Declaration Of Pendency: Fill & Download for Free

This is not as simple an issue as it appears. I’ll try to answer this question from my understanding of the law on this issue, as the judicial opinion on the applicability of a judgment of the court is not that straightforward.Firstly, let me point out that this question would be more of an academic interest. Why? Because as Justice Nariman has pointed out in para 95 of his decision (on Section 377 of IPC), in the last 150 years, less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing the offence under Section 377 IPC. So, only about 1 person per year in India has been prosecuted on an average.Let me tell you from my professional experience as a lawyer, many of these cases would perhaps have been filed by women against their own husbands when the marriage goes sour!!! I am writing this since at least on 15-20 occasions, I have been consulted on this issue, as a lawyer. In fact, in my own colleague circles, one particular lady had filed a case under this provision against her own husband (both of them were very senior officers). So, I am trying to extrapolate the data on the basis of my professional experience as a lawyer.Further, this number of 200 persons in 150 years is only of those prosecuted, and not of those convicted. How many of these 200 persons have actually been convicted is something that I could not find in the public domain. And, how many of those convicted are still in jail is another question that has no answer in the public domain.My personal feeling is that persons actually undergoing jail at present may not be more than 10 in the country as a whole.This may be a very inconsequential number, given our population of about 135 crore.Please also remember that what the Supreme Court has done is not to completely strike down offence under Section 377 IPC. It has basically been read down. This offence will not apply where there is consent. This is what has been held by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, if someone forcibly (or without consent) commits an act mentioned in Section 377, he may still be prosecuted, and likewise any such act against animals would still be an offence under Section 377.Now, out of the above 200 persons prosecuted, how many were prosecuted for acts which were committed with consent? Nobody knows the answer. But, only such people would get the benefit of this judgment. My personal guess is that such number would be very small, since my professional experience as a former IPS and as a lawyer tells me that most of the cases actually registered under Section 377 IPC are where the act alleged was forcible or without consent (as I mentioned above, many of these are filed by wives against their own husbands when the marriage goes sour). There would hardly be any case where this offence was registered even where consent was there.Therefore, my personal guess is that there would hardly be any persons who would still be in jail and who were convicted for this offence even though there was consent. Hardly any.So, the benefit of this Supreme Court judgment would be negligible in so far as past offenders are concerned. But, it may have immense effect on the future due to the obvious reasons as more persons are likely to come out in open.Let me also point out that offence under Section 377 IPC has been an emotional issue for some people, but the fact remains that not many persons are booked or prosecuted for this offence, even though this offence existed in law books. Practically, this number can be said to be almost zero, when we find that only about 1 person is prosecuted every year in India as a whole, out of about 135 crore population. And, further, this number includes forcible and/or without consent cases too!!!Of course, as the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is question of right to freedom of individuals, even if the number of such individuals is minuscule.Well, let me now turn to the legal aspects of the applicability of this judgment.Normally, a judgment of the Supreme Court declaring a law, is said to have retrospective effect, unless it is specifically held that it shall have only prospective effect (i.e., that it would apply only to the future incidents / cases).For example, in the case of A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, (1986) 2 SCC 709 : 1986 Cri LJ 1074 : AIR 1986 SC 1440, the Supreme Court had held that there is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by it and that the law laid down by the Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings.Likewise, in the case of M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 7 SCC 517 : AIR 2003 SC 3821, the Supreme Court held that normally, the decision of the Supreme Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception.However, there is also a doctrine of prospective overruling which is more common in American jurisprudence. This doctrine was applied in India as an exception to the normal principle of law, for the first time, in the famous case of L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, which was decided by a bench of 11 judges (a rare phenomenon). Prospective overruling is a device innovated to avoid reopening of settled issues, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and to avoid uncertainty and avoidable litigation. This means that actions taken contrary to the law declared prior to the date of declaration are validated in larger public interest. It may not be in public interest, sometimes, to reopen very old settled cases. It may give rise to chaos.However, it is for the Supreme Court to indicate in its decision itself as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. Thus, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision.But, there have been a few exceptions to this principle. For example, in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (Dr.) v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 618 : AIR 2004 SC 2212, which was decided by a 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, a majority of 4 judges