Class Notes - 9th November, Saturday, 2024

#

These are the notes from the classes held on Saturday, 9th November 2024 for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College, covering Family Law, Constitutional Law, and Law of Torts.

Notes for Day 35 can be found here.

An essay writing competition was conducted during the Environmental Law period.

Family Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Sriveni

Recent Trends in Marriage (Continued)

#

1. Increase in Divorce and Desertions

   • Since 2010, there has been a notable rise in divorces and desertions, with a higher number of petitions for divorce being filed. Social factors, changing values, and financial independence have contributed to this trend.

2. NRI Marriages

   • Women married to NRIs face various issues, particularly due to a lack of protection and transparency in overseas marriages. Common problems include:
     • Wives are sometimes sent back to India immediately after the honeymoon.
     • Instances of cruel treatment, including physical abuse.
     • Husbands are sometimes already married abroad, leading to complications.
   • Legal Aspects
     • According to Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), if a divorce is obtained in a reciprocating country, the judgment is considered valid in India. For example, the USA is not a reciprocating country, so divorces obtained there may not be recognized in India.
   • Case Laws
     • Harmeeta Singh v. Rajat Taneja: The husband filed for divorce in the USA. The wife approached the High Court in India, which restrained the continuation of the divorce proceedings in the USA.
     • Neeraga Sharaph v. Jayant v. Sharaph: The court held that if a marriage is performed in India, a divorce cannot be validly obtained in any other country. Adequate alimony must be provided to the spouse remaining in India.
   • Legal Remedies for Victims of NRI Marriages
     • Confiscation of the husband’s passport in cases of abuse or abandonment.
       • Rajiv Dayal v. Union of India: This case discussed the conditions under which the Ministry of External Affairs can aid in matters involving NRI spouses. The passport was cancelled in this case.
     • The Ministry of External Affairs can offer support and legal remedies in cases involving NRI marriages.

3. LGBTQIA+ (Not Usually asked in Exam, taught for clarity)

   • LGBTQIA+ individuals are recognized as a third gender in India, but marriage between individuals of the same sex is not yet legally recognized.
   • Types
     • Lesbian: Female attracted to female.
     • Gay: Male attracted to male.
     • Bisexual: Attraction to both males and females.
     • Transgender: Individuals who may transition to a different gender.
     • Queer: A broader term for those who do not identify strictly within traditional gender norms. Complicated status.
     • Intersex: Individuals with biological characteristics of both male and female.
     • Asexual: No sexual attraction to any gender.
   • Historical Context
     • Narada Smriti and other ancient texts prohibited homosexual relationships.
     • Types of Homosexuality Mentioned in Ancient Texts
       • Narada Smriti defines specific categories of men engaging in homosexual acts:
         • Mukhebahaga: Men having oral sex with other men.
         • Sev yaka: Men engaging in sexual relations with other men.
         • Irshyaka: Men who watch others engaged in sexual activity (voyeurs).
       • Kamasutra includes similar categories:
         • Svairini: An independent woman who explores her sexuality freely.
         • Kami: Individuals with intense or varied sexual desires.
         • Paksha: Those who display characteristics of both genders or engage in non-traditional sexual activities.

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

5. Rule of Strict Liability | No Fault Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868)

#

Overview: The rule of strict liability, established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), states that if a person brings something dangerous onto their land and it escapes, causing harm, they are strictly liable for the damage, regardless of negligence. This concept is also known as “no-fault liability” because the defendant is held liable even if they were not at fault.

Facts of Rylands v. Fletcher

#

In this landmark case, the defendant, the owner of a mill, constructed a reservoir on his land to provide water for the mill. During the construction, contractors did not identify old, abandoned mine shafts that connected to neighboring coal mines owned by plaintiff. When the reservoir was filled, water escaped through these shafts, flooding plantiff’s mine and causing significant damage. The court held that defendant was liable, establishing the principle that a person who brings something dangerous onto their land must keep it at their own risk.

Principles of Strict Liability

#

1. Dangerous Thing: The defendant is liable for the escape of a dangerous thing brought onto their land. This refers to any item that, if it escapes, is likely to cause harm.

   • Examples include gas, electricity, poisonous chemicals, etc.
   • Case: Ponting v. Noakes: A horse trespassed onto the defendant’s land, ate yew leaves, and died. Since the horse had trespassed and the dangerous item did not “escape,” the defendant was not held liable.

2. Escape: There must be an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant’s property to a place outside their control.

   • Case: Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board: The defendant planted yew trees near the boundary of their land, and the branches grew into the neighboring land. When the neighbor’s cattle ate the yew leaves, they died. The court held that the defendant was liable because the dangerous thing “escaped” onto the neighbor’s property.

3. Non-Natural Use of Land: The land use must be “non-natural,” meaning it involves a special use that increases the risk of harm.

   • Storing water for domestic purposes is considered natural, but storing large quantities of water in a reservoir is non-natural and thus falls under strict liability.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

#

1. Plaintiff’s Own Fault: If the plaintiff suffers damage due to their own actions on the defendant’s land, the defendant may not be held liable.

   • Case: Ponting v. Noakes: As explained, since the horse trespassed, the defendant was not liable.

2. Act of God: Unforeseeable natural events, like floods or earthquakes, that could not be predicted or prevented.

   • Case: Nicholas v. Marshland: Heavy rains caused the defendant’s artificially created lakes to overflow, damaging the plaintiff’s property. The court held it was an Act of God, so the defendant was not liable.

3. Consent of the Plaintiff (Volenti Non Fit Injuria): If the plaintiff consents to the risk or benefits from it, they cannot hold the defendant liable.

   • Case: Carstairs v. Taylor: The plaintiff lived on the ground floor and the defendant on the upper floor. When water leaked and caused damage, the court ruled that, as both parties benefited from the water supply system, there was an implied consent.

4. Act of a Third Party: If the harm is caused by a stranger’s actions, over whom the defendant has no control, the defendant may not be liable.

   • Case: Richards v. Lothian: A stranger blocked a sink, causing water to overflow and damage the plaintiff’s property. The defendant was not held liable since the act was done by an unknown third party.

5. Statutory Authority: If the action causing harm is done under statutory authority, it may be exempt from strict liability unless negligence is involved.

   • Case: Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co.: The defendant’s employees, while working under statutory authority, accidentally caused a water pipe to burst, flooding the someone’s property. Since the employees were carrying out a statutory duty, the defendant was not held liable. To be very clear, this case is about the liability of the employees and the company. The company would still be liable to the party who’s land was damaged.

6. Rule of Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987)

#

Overview: In cases involving hazardous or inherently dangerous industries, the rule of absolute liability was established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987). This rule imposes an even stricter standard than strict liability, as it removes all exceptions. The defendant is held liable regardless of any fault, negligence, or external factors.

Facts of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

#

In this case, a gas leak occurred at a factory operated by Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi, leading to widespread harm to nearby residents. The case was filed by M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer, under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking compensation for the affected people. This case is also known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case.

The Supreme Court recognized the need for a new rule, given the social and economic conditions in India, and ruled that industries engaged in hazardous activities must adhere to the rule of absolute liability.

Key Principles of Absolute Liability

#

• No Exceptions: Unlike strict liability, absolute liability does not permit any exceptions, such as Acts of God or third-party actions.
• Liability Without Fault: The defendant is held liable regardless of any fault or lack of control over the situation.
• Applicability: This rule is particularly applied to industries handling hazardous or dangerous materials. Industries that create a significant risk to the public are held to the highest standard of responsibility for any harm caused.

The principle of absolute liability established in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India has since become a cornerstone of environmental law and public safety regulation in India. It reflects the Indian judiciary’s adaptation of common law principles to better address contemporary social issues.

I wrote the essay today on Legal Services Authority. I thought it was about Legal Aid Clinics and wrote something on paper after a long time. I don’t think I made any sense though.