HC Quashes CWC Action on Adoptions

 Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the actions of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), the state directorate of women development and child welfare department and others in taking forcible custody of adopted minor children. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by several adoptive parents, alleging illegality on the part of the respondent authorities in forcibly taking away adopted children. The petitioners complained that the actions of the respondents were arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution. Counsels for the respondent authorities stated that investigation was undertaken pursuant to receiving a report from an individual alleging sale of children in the name of adoption. Counsel for the respondents relied upon Section 31 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and stated that the police authorities were authorised to produce the child in need of care and protection before the CWC. The judge observed that the Act authorised custody only of children in need and care; in the present batch, the children were adopted by persons capable of giving them a good life. In view of the same, the judge allowed the writ petitions and ordered that the custody of the adopted children be restored to the respective adoptive parents.

HC outlines parameters for murder sentence

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that conviction for murder could only be inflicted if the intent of the accused was to cause death was of a definitive character. The panel partly allowed a criminal appeal by a convict in a case in which he was charged with and punished under Section 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge in Kothagudem. It heard the appeal against the conviction by Kopulla Ramakrishna, a worker from Khammam district. According to the prosecution, he was an alcoholic and used to harass his wife. She had lodged a complaint against him and started living with her parents. Having established the stated motive, it was the case that he took the daughter from the marriage and threw her in a well. The complaint was filed on the basis of suspicion that it was the appellant who had thrown the deceased into the well. The court of first instance based the conviction on the witness accounts of two persons. “It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had caused any harm before the girl was thrown in the well or ensured that the girl died after throwing her into the well. The panel accordingly read down the severity of the offence. Since the petitioner had undergone the sentence of nine years, the panel reduced the punishment to the sentence undergone.

HC stays recovery of commuted pension

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ordered stay of recovery of commuted pension from a retired deputy conservator of forests and others. The panel, comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging Rule 18 of Telangana Civil Pensions Commutation Rules, which provides for restoration of full pension on the completion of 15 years of recovery of commuted portion of pension. A Central government employee has the option to commute a portion of pension, not exceeding 40 per cent of it, into a lump sum payment. Lump sum payable is calculated with reference to the commutation table. The monthly pension will stand reduced by the portion commuted and the commuted portion will be restored on the expiry of 15 years from the date of receipt of the commuted value of pension. The petitioner contended that even though recovery of commuted portion of pension was over with prescribed interest rate in 11 years and three months, the action of the authorities in recovering the same was causing undue enrichment of the state at the cost of pensioners. Senior counsel P. Suresh Reddy contended that it also did not have any rational objective to be achieved. Senior counsel placed reliance on interim reliefs provided by other High Courts