Indian Court Reduces Waiting Period Requirement For Christian Divorces

Times of India reports that on Monday the Karntaka High Court ruled that the provision in Section 10A of India's Divorce Act 1869, the law that applies to Christian divorces, which requires a 2-year separation period before a petition can be filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent is invalid. The Hindu Marriage Act, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and the Special Marriage Act all require only a one-year waiting period.  In a public interest lawsuit, the Karntaka court relied on an earlier decision by the Kerala High Court which held that Christian divorces should also be subject to only a one-year waiting period. According to Indian Supreme Court precedent, the prior ruling of another High Court becomes the law of the land unless it is challenged in the Supreme Court. In that earlier ruling, the Kerala High Court said:

[T]he stipulation of a higher period of two years of mandatory minimum separate residence for those to whom the Divorce Act applies, in contra-distinction to those similarly placed to whom Sec 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and Sec 28 of the Special Marriage Act would apply, offends the mandate of equality and right to life under Arts14 and 21 of the Constitution

Indian Government Gives Jains Formal Minority Status

Business Standard and Times of India report that on Monday India's Cabinet granted a long-standing demand of the Jain community and formally declared Jains to be India's sixth minority community. (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians already have that status.) The move will allow Jains to share in government funds allocated for welfare programs and scholarships for minority communities, and will allow Jains to manage their own educational institutions. The move could also raise again the debate over whether Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists should have their own Personal Laws in India. Currently under a provision in the Constitution they are subject to the Hindu Personal Law.

India's Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court's Invalidation of Ban On Homosexual Acts

In Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, (Sup. Ct. India, Dec. 11, 2013), a 2-judge panel of India's Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that had held unconstitutional Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code insofar as it bans homosexual sexual acts in private between consenting adults. (See prior posting.) Rejecting the lower court's holding that the statute violated constitutional provisions on equal protection and non-discrimination, Justice Singhvi wrote:

Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification.

The Supreme Court also rejected the lower court's holding that the statute infringes the substantive due process right to privacy:

In its anxiety to protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons and to declare that Section 377 IPC violates the right to privacy, autonomy and dignity, the High Court has extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions. Though these judgments shed considerable light on various aspects of this right and are informative in relation to the plight of sexual minorities, we feel that they cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law enacted by the Indian legislature.

Responding to the argument that police have misused the law, the Supreme Court said:

Respondent No.1 attacked Section 377 IPC on the ground that the same has been used to perpetrate harassment, blackmail and torture on ... those belonging to the LGBT community.  [T]he mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the vires of the section. It might be a relevant factor for the Legislature to consider while judging the desirability of amending Section 377 IPC.

Times of India reports on the decision.