Sunday, September 9, 2007

Religious Law v. Fundamental Rights

Religious Law v. Fundamental Rights

by Anirudh Krishnan


*
Cite as: (2006) PL November 9

The current controversy regarding the entry barrier imposed on women into the Sabarimala temple has prompted one to look at the subjection of religious practices and freedoms which form part of personal laws to fundamental rights even though the practice at the Sabarimala temple has been held to be a usage1 and therefore implicitly subjected to Article 13. This article, however, focuses on the larger issue at hand and seeks to build an argument to extend the power of judicial review to personal laws in all forms.

Power of judicial review and Article 13


Article 13 per se provides for the power of judicial review of laws, the term “law”, including within its ambit “any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law”2. The constitutional mandate in Article 13(2) is that “[t]he State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part [Part III]….”3 Thus Article 13(2) makes a reference to post-constitutional laws, which are enacted by the legislatures.

Furthermore, all “laws in force” which were pre-constitutional, “insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part [Part III], shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void”4. This definition, which does not include expressly “customs or usage” is applicable to judicial review of pre constitutional laws as provided for by Article 13(1). The two definitions of “law” and “laws in force”, on a bare perusal may seem to be mutually exclusive of each other, however, the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali5 negatived this proposition and held that the definition of “law” cannot be restricted to Article 13(2) alone and therefore “laws in force” would include “customs or usage, having the force of law”. A restrictive interpretation would render the terms “custom and usage” as found in the definition of “law” useless, as Article 13(2) refers only to State enacted laws and the State cannot enact customs and usages.6 “Custom and usage” would thus have to necessarily be read with “laws in force”.

The Supreme Court in Sant Ram v. Labh Singh7 concurred with the Bombay High Court and further held that if such an interpretation as mentioned above was not given, pre-constitutional ordinances, bye-laws, notifications, etc. mentioned in the definition of “law” would also not be subject to fundamental rights.

However, the Bombay High Court, in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali5 went on to hold that even though customs and usage would fall within the scope of the definition of “laws in force”, there was a distinction between custom and personal laws, and that Article 13 would not cover personal laws.

The Supreme Court echoed these views in Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir8 wherein they succinctly laid down that Part III does not touch upon personal laws so long as they are not “altered by any usage or custom or is modified or abrogated by statute”. Thus any provision in the religious texts, which are followed in their pristine purity and which drastically violate fundamental rights cannot be questioned.

Narasu Appa Mali case5, which has resulted in establishing this position of law, relies very largely on gathering the intention of the Constitution framers in the absence of support from the Constitutional Assembly Debates. The risks of this are discussed in the next section of this article.

Narasu Appa Mali case—Legislative intent and associated risks


The reasons given by the Bombay High Court to reach the conclusions it did, were as follows:

  1. In spite of being aware of the dichotomy between personal laws and custom the drafters included custom and usage within the definition of “law”, thereby implying the exclusion of personal laws.
  2. Subjection of personal laws to fundamental rights like Article 14 would imply automatic invalidation of practices like untouchability, thereby not explaining the introduction of Article 179.
  3. Entry 5 List III, Schedule VII read with Article 246, granted the State power to abolish discriminatory personal laws. An exercise of such a power could be possible only if such laws had not already been abrogated. Furthermore, if the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had intended to do away with the personal laws straightaway, they would have incorporated a provision to that effect instead of providing for the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in Article 44.

These reasons constituted the ratio decidendi of the judgment. Each of these shall be analysed individually.

The first reason mentioned above is based on the Latin maxim expressio unius exclusion alterius10 i.e. that the express mention of something rules out all implications. Thus the Bombay High Court has taken the view that an express mention of “custom and usage” in the definition of “law” excludes all other implications. However, the Bombay High Court has failed to take into account the prevailing view that this rule is a useful servant but a dangerous master and since it is not a very reliable tool of interpretation, it can be used at best as a subsidiary tool.11 The Court has applied this rule without taking into account the significance of the wide inclusive definition of “law” in Article 13(3)(a).12 The tenor of the language used rules out the applicability of the maxim in the present context.

Reason 2 looks at the possibility of Article 17 being rendered redundant if personal laws are held to be subject to fundamental rights. The Hon’ble Judges have, however, failed to recognise the fact that a number of constitutional provisions are there by way of abundant caution13 and Article 17 is one such provision.14

Reason 3 is based on gleaning of legislative intent from the existence of certain constitutional provisions. The Court has articulated that the power derived from Entry 5 List III of the 7th Schedule read with Article 246 should be used only to eliminate religious practices that harm society, thereby implying that these practices do not stand abolished by the Constitution. Such a presumption cannot be drawn from a mere grant of power to enact legislation dealing with personal laws. The scope of this power cannot be restricted to merely abolishing anti-social practices, but would extend to other circumstances as well.15 Thus the scope of the said power precludes conclusions regarding judicial review of personal laws. The inferences gathered from the existence of Article 44 with respect to it being in lieu of a provision directly abolishing personal laws is also erroneous as the prevailing social conditions and the communal unrests during the period of the framing of the Constitution must have been the reason behind its enactment. The existence of Article 44 is clear mandate to eradicate discriminatory religious practices.

Religious law and judicial review


Constitutional pointers towards the subjection of religious practices in their pure form to fundamental rights, however, do exist. First and foremost is the wide inclusive definition of laws in Article 13(3)(a). When a definition contains an inclusive clause, it is a well laid down proposition that the terms in the clause cannot be treated in a restrictive sense.16 The terms covered by the definition should be interpreted in such a manner keeping in mind the aim, scope and object of the provision/Act.17 Article 13 was enacted primarily to subject all norms creating binding obligations like ordinances, bye-laws, notifications, customs, etc. to fundamental rights. Therefore the premise is that any legally binding norm cannot be manifestly unjust. Thus an interpretation in the light of this objective of Article 13 would definitely mean that personal laws, which create binding obligations fall within the realm of norms subject to judicial review.

Even assuming that Article 13 does not include within its ambit personal laws in their pure form, it must be kept in mind that Article 13 is not the only source of judicial review. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras18 it was held that Article 13 was there by way of abundant caution and even in the absence of Article 13, judicial review would have been possible due to the very nature of the Constitution.19 Judicial review is thus an inherent concept and can also be read into Article 24520 with respect to post-constitutional laws and Article 37221 for pre-constitutional laws. The same power can be located for personal laws in Article 25(1), which unambiguously states that the right to practise one’s religion is subject to other provisions in Part III23. This implies that one is free to practice his religion irrespective of whether it involves following a custom or something mentioned in the religious texts, as long as these practices do not violate any fundamental right.

Conclusion


The language used in Articles 13 and 25(2) clearly suggest that personal laws, in all forms should be subject to fundamental rights . In a welfare State like India, it is the duty of the judiciary to take an activist stance in order to eradicate social evils. Only such an approach can curb the sprawling forms of discrimination in India and thereby ensure the accomplishment of the constitutional ideals of equality and fraternity.

* The author is a student of NALSAR, University of Law, Hyderabad. The author acknowledges the valuable suggestions provided by Anjali Ajit Menon and Ankita Kumar, students of NALSAR, University of Law.

