SC asks law panel to consider guidelines to curb hate speeches

The PIL by NGO Pravasi Bhalai Sanghatan had named Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as respondents to incidents of alleged hate speeches, by Raj Thackeray and Akbaruddin Owaisi, respectively.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Law Commission to look into the issue of hate speeches being made by leaders of political, social and religious outfits and consider framing guidelines to regulate such provocative statements.

A bench headed by Justice B.S. Chauhan, while refusing to frame guidelines itself, asked the commission to look into it and give its recommendation to the Centre.

The court passed the order on a PIL by NGO Pravasi Bhalai Sanghatan alleging that there was a need for guidelines as hate speeches destroy the fabric of democracy and violate the provisions of the Constitution.

The PIL had named Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as respondents as the two states witnessed incidents of alleged hate speeches.

It had referred to the alleged hate speeches made by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena Chief Raj Thackeray and claimed that no FIR was registered against them in the state.

The PIL had said that in Andhra Pradesh, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leader Akbaruddin Owaisi had allegedly made hate speeches and was arrested for them. But after being released on bail, he had again made similar speeches in Nanded, Maharashtra, it alleged.

Refusing sex on honeymoon is not cruelty: High Court

Refusal to have sex with spouse during honeymoon does not amount to cruelty, the Bombay High Court has ruled while setting aside a family court judgement dissolving the marriage of a couple on this ground.

The court also ruled that a wife donning shirts and pants to office occasionally and going out of town for office work soon after marriage also would not amount to cruelty towards her husband.

"The married life should be assessed as a whole and a few isolated instances over certain period will not amount to cruelty", observed justices V K Tahilramani and P N Deshmukh in an order early this week.

"The ill-conduct must be preceded for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live any longer with the other party (which) may amount to mental cruelty", the bench said.

Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty, the judges further said.

"Only sustained unjustified and reprehensible conduct affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse may lead to mental cruelty. There is no evidence to that effect in the present case", the bench noted.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a 29-year-old wife who was aggrieved by a family court order of December 2012, passing a divorce decree on a plea made by her husband on the grounds of cruelty.

"We have already verified all the allegations made in the petition, written statement as well as the evidence of both the parties... we are satisfied that on the basis of such instances, the marriage cannot be dissolved. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed," the judges observed.