Parental Abandonment Income Exclusion Upheld by Kerala High Court in EWS Eligibility Determination Review
In a series of recent rulings, Indian courts have delivered verdicts on a range of contentious issues, from the denial of EWS reservation to the unauthorized use of a famous personality's attributes.
EWS Reservation Case
In the case of Meghna Devi and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, the Kerala High Court found reasons for denying EWS reservation to be "unsustainable." Justice N. Nagareesh allowed the writ petition, setting aside the rejection letter and directing the Tahsildar to issue the EWS Certificate to Meghna Devi immediately. The court ruled that the income of a parent who has abandoned the family should not be considered when determining eligibility for an EWS reservation.
Unauthorized Use of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's Attributes
The Delhi High Court has ruled that unauthorised exploitation of a famous personality's attributes can violate both their right to protect their persona from commercial exploitation and their right to privacy and dignity. This decision was made in the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. Aishwaryaworld.com and others, where the accused was the owner or operator of the website Aishwaryaworld.com. The court granted an injunction, restraining defendants from misusing her persona without consent.
Refusal of Certificate for Film 'Masoom Kaatil'
In the case of Shyam Bharteey vs. Central Board of Film Certification Regional Officer Delhi, and Another, the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to refuse a certificate for public exhibition of the film 'Masoom Kaatil.' The film was deemed unfit for public release due to justifying vigilantism, being communal, containing gruesome violence, human cannibalism, and derogatory remarks towards religions and castes. The court emphasised that such depictions could brutalise audiences, normalise lawlessness, and incite violence.
The Delhi High Court also noted that the portrayal of minors involved in violence in the film violates guidelines against corrupting the morality of young viewers. The Appellant argued that the reasons for denial were unfounded and that the film's intent was to be "emotional and thought-provoking" on animal cruelty. However, the court stated that artistic freedom or Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to "reasonable restrictions" and that the film's content was fundamentally incompatible with the Cinematograph Act and its guidelines. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Right to Travel Abroad
In a different case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside a trial court's order denying a student's request to travel abroad for higher education. The court ruled that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
These rulings demonstrate the Indian judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of individuals while also maintaining the moral and ethical standards of society.
Read also:
- Executive from significant German automobile corporation advocates for a truthful assessment of transition toward electric vehicles
- Crisis in a neighboring nation: immediate cheese withdrawal at Rewe & Co, resulting in two fatalities.
- United Kingdom Christians Voice Opposition to Assisted Dying Legislation
- Democrats are subtly dismantling the Affordable Care Act. Here's the breakdown