held a previous judgment of the Supreme Court (in the case of Saurabh Chaudri) to be made applicable only prospectively and thus exclude from the operation thereof the process of admission which had already commenced and was nearing finalisation when the judgment came to be pronounced. This was done in spite of the fact that in the said judgment of Saurabh Chaudri itself, there was no declaration of the same being a prospective operation.I don’t want to multiply such judgments, though there are many. The accepted view thus is generally that a judgment is supposed to be retrospective where it declares a law, unless it is specifically mentioned to be having prospective application only.In the present judgment relating to Section 377 IPC, I did not find any specific mention of the judgment having only prospective operation (I have read the main parts so far, and also conducted search for keywords). Therefore, it is supposed to have retrospective operation, i.e., it should apply also to the pending cases or proceedings.However, my own considered opinion is that the judgment would apply to the previous cases where proceedings are still pending, such as during investigation, trial or appeal stage. Where a particular past case has already attained finality (with all proceedings, including all possible appeals, coming to an end) and a person already having completed imprisonment, this judgment may not apply.Now, suppose there is someone who has already lost all appeals and is still in jail for an offence under Section 377 IPC (should be “with consent” case, for which only, this judgment applies), he may perhaps apply for his release from jail, since his remaining jail term may become untenable in accordance with this judgment. This is what is my understanding.In the end, at the cost of repetition, let me mention again that where any forcible and/or “without consent” act was committed amounting to Section 377 offence, the benefit of the present Supreme Court judgment would not be available, irrespective of whether it is a past case or a future case.Update (7 September 2018): I have mentioned the figure of less than 200 persons having been prosecuted in 150 years in India for the offence under Section 377 IPC. As I mentioned in the answer, this was mentioned by Justice Rohinton Nariman in para 95 of his decision in the present case.It may also be noted that in para 71 of the decision of Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar also, exactly the same figures are mentioned.In fact, exactly same figures are mentioned also in para 66 of the previous judgment of the Supreme Court on the same issue (in which the Supreme Court had refused to strike down Section 377 IPC), namely, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1 : 2014 Cri LJ 784 : AIR 2014 SC 563.After one reader pointed out that there may be some error in this data, I checked in Crime in India - 2016, published by NCRB, and found that the figures quoted above by the Supreme Court in both these judgments are not correct, and in fact a much larger number of cases have been registered for this offence. So, I felt it necessary to place this fact on record. Whatever other things are mentioned in my answer remain unchanged. My apologies for accepting the figures mentioned in the Supreme Court judgments as gospel truth.

Justice delayed is most definitely justice denied, whether one speaks of criminal cases or civil cases. The stakes one had in the outcome of a case become diluted or even non-existent with the lengthy trial process that plagues our courts.In a criminal case, the complainant has an earnest desire to see the accused punished for the offence he has committed, but the never ending trial leaves the complainants often angry and bitter at the thought that justice will (to his mind) never be done. Even if the trial reaches a conviction, the complainant loses faith in the system, and no longer perceives it to be justice, as the long efflux of time has caused him too much pain. Victory brings no joy, as the accused has spent too much time free from reprieve in the eyes of the complainant. Or imagine an innocent man trapped on false charges. Society has already vilified him long ago, deeming him a criminal despite no allegations being proved. By the time he is acquitted, the verdict rings hollow to his ears, as he has suffered the slights of society too long already, and even though he knew he did no wrong, the confirmation of it came way too late for him.In civil matters...a long delayed verdict can be even worse. Many a time it has happened that the original Plaintiff has been long dead by the time decree was passed in a civil suit. The Plaintiff sought to recover his property, so that he may live out his life in dignity, but he died awaiting the day he could re-enter the home he lived in as a child...and the victory becomes meaningless. In a probate matter long pending, the daughter of the deceased, then newly married, sought to claim her inheritance, which her brothers tried to deny her. By the time the will is declared genuine, she is old and has grandchildren who are about to start their own families... She hardly cares about the inheritance that seemed so important for her back then.These are just some stories from the several thousands of cases which are in the process of being tried even today in our Courts. The overwhelming pendency of cases ensure that these stories of injustice continue to grow in number, with no solution in sight.The Chief Justice of India broke down in tears before the Prime Minister, imploring him to appoint more Judges so that pendency can be cut down. He perhaps felt the burden of these people, hapless litigants suffering from the curse of pendency. But what can be done? People have come to accept the fact that justice is a foolish ideal to strive for in our system.That is the tragedy. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but litigants today don't even expect justice to be done. They merely hope that they don't suffer too much while awaiting the verdict of the Court for years to come.

I will answer it in question and answer form so that understanding is easier.Which authority grants Indian citizenship?The authority vests in the Central government to decide issues related to citizenship.Can foreigners apply for Indian citizenship?Yes. But the authority to grant citizenship is again vested in the Central government according to the provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955.Is there a right to nationality?(Nationality is different from citizenship though)Yes. International law recognises right to nationality. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of human rights recognised Right to nationality.What is condition related to refugees in India?India is not a signatory international convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951. But refugees are protected by law and agency against acts of violence. Human rights are conferred on them by international law which is a restraint on state's sovereignty. Indian Constitution also confers certain rights on them.Are fundamental rights applicable only to Indian citizens?No. Certain fundamental rights are available to both Indian citizens and outsiders. That includes illegal immigrants and refugees.Article 14 and Article 21 are available to both Indian citizens and outsiders alike.The famous case in this regard is theNational Human Rights commission v State of Arunanchal Pradesh.[1]If one studies this case one can clearly understand the likely outcome of petition challenging the CAA(citizenship amendment act) in court of law.The chakma people of Bangladesh entered India particularly Assam and Tripura. 4012 of them were sent to Arunanchal Pradesh (then NEFA). The population increased to 65000 at the time of the petition.Some important points in the judgement were:There can be no threat of violence and forceful expulsion irrespective of their Citizenship status.They remained there for about three decades and have become a part of culture and life of the region. This should be considered while deciding citizenship.The issue of citizenship should be decided on the basis of procedure established by law. No one can be estranged from their right to life and liberty solely on the basis of political situations in the region.All members of chakma community were allowed to make petition before the appropriate authority for citizenship and while the pendency of this application no person will be expelled from the state.Constitutional validity of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019?Article 14 of Indian allows reasonable classification for equal protection by law. The legislation so enacted must serve the purpose for which the classification is done while at the same time ensuring that classification is itself reasonable.Central government has authority to deal with citizenship issues. It's the sovereign right of the state. Now Indian government has full authority to decide whom to grant Indian Citizenship.But it cannot take away the Citizenship of Indian citizens at whims.Here the government is just trying to expand the criteria to citizenship by naturalisation. Which is totally it's prerogative. So the act is very unlikely to be held violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.But when it comes to Indian preamble the situation is different.Preamble clearly states that India is secular state and time and again Supreme Court has held that preamble is the guiding principle for all government policy and action.Based on leading case like kesavanda Bharati[2] preamble is part of the Indian Constitution. But at the same time it was remarked that it is niether a source of power nor a source of limitation.So the only point where this law may face judicial scrutiny is that it is not in conformity with secular nature of Indian state. Though preamble itself is amenable and the term secular was added through 42nd constitutional amendment.Possible outcomes of petition challenging the lawCourt finds the act violating the secular nature of Indian state. In this case the act may be unconstitutional. But remember that Indian government is not disturbing the Citizenship status of it's recognised citizens. It is just expanding it to protect the refugees persecuted in neighboring Islamic states.In case the court finds the act constitutional then also it will ensure the right to life and liberty of all illegal immigrants. Court will ensure that all immigrants are given a chance to apply for citizenship irrespective of their religion. Those who have lived for decades are unlikely to be rejected for citizenship irrespective of their religion.I will also like to remark that I am unable to understand the violence in various parts of India (other than North East). Everyone is free to file a petition. One has already been filed.North East regions are directly influenced and this issue has been a part of their local politics for a long time.Others should have exercised restraint by not resorting to violence. Exercise your legal right rather than disturbing law and order.Those people who have no legal knowledge are acting like legal experts.If anyone has doubt with respect to the above tweets please read this article Does police need permission to enter premises of educational institutions such as JNU? by famous quoran Mr Ashok Dhamija.If everyone is so assured about the unconstitutionality of the act then why resort to violence in your own country?[3]Thanks for A2A.Footnotes[1] National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr on 9 January, 1996[2] Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973[3] Rioting must stop: CJI Bobde issues stern warning to Jamia students, SC to hear case tomorrow