POSTED BY Sundeep Dougal ON Oct 22, 2010 AT 23:56 IST ,  Edited At: Oct 23, 2010 10:07 IST

The Supreme Courts judgment in a case about the rights of an unmarried partner under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 has come in -- rightly -- for sharp criticism.

The judgment, while clarifying the scope of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 in its application to unmarried cohabitees in an acknowledged consensual relationship for a significant length of time, went on to say:

In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship

34. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriag8e to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’

Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, among others, has strongly objected to the language of the court, pointing out: “The expressions are very derogatory and reflect badly on women. Language should reflect our commitment to gender equality".

Justice Katju is reported in the agency copy to have told the upset ASG to confine herself to the case itself, while Justice Thakur added insult to injury by asking whether the word “concubine” might have been preferable rather than "keep".

The ASG has also rightly questioned, along with other commentators, why the judgment cites  "Wikipedia" and "Google" as authorities:

(see ‘Common Law Marriage’ in Wikipedia on Google)
(see ‘palimony’ on Google)
(see details on Google)

This is not the first time that we see Wikipedia and Google being invoked as authorities in Supreme Court judgments, at least by one particular hon'ble judge.

In the Law and Other Things blog, Tarunabh Khaitan asks:

Wouldn't it have been better for the court to draw upon other jurisdictions dealing with the same issues instead (see the Report of the UK Law Commission on Cohabitation, for example)?

He also makes the very necessary and useful point about the sexist and casual language used:

Whatever alternative we may settle on, I think it is important that our public institutions and functionaries stand up for much-maligned political correctness. Political correctness goes mad only when we start censoring comedians, cartoonists, writers and artists for taking un-PC liberties: unlike the state, their role is to offend, to make us uncomfortable.

[Read the full blog post here]

The Supreme Court, however, needs to not only be careful about what it says but how it says it. We are not, in this case, talking about obiter dicta or other casual banter in the court, which of course is also not exempt from basic etiquette, but the text of the judgments itself.

What suggestions do you have for the SC?

POSTED BY Sundeep Dougal ON Oct 22, 2010 AT 23:56 IST ,  Edited At: Oct 23, 2010 10:07 IST
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff
TRANSLATE INTO:


Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression
24/D-87
Nov 03, 2010
11:53 AM
1. what do u call a person who shoots innocent people with a gun. what do u call a person who steals money. what do u call a person who acquires money fraudulents. what do u call a person who is addicted to sharaab. do u call him/her poojari?

now.... what do u call a person who kept a woman? or vice versa?

its not about the word anything. Supreme Court and the judges did the very very right thing in putting spokes to "legalise" these kind of socially inacceptable and illicit relations.

another question.... live-in or no-frills-no-bonds relations are walk-in and walk-out "consensual arrangements". if one wants maintenance, or any such kind of monetary reliefs, they why live-in? get married naaa...


I challenge Indira Jaisingh and all other so-called women with such cosmopolitan sophisticated outlook to have an open discuss on this very same issue in colonies where low-income families, middle-class families live.
venu
hyderabad, India
23/D-183
Oct 27, 2010
10:17 PM
>>So what are the Jaisinghs of the world carping about.>>

Simple : MONEY!
Unearned money - just like reserved constituencies!

WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
22/D-124
Oct 26, 2010
05:20 PM
I really can't figure out why Indira Jaisingh is so miffed by the use of the word 'Keep'. It is commonly used in India and therefore contextually correct even when referred to while passing a judgement in the country. Secondly, Jaisingh somehow seems to suggest that substitute words like 'concubine' may have been more suitable. I don't think so. The etymology of the word stems from the meaning 'to sleep with'. I would therefore think that concubine seems more derisive than keep. And it has become fashionable to nitpick about these irrelevant details. The judgement is very clear. Dalliances and extra-marital relationships don't count as relationships. So what are the Jaisinghs of the world carping about.
C K Jaidev
Dubai, UAE
21/D-38
Oct 26, 2010
07:02 AM
ANWAAR,

>>For you, they are both >>


Let us not get PERSONAL here.

If YOU have a better word, you must let us know, without using the oppurtunity to DIVERT from the real issue - which is MONEY. MONEY is the real objective of the anti-males. The real objective of these anti-males is to somehow 'normalise' alimony in divorce.

ALIMONY ITSELF IS AGAINST MALE RIGHTS, AND MUST BE BANNED.

WAKE UP, MALES! SPEAK UP!
Male unblocked
Chennai, India
20/D-9
Oct 26, 2010
01:34 AM
Parthasarthi,

>> For ANTI-MALES, "keep" is sexist, and "Wife" is patriarchal!


For you, they are both devouring termagants!
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
click for more
recent tags
BJP
Gaza
Israel
Israel-Palestine
Jews
Levity
Movies
Muslims
Our Netas
Palestine
Parody
Politics
Sania Mirza
Social Networking Sites
Telangana
Tennis
TRS
Twitter
 
bloggers
A. Sanzgiri
Boria Majumdar
Buzz
Dr Mohammad Taqi
Freya Dasgupta
G. Rajaraman
K.V. Bapa Rao
Maheshwer Peri
Namrata Joshi
News Ed
Omar Ali
Our Readers Write Back
Poster
Prarthna Gahilote
Shefalee Vasudev
Sundeep Dougal
Sunil Menon
ARCHIVES
Go
SMTWTFS
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
recent comments


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: