The Caste System Is Curse To The Nation, Sooner It Is Destroyed The Better: Delhi High Court

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

Case

Shri. Dasuklang Kharjana Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors

Brief Facts

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Kynshi Presbyterian Upper Primary School, Kynshi. In 2015 and since then the petitioner has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. However, suddenly in the month of July, 2018 after the petitioner has completed 3 years and 5 months in his service, to the surprise of the petitioner was directed to resign from the post of Assistant Teacher, reason behind such resignation was given to the petitioner was that he had married a lady from a different fraternity which belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. Thereafter on 11.05.2018 the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the school authority requesting to look into the discriminatory actions taken against him by forcing the petitioner to resign from the post of Assistant Teacher and till then no action was taken by authority which compels the petitioner to file a legal suit against the authority.

Contentions

  • Marriage interference is violation of Article 14,16,19,21,25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
  • Marriage is the personal affair but in 21st century still it is no papers, practically not practiced.

Held

Justice Sudip Ranjan Sen of Meghalaya High Court observed that No authority can stop inter-caste marriage or intersect marriage. It is purely a decision between private party i.e. bride and bridegroom to choose their life and their marriage is in no way connected with their service. The court quoted the apex court judgment in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, in which it was observed that inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. Justice Sen expressed his anguish and displeasure towards the narrow outlook of the school authority by removal of a teacher from a school for marrying a woman who belonged to another caste and directed the school authority to restore its flaw and reinstate the teacher immediately, clear all his dues, salary and other benefits. Beside all this court also directed to pay Rs.50,000 as a compensation to the petitioner.

 Outcome  

In a democratic country, it is imperative to let people freely exercise their right to marry the people of their own choice, irrespective of religion. The Constitution of India through Article 14,16,21,25 and 26 empower citizens of India to practice the religion of their own choice irrespective of caste, creed, sex and colour, the freedom of religion also includes right to convert to another religion and also to have a marriage inter religion, inter-caste. The right to marry in India is part of the right to life as given under the Constitution of India. Girls above the age of 18 and boys above the age of 21 can marry legally in India. They can freely choose their spouse irrespective of the religion or any other ground. The Delhi High court, in one judgment, has said that choosing one spouse is a fundamental right. Both men and women have right to enter into marriage and freely choose a partner of their choice.

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

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -