Nirmala Sitharaman refuses to meet OPS
New Delhi, July 24 : Senior AIADMK minister and Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister O. Pannerselvam was on Tuesday refused an appointment by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, a development that created flutters in political circles in the state.
Pannerselvam, who was appointed Coordinator in the AIADMK after the split in the party last year, wanted to meet the Defence Minister and thank her for her help in giving an air ambulance to rush his brother for treatment in Chennai.
After telling the media that it was a courtesy call, Panneerselvam left for Defence Ministry along with senior party MP V. Maitreyan. While he was made to wait, Maitreyan met the minister. Forty-five minutes later, Sitharaman's office tweeted: "Appointment was given to V. Maitreyan. Deputy Chief Minister of TN O. Panneerselvam has not met Nirmala Sitharaman."
A distraught Deputy Chief Minister left for the airport straight from the Defence Ministry to take a flight back to Chennai with his supporters.
In Chennai, Chief Minister K. Palaniswamy said his deputy had gone to Delhi to meet Sitharaman and thank her for her help in providing air lift facility for his ailing brother.
Speculation was rife that Panneerselvam sought an appointment with BJP President Amit Shah to prove to his detractors in the party that he had better equations with the BJP high command but failed to get an appointment with him.
Significantly, the AIADMK had supported the NDA government in the opposition no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha.
On reaching Chennai, Panneerselvam told the media: "One should have the heart to accept anything."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC to hear pleas against laws granting immunity to husbands in marital rape cases
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has said it listed for Tuesday pleas on the vexed legal question of whether a husband should enjoy immunity from prosecution for the offence of rape if he forces his wife, who is not a minor, to have sex.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said the pleas were already "listed tomorrow" and they would be taken up after some part-heard cases.
The pleas for early listing were mentioned by senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for a litigant in the case.
On September 18, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the litigants, mentioned that the pleas needed to be heard urgently.
The top court on July 16 agreed to list for hearing the pleas on the legal question. The Chief Justice had indicated that the cases might be taken up on July 18.
Under the exception clause of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not rape.
Even under the new law, Exception 2 to Section 63 (rape) says that "sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape".
The top court on January 16, 2023, sought the Centre's response on a clutch of petitions assailing the IPC provision, which provides protection to a husband against prosecution for forcible sexual intercourse if the wife is an adult.
On May 17, it also issued a notice to the Centre on a similar plea challenging the BNS provision on the issue.
The BNS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into effect from July 1, replacing the IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Evidence Act, respectively.
"We have to resolve the matters concerning marital rape," the bench had said.
The Centre earlier said the issue had legal as well as social implications, and the government would like to file its response to the petitions.
One of the pleas is related to a Delhi High Court split verdict of May 11, 2022, on the issue.
The appeal has been filed by a woman, who was one of the petitioners before the high court.
While delivering a split judgment, Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar concurred on granting the petitioners a certificate of leave to appeal in the Supreme Court as the matter involved substantial questions of law, which required a decision by the top court.
While Justice Shankar, who headed the division bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and said it would be "tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years" since the enactment of the IPC, he said the exception under the rape law was not "unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia".
The concept of intelligible differentia distinguishes people or things grouped together from those that are left out.
Another plea has been filed by a man against a Karnataka High Court verdict that paved the way for his prosecution for allegedly raping his wife.
Karnataka High Court had on March 23 last year said exempting a husband from allegations of rape and unnatural sex with his wife ran against Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
The set of pleas are PILs filed against the IPC provision and have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under Section 375 (rape) of the IPC on grounds that it discriminates against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.