  1. S. Mahendran v. Secy., Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42
  2. Article 13(3)(a), Constitution of India.
  3. Article 13(2), Constitution of India.
  4. Article 13(1), Constitution of India.
  5. AIR 1952 Bom 84
  6. Article 13(2) refers to State-enacted laws alone.
  7. AIR 1965 SC 314
  8. (1981) 3 SCC 689
  9. Article 17 abolishes untouchability.
  10. Another pertained to similar wordings of Article 372 and Article 13(3)(a) thereby implying that exclusion of personal laws from Article 372, which was the case, would imply the same with respect to Article 13(3)(a). However, the completely different nature of the two provisions casts aspersions on this reasoning.
  11. Khemka & Co. (Agencies) (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 2 SCC 22
  12. Words used in an inclusive definition denote extension and cannot be treated as being restrictive. [See State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610; See Vepa P. Sarathy, “Interpretation of Statutes”, 370 (2005).] The narrow interpretation given by the High Court renders the term “includes” useless.
  13. Articles 248 and 15(1) are examples.
  14. Untouchability will be prima facie covered by Article 14. If certain classes alone are discriminated against, the reasonable legislative classification test in Article 14 will not be satisfied. Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination based on caste alone, will also be violated. Article 17 is merely an extra protection.
  15. This power may also be used in the following hypothetical situations—(a) enactment of laws legalising gay marriages, (b) to legislatively overrule judicial decisions pertaining to validity of religious laws.
  16. Supra fn 12
  17. Nagpur Corpn. v. Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675
  18. AIR 1950 SC 27
  19. As laid down in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 : 2 L Ed 60 (1803) when there is conflict between ordinary laws and the Constitution (1) Constitution would prevail, (2) ordinary law would prevail. The latter would defeat the purpose of drafting a Constitution, thus the former is true.
  20. Article 245 subjects States legislative power to other parts of the Constitution.
  21. Article 372 provides that subject to other parts of the Constitution, the pre-constitutional laws shall stay in force.
  22. Article 25(1) “Subject to … other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to … the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
  23. Another issue is the enforcement of fundamental rights against non-State entities. While enforceability of fundamental rights is mostly against State, the enforcement against non-State entities is also contemplated by Articles 15(2), 17 and 23, when the object is societal upliftment. Another instance is the enforcement of customs, which are not creations of State action.
Courtesy_
http://practicallawyer.ebc-india.com

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search our Blog here

Google
 

Compiled by

Disclaimer


This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Court of law as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.



