Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul><li>The woman alleges that she was tortured by her parents and brother and was forced to get married.</li><li>The court took cognisance of the fact that she is 26 years old and therefore not a minor, and said she is free to do as she wishes. </li><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>, however, refused the petition to declare it a ‘void marriage’ and said she will have to approach the family court to annul the marriage.</li></ul>The daughter of a well-known politician in <keyword id="6354780" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka">Karnataka</keyword> approached the Supreme Court (SC) to allow her to get away from her parents and husband because she was forced into the marriage. Dubbed as Ms 'X' in the court’s records, the SC took cognisance of the fact that she is 26 years old and therefore not a minor, and said she is free to do as she wishes. "You are a major. You are independent to go wherever you want to go," said a bench comprising of Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud. The SC, however, refused the petition to declare it a ‘void marriage’ and said she will have to approach the family court to annul the marriage. The woman alleges that she was tortured by her parents and brother and despite her lodging a police complaint that clearly stated she did not wish to marry the prospective groom, she was forced to get married to him on March 14. Twenty days post the wedding, the woman fled her parents’ home and headed to Delhi. On arrival, she approached the <keyword id="83267" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-Commission-for-Women">Delhi Commission for Women</keyword> and the Supreme Court almost immediately ordered her to be given police protection. Fearing retaliation from her parents and husband, her lawyer, <keyword id="214301" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indira-Jaising">Indira Jaising</keyword>, also sought police protection in <keyword id="6354321" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bengaluru">Bengaluru</keyword>, where the woman wants to go to pursue her masters in engineering. <keyword id="3198942" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Jaising">Jaising</keyword> claimed, “Her brother, supported by her mother, had threatened to rape her.” To this, the bench said, “She can go to any place she desires to. Parents or any family member of X, the husband or his family members, cannot create any obstacle in the path of the woman.” The bench also suggested that if she feared for her safety since her family wielded significant power in the city, she should approach the area assistant commissioner of police who would be the best person to take appropriate measures to give her protection. The lawyer representing her parents, <keyword id="6507803" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="basava-patil">Basava Patil</keyword>, assured the court that her parents will not take any kind of coercive measure against their daughter and would return all her belongings including her educational certificates and documents. Patil said, “She need not apprehend anything. There will be no interference with her life from the parents. All things she desires will be given back to her.”

Indian woman wins a case against politician father who forced her into marrying against her will

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday sought reply from the Centre on a plea seeking social security benefits for <keyword id="7771650" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gig-workers" source="Orion">gig workers</keyword> employed by online food delivery, taxi aggregators, courier applications such as <keyword id="6354720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ola" source="Orion">Ola</keyword>, <keyword id="1042120" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="uber" source="Orion">Uber</keyword>, <keyword id="830092" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="zomato" source="Orion">Zomato</keyword>, <keyword id="6358977" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="swiggy" source="Orion">Swiggy</keyword>, etc. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Gayatri Singh argued for the petitioner, The Indian Federation of app-based Transport Workers (IFAT). It was argued that at present these workers are not being provided the benefit of social security under any of the labour legislations-organised or unorganised. The counsel for petitioners argued that they are seeking a declaration that gig workers were entitled to protection as unorganised workers. After hearing arguments in the matter, a bench headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao issued notice on the petition. Jaising submitted the petitioner seeks a declaration that the drivers or delivery workers are actually workmen in the classical sense of the word, and emphasised that worldwide for Uber they have been considered as workers. During the hearing, the top court cited the new legislation Social Security Code 2020 passed by Parliament last year has a chapter on the welfare of gig workers. The counsel submitted that the gig workers under existing law, would fall under the unorganised worker. The plea, filed through advocate Nupur Kumar, said "The Respondents' companies herein have been claiming that there exists no contract of employment between them and the petitioners and that their relationship with the petitioners are in the nature of partnership. If such a claim were to be accepted, this would be inconsistent with the purpose of social-welfare legislations..." The plea contended that the respondent companies, which own the apps, exercise complete supervision and control over the manner and method of the work with those who are allowed to register on the said apps. "Denial of the social security to the "gig workers" and the "platform workers" is an affront to the workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India", added the plea. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/after-giving-up-on-90-minute-delivery-five-years-ago-due-to-lack-of-profitability-grofers-is-now-chasing-10-minute-delivery/articleshow/88253221.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">After giving up on 90-minute delivery five years ago due to lack of profitability, Grofers is now chasing 10-minute delivery</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/ussd-mobile-banking-charges-trai-vs-airtel-vodafone-idea/articleshow/88249773.cms">TRAI’s push to make mobile banking services via USSD free faces stiff opposition from Airtel, Vodafone Idea</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/shares-of-tega-industries-list-at-753-while-the-shares-were-allotted-at-453-per-share/articleshow/88249181.cms">Tega Industries meets its GMP of ₹300 and lists at 66% premium</a>

Indian Supreme Court seeks Centre's reply on plea seeking benefits for gig workers of Zomato, Swiggy, Ola, Uber

<ul><li>The Supreme Court has declared that its willing to go live during its proceedings. </li><li>Attorney general KK Venugopal has been asked to submit a draft of necessary guidelines for a live-stream proceeding. </li><li>The Jury says that if it works well in the SC, live stream can be extended to other courtrooms in India. </li></ul>On Monday, the Supreme Court (SC) took the <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/court-takes-first-step-to-live-stream-proceedings/articleshow/64924977.cms">first step </a>towards live streaming proceedings by declaring its willingness to initiate the process. The court had rejected the idea many times before, however, it has now asked attorney general KK Venugopal, who supported petitioner Indira Jaising’s plea for live streaming, to submit a draft of necessary guidelines. The next hearing for the matter will take place on 23 July. The bench, headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="DEFINITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> and comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, said that the court was conceptually an ‘open court’ and everyone is allowed to watch the hearings. It further added that a litigant must be entitled to know how their lawyers are dealing with their cases, even if the litigant is not physically present there and going live would make it happen. The SC pointed out that this live streaming would be most beneficial for people from far away places of <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/live-streaming-of-court-proceedings-can-be-undertaken-centre-tells-sc/story-wEpA5SpbfwVpFuUgss7CHI.html">South India</a>, who otherwise have to travel all the way to the Capital to hear the proceedings. The supporters also believe that it would lead to increased transparency. Last year the court had taken another huge step in transparency by allowing installation of CCTV cameras, recording both video and audio, across <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-favours-live-streaming-of-court-proceedings/article24370456.ece">trial rooms</a> and tribunals of all states. The number of people crowding courtrooms during important judgements will also go down once the live streaming facility is activated. They will be able to watch it all sitting at home, much like the way it happens in England. While, the right to information is strongly being asserted in support of this matter, the fundamental right to privacy comes under threat. The litigants’ right to privacy is at risk if courts discuss all cases live for all to watch. Apprehensions are being raised regarding national security cases, rape cases, matrimonial disputes etc that are far too sensitive to be put in front of an indiscrete public. The court had been waiting since 3 May for a response from the Centre on the issue of live streaming. The government mooted the possibility of a separate television channel for the live stream, similar to what exists for streaming discussions that take place in the <keyword id="48510" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajya-Sabha">Rajya Sabha</keyword> and the Lok Sabha. Jaising has mentioned in her request that if it (the streaming) is to be done, the live broadcast must be non-commercial and reproduction of the stream must remain unauthorised. If it works well in the SC, the jury says, the decision can be extended to other courtrooms in the country.

You Searched For "Indira Jaising" and got 3 results

Indian woman wins a case against politician father who forced her into marrying against her will

Kavita Majumdar

Indian Supreme Court seeks Centre's reply on plea seeking benefits for gig workers of Zomato, Swiggy, Ola, Uber

IANS

Now watching: Supreme Court of India may go live during proceedings

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides