Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Adoption Cannot Be a Ruse for Reservation Benefits : Bombay High Court in Earthquake Certificate Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Bombay High Court affirms cancellation of earthquake affected person certificate due to invalid adoption deed.

The Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of an Earthquake Affected Person certificate issued to Fulchand s/o Shankar Pawar, also known as Fulchand s/o Lalu Jadhav. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y. G. Khobragade, emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal stipulations of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and scrutinizing the authenticity of claims made under special categories for government job reservations.

Fulchand Pawar, a 29-year-old student, was initially issued an Earthquake Affected Person certificate based on an adoption deed and subsequent compromise decree. His biological parents had allegedly given him in adoption to Lalu Shivram Jadhav and Narsabai Lalu Jadhav. This adoption was formalized by a registered deed on April 18, 2022, followed by a legal dispute and a compromise decree from the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nilanga. Fulchand used this certificate to apply for a reserved position as a Police Constable in the State Reserved Police.

The court scrutinized the adoption deed, highlighting a critical non-compliance with Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which stipulates that the adoptee must be under 15 years of age unless a specific custom allows otherwise. Fulchand was 27 years old at the time of the adoption, rendering the adoption deed legally invalid​​.

The bench observed that the compromise decree, obtained swiftly within a span of 14 days post-adoption deed, was suspicious. The speed and circumstances of the decree indicated a potential manipulation aimed at securing a government job under the earthquake affected person category​​

The court noted the guidelines issued by the Latur Collector to prevent fraudulent claims under the Earthquake Affected Persons category. These guidelines were framed to ensure that certificates are issued only after thorough verification of adoption claims, particularly in light of rampant fraudulent practices identified by the authorities​​.

The judgment emphasized that adherence to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is crucial for validating any adoption. The bench highlighted that an adoption made outside the legal framework cannot be recognized for the benefits and privileges meant for genuinely affected persons. The swift legal proceedings leading to the compromise decree further suggested an attempt to circumvent the established legal processes.

Justice Y. G. Khobragade stated, "The use of the adoption deed and the compromise decree in such a short span raises significant doubts about the intent behind these actions. Legal safeguards are in place to prevent such misuse and to protect the integrity of the reservation system"​​.

The Bombay High Court's judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal integrity and preventing misuse of reserved categories in government jobs. By affirming the cancellation of Fulchand's certificate, the court has reinforced the importance of genuine adherence to legal stipulations for adoptions and reservations. This decision is likely to set a precedent for stricter scrutiny of similar claims in the future.

 

Date of Decision: July 9, 2024

Fulchand  vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Similar News