Followers

Dinamalar | Court News Feed

Dinakaran | Crime News Feed

Labels

Madras High Court (226) supreme court (157) Supreme Court (96) Madurai Bench (60) Advocate (44) High Court (44) tamil nadu (42) Indian Kanoon (41) Delhi High Court (37) Education (31) Divorce (30) Pondicherry (30) Husband (28) Wife (28) consumer forum (23) Lawyers (22) Cr.P.C. (20) Maintenance (20) police (20) Consumer (19) 2013 (16) Judges (16) article (16) the hindu (16) Matrimonial case (15) Hindu Marriage Act (14) Bank (13) Cruelty (13) IPC (13) karnataka high court (13) AIADMK (12) Compensation (12) Criminal cases (12) Jayalalithaa (12) dmk (12) Bar Council of India (11) CJI (11) School (11) Woman (11) election (11) Accident cases (10) Child (10) Kerala High Court (10) Marriage (10) dinamani (10) election commission (10) insurance (10) medical (10) Labour cases (9) MV ACT CASES (9) Madurai (9) Mobile Phone (9) doctors (9) evidence (9) pil (9) tamil nadu bar council (9) tax (9) taxation (9) Cell Phone (8) Examination (8) Frontline (8) Loans (8) Magistrate (8) Rent Control Act (8) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (8) Allahabad high court (7) Bar Council (7) Constitution (7) Domestic Violence Act (7) Gujarat High Court (7) Negligence (7) Reservation Quota (7) Tenant Landlord (7) bombay high court (7) court (7) new delhi (7) 2012 (6) Andhra Pradesh High Court (6) Civil Judge (6) Complaint (6) Consumer National Commission (6) Dowry (6) Employee (6) Justice G. Rajasuria (6) Muslims (6) Negotiable Instruments Act (6) Notification (6) Railway (6) USA (6) arbitration (6) compassionate (6) madras (6) rape (6) rulings (6) sex (6) Airlines (5) Andhra Pradesh (5) College (5) Delay (5) Employer (5) FIR (5) Judgment (5) Karunanidhi (5) Labour Court (5) Madras Family Court (5) Mumbai High Court (5) President (5) Rajiv Gandhi (5) Recruitment (5) Sethusamudram ship canal (5) Student (5) TRAI (5) advertisement (5) appointment (5) deficiency of service (5) editorial (5) fined (5) 2014 (4) BSNL (4) Bigamy (4) CBI (4) Cheque Dishonour Cases (4) Chief Minister of Pondicherry (4) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (4) Civil Matters (4) Commissioner of Police (4) Corruption (4) Daughter (4) Death penalty (4) Father (4) Fees (4) Foreigners Act (4) Gazette (4) Hindu (4) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (4) Hospitals (4) Judiciary (4) Justice G.Rajasuria (4) Life Imprisonment (4) Matrimonial House (4) Ministry of Law (4) Minor Child (4) Parents (4) Private Schools (4) RTI Act (4) Ram Sethu project (4) Sexual exploitation (4) Suspension (4) Teachers (4) Tenant (4) Transfer (4) contempt (4) delhi (4) hindustan times (4) karnataka (4) pmk (4) registration department (4) times of india (4) us (4) Actor (3) Adoption (3) Aircraft (3) Assassination (3) Ban (3) Bank Cases (3) CJ (3) Calcutta High Court (3) Cheque (3) Computer (3) Copyright (3) Court Fees (3) Dinakaran (3) Disqualification (3) Electricity (3) Encroachers (3) Eviction (3) Full Bench Decision (3) HC Advocate Karunanidhi.R (3) Human Rights (3) Human Rights Commission (3) IT Act (3) Income Tax (3) Justice Ashok Kumar (3) Landlord (3) Law Firms (3) Limitation Act (3) Medicos (3) Motor Vehicle (3) Murder case (3) Muslim (3) NDNC (3) Panchayats Act (3) Patent (3) Prisoner (3) Proterty Act (3) Public Property (3) Punishment (3) RTE Act (3) Ragging (3) Salaries (3) Selection (3) Smoking (3) Strikes (3) Subramanian Swamy (3) Telephone (3) Theft (3) Villupuram (3) Websites (3) Wikipedia (3) Witness (3) Woman Lawyers (3) Workman (3) Youtube (3) girl (3) helmet (3) parliament (3) software (3) stamp act (3) 2007 (2) 5-Judges Bench (2) 99th Constitutional Amendment (2) Aadhaar Card (2) Abortion (2) Absence (2) Acquittal (2) Agitating (2) Agriculture (2) Airport (2) Airtel (2) Amendments (2) Apple (2) Arrest (2) Assault (2) BCCI (2) BCI (2) Britain (2) CBSE (2) CIC (2) CNN IBN (2) CPC (2) CTC (2) Chenai Corporation (2) Child Marriage Act (2) Child Witness (2) Cigarette (2) Citizenship (2) Code of Civil procedure (2) Coimbatore (2) Collector (2) Collegium systems (2) Companies Act (2) Complainant (2) Congress (2) Constitution Bench (2) Cr.P.C (2) Credit Card (2) DNA Test (2) Damages (2) Date of Birth (2) Dayanidhi Maran (2) District Judges (2) Driving Licence (2) Drugs (2) EVMs (2) Enrolment (2) Evening Court (2) Exam Marks (2) Eye-witness (2) Family (2) Family Court (2) Foreign Law Firms (2) Freedom Fighters (2) Fundamental Rights (2) Google (2) Governors (2) Grave crimes (2) Habeas Corpus (2) Haldiram (2) Health Ministry (2) High Courts (2) Himachal Pradesh High Court (2) ICICI (2) ID Act (2) Impeachment (2) Inspector General of Registration (2) Inter-caste (2) Interest (2) Interim Injunction (2) Interim Orders (2) International Arbitration (2) International Court of Justice (2) Internet (2) Job (2) Justice (2) Justice A.K.Ganguly (2) Justice Dinakaran (2) LPG (2) LTTE (2) Law Commission (2) Law Department (2) Lok Adalat (2) MPs (2) Madhya Pradesh High Court (2) Maharashtra (2) Mark Sheets (2) Medi-claim (2) Men (2) Microsoft (2) Municipal Post (2) Municipal Waste (2) Municipality (2) NJAC (2) Nagapattinam (2) Nalini (2) National Highways (2) Nuke Deal (2) Obscenity (2) PTI (2) Patient (2) Patna High Court (2) Penalty (2) Pension (2) Police Reforms Committee (2) Poll freebies (2) Power of Attorney (2) Pregnant (2) Prevention of Corruption Act (2) Prime Minister (2) Property (2) Public Meetings (2) Punjab High Court (2) Punjab and Haryana High Court (2) RBI (2) Registrar (2) Registration Act (2) Release (2) Reserve Bank of India (2) Retired benefits (2) Review (2) Rigorous imprisonment (2) Road (2) SBI (2) SC/ST (2) SHRC (2) Sale (2) Samacheer Kalvi (2) Sanjay Dutt (2) Self-defence (2) Sikkim (2) Sonia Gandhi (2) State Bar Concil (2) State Govts. (2) TADA (2) TNEB (2) Tamil New Year Act (2) Temples (2) Tobacco firms (2) Trafficking (2) University (2) Video (2) Vigilance (2) Vodafone (2) Wages (2) Water (2) West Bengal (2) Woman Judges (2) backlog of cases (2) bail (2) customs duty (2) laptops (2) legislature (2) practitioners (2) service (2) service tax (2) sessions judge (2) tiruchi (2) 100 RUPEE (1) 11 weeks imprisonment (1) 18 Years (1) 2001 (1) 2006 (1) 2009 (1) 2011 (1) 2015 (1) 2016 (1) 5 Judges Bench (1) 6th Pay Scale (1) AIIMS (1) Aadal Paadal (1) Aadhar Card (1) Abuse (1) Accountable (1) Act (1) Adjournments (1) Adverse possession (1) Advocate Cyril Mathias Vincent (1) Advocate M.Kumaran (1) Advocate M.S.Maruthupandiyan (1) Advocate P.S.Amalraj (1) Advocates' Welfare Fund Act (1) Agreement (1) Air India (1) Alien Species (1) Allahabad (1) Allergy (1) Allopathy (1) Amusement parks (1) Anbumani Ramadoss (1) Answer Sheets (1) Apartments (1) Appearance (1) Arguments (1) Arrears (1) Arunachal Pradesh (1) Ashok Kumar (1) Assembly Speaker (1) Assets case (1) Association (1) Attendance (1) Attention Please (1) Auditors (1) Australia (1) Autopsy (1) Ayodhya (1) BJP (1) Babri Masjid (1) Baby (1) Baggage missing (1) Bank Account (1) Banners (1) Bar Association (1) Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (1) Batco Roadways' case (1) Bhavani Singh (1) Bhopal gas tragedy (1) Bhullar's mercy plea (1) Big TV (1) Bihar (1) Bihar Prohibition Act (1) Bill (1) Biscuits (1) Black Sea (1) Bofors case (1) Bonus (1) Boycott (1) Brain-mapping (1) Brothers (1) Burqa (1) Buses (1) Business Line (1) Bye-laws (1) CAT (1) CEC (1) CITY CIVIL COURT (1) CTV (1) Calcutta (1) Cambodian (1) Camera (1) Canada (1) Cargo Ship (1) Caste (1) Cauvery (1) Cauvery Tribunal Award (1) Censor Board (1) Central Crime Branch (1) Certificates (1) Chennai (South) Forum (1) Chhattisgarh State Bar Council (1) Chief Judicial Magistrate (1) Chief Justices of India (1) Christian (1) Civic Election (1) Civic Elections (1) Common facilities Block (1) Commonwealth Games Panel (1) Communal harmony (1) Compounding Offences (1) Condoms (1) Contract labour (1) Conversion Formula (1) Cooperative Societies (1) Copying (1) Corporation (1) Cosmetic (1) Costumes (1) Court Buildings (1) Creche (1) Cricket (1) Criminalisation (1) Culcutta High Court (1) Current Tamil Nadu Cases (1) Custodial death (1) DGP (1) DK (1) DMDK (1) DRT (1) Dalits (1) Dasavatharam (1) Daughter-in-law (1) Death (1) Debarring (1) Deccan (1) Defamation (1) Defaulters (1) Degree (1) Departmental Enquiry (1) Derogatory remarks (1) Desertion (1) Designation (1) Destruction (1) Detergent Soap (1) Dharmapuri (1) Directory (1) Disabled person (1) Disconnection (1) Dispensary (1) Don Bosco Matriculation School (1) Don Bosco School (1) Download Links (1) Dozing (1) Dr.Ramadoss (1) Dress Code (1) Driver (1) Drunk driving (1) Dying Declaration (1) EPIC (1) ESI Act (1) EU (1) Education Department (1) Education Loan (1) Elevation (1) Emergency (1) Employment (1) Engineering College (1) Enquiry (1) Entertainment tax (1) Environment (1) European Court (1) Events to Remember (1) Exam Cheaters (1) Exit Polls (1) Experts Committee (1) Expulsion (1) Facebook (1) Fair Criticism (1) False (1) Fat (1) Father's identity (1) Father-in-law (1) Film (1) Fire (1) Flats (1) Flexi Boards (1) Food (1) Framing of Charges (1) France (1) French Civil Code (1) French Regime (1) Fringe Benefit Tax (1) Frivolous Petition (1) GOs (1) Garments (1) Gauhati HC (1) Gender Bias (1) Gingee Court (1) Gingee-TV Malai NH (1) Girlfriend (1) Goa (1) Gondas (1) Goods (1) Goons (1) Government Offices (1) Government Officials (1) Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules (1) Govt. sites (1) Grandchildren (1) Gratuity (1) Green Card (1) Guardian (1) Gubernatorial (1) Gudalur Janmam Estates (1) Guidelines (1) Guilty (1) HC Calendar (1) HIV Patient (1) HRCE Act (1) Hamam Soap (1) Handcuff (1) Haryana (1) Hawkers (1) Heroin (1) Hewlett Packard (1) High Court Bench for Pondicherry (1) Highways (1) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (1) Hindu Succession Act (1) Hindus (1) Hindustan Lever Limited (1) Hindustan Unilever Limited (1) Hoardings (1) Holiday Court (1) Holidays (1) Hostel (1) Hutchison Essar (1) Hyderabad (1) ICJ (1) ICSE (1) IMDT Act (1) IPL (1) IT Tax Tribunal (1) Identity Cards (1) Illegitimate (1) Images (1) Immoral (1) Impotent (1) Imprisonment (1) Incest (1) Infiltrators (1) Interest rates (1) Interview (1) Invalid (1) Investigation (1) Invitation (1) Jammu and Kashmir (1) Jats Reservation (1) Jharkhand (1) Journal Section (1) Judicial Discretion (1) Judicial Officers (1) Judicial Staffs (1) Junction (1) Justice A.P.Shah (1) Justice Bhagwati (1) Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla (1) Justice G Rajasuriya (1) Justice P.Sathasivam (1) Justice Rajasuriya (1) Juvenile Justice Board (1) K.R.Narayanan (1) K.Veeramani (1) KFC (1) Kabil Sibal (1) Kachatheevu (1) Karaikal (1) Katchativu case (1) Kathi (1) Kerala (1) Kerla (1) Khushboo (1) Kidney (1) Kingfisher (1) Kodak (1) LIC (1) Lakes (1) Land Owners (1) Larger Bench (1) Laundry (1) Law College (1) Lawyer Notice (1) Leave (1) Legal Practitioners Act 2010 (1) Leprosy Patient (1) License Fees (1) Lift (1) Links (1) Live-in-relationship (1) Local Bodies (1) Lok Sabha (1) MCOCA (1) MLAs (1) MNC (1) Malaria (1) Malaysian Airlines (1) Malpractice (1) Mangalore Express (1) Manupatra (1) Marriage Registration Certificates (1) Married (1) Mediation (1) Medical College issue (1) Meghalaya (1) Mercy Petition (1) Mizoram (1) Mobile Court (1) Money Lending licence (1) Mosquito Bite (1) Mother (1) Movies (1) Mutual Consent (1) NDPS Act (1) NDTV (1) NH 31A (1) NHRCs (1) NI Act (1) NOTA (1) NPT (1) NRI (1) NSA Act (1) Nagaland (1) Nallathambi (1) Narco Analysis (1) National Taxation Tribunal (1) Natural Justice (1) Navarasu murder case (1) Negative Voting (1) Nepal (1) News Today (1) Nivedita Sharma (1) No-confidence motion (1) Non-Karnataka Vehicles (1) Non-signatory (1) None of the Above (1) Norms (1) North Carolina (1) Notary Public (1) Notifications (1) Nursing College (1) Office Bearers (1) Official Language (1) Oil Companies (1) Online (1) Oral (1) Ordinance (1) Origin (1) Orissa High Court (1) PBA (1) PD Act (1) PEC (1) PF (1) PHCs (1) PIB (1) PNDT Act (1) PTO (1) Panorama view (1) Parle Marie (1) Partnership (1) Paternity (1) Patta (1) Pending case (1) Pondicherry Code (1) Pondicherry Courts (1) Pondicherry Engineering College (1) Pondicherry University (1) Port (1) Possession (1) Post Office (1) Posters (1) Postmortem (1) Power (1) Prabha Sridevan (1) Preamble (1) Premarital sex (1) Press Trust of India (1) Prestige (1) Presumption of Death (1) Prisoners (1) Private (1) Private Defence (1) Prize Draw Contest (1) Profession (1) Profile (1) Promotion (1) Prosecution (1) Protest (1) Provident Fund (1) Public Prosecutor (1) Puducherry Code (1) Pulipaarvai (1) Quash (1) Quattrocchi (1) Quick Links (1) RCOP (1) RDBFI Act (1) RIM (1) RPF (1) Railway Budget (1) Railway Tribunal (1) Railways Act (1) Rajasthan High Court (1) Rajasuria (1) Rajeswari case (1) Rajya Sabha (1) Re-name (1) Recovery (1) Refund (1) Regional SC Bench (1) Registration (1) Regulations (1) Reinstatement (1) Relatives (1) Reliance (1) Religion (1) Religious Functions (1) Remanding (1) Removal (1) Rename (1) Repeal of Local Laws (1) Resident (1) Respondent (1) Retired Judges (1) Retired Staffs (1) Revaluation (1) Rexona Soap (1) Right to Information Act (1) Right to Sleep (1) Rin (1) Romania (1) Rural (1) SMS (1) SPP (1) Sachar Commission (1) Safai Karamchari Andolan case (1) Sanction (1) Saree (1) Satta Padhukappu (1) Scam (1) Secretary (1) Section 102 CPC (1) Section 125(3) (1) Section 66A (1) Sections 499 and 500 (1) Security (1) Senior Advocate (1) Septic Tank (1) Serials (1) Service matters (1) Settlement (1) Sewerage works (1) Shankaracharya case (1) Sheristadar (1) Ship (1) Shivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sleeping (1) Soap (1) Son (1) Special Marriages Act (1) Sri Lanka (1) Sri Lanka Supreme Court (1) Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple (1) Suicide (1) Sukanya (1) Surgery (1) Syllabus (1) TNPSC (1) TV (1) Tamil Links (1) Telecom (1) Telegraph Act (1) Thanthai Periyar (1) Third Party (1) Thirukural (1) Thirunelveli (1) Ticket Bookings (1) Ticket less Journey (1) Tide (1) Time-barred matters (1) Title suit (1) Toronto (1) Trademarks (1) Traffic (1) Transfer Certificate (1) Transport Authority (1) Travels Agent (1) Trees (1) Tripurar (1) Turban law (1) USE Act (1) Ukraine (1) Unauthorised layouts (1) Unauthorised plots (1) Unconstitutional (1) Union Carbide Corporation (1) Union Minister (1) Universities (1) Unruly Advocates (1) Unwed mother (1) Uttarakhand (1) Uttaranchal (1) VAO (1) VRS (1) Vacuum Cleaner (1) Vakalat (1) Vaseline (1) Verbal (1) Video Poker (1) Video-conferencing (1) Vijayakant (1) Visa (1) Voters (1) Voting (1) Wakf (1) Watchman (1) Who's Who (1) Widow (1) Will (1) Word (1) Workmen Compensation Act (1) Wrong Provision (1) Yahoo (1) architects (1) azhagiri (1) british airways (1) churidar (1) deccan herald (1) delh (1) double taxation (1) e-Library (1) eBay (1) eCourt (1) ebc (1) farmers loan waiver (1) germany citizen (1) guideline value (1) guruvayur devaswom (1) hMatrimonial case (1) india (1) law and order (1) nawaz sharif (1) pakistan (1) pakistan supreme court (1) practical lawyer (1) pratiba (1) promise (1) rules (1) sand mining (1) southern districts (1) uk (1) warrants for cash scam (1) தி இந்து (1) தூக்கம் (1)