd January 2008 had recommended amendments in certain personal laws and other legislations. In addition, the Committee on Petitions of Rajya Sabha in its 131st Report on “Petition Praying for Integration and Empowerment of Leprosy affected person” had examined various statutes and desired that the concerned ministers and state government would urgently considered amendments to such discriminatory provision in the concerned legislations and statutes. The 20th Law Commission of India in its 256 Report had recommended for removing the discriminatory provision in various statutes against the person affected with leprosy. The Supreme Court of India has also directed the Union government and state government to take necessary steps for rehabilitation and integration of the leprosy affected person into the mainstream including steps to repeal the provision of leprosy which has been treated as a stigmatic disability. Having regard to the recommendations, directions and observations of National Human Rights Commission, Rajya Sabha and Supreme Court of India, the government has decided to omit such discriminatory provision from the Personal Laws.

Therefore the Personal Law Amendment Bill 2018 seeks to amend and omit the provision contained in these statues that discriminates the leprosy affected person:

  • Divorce Act, 1869
  • The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939
  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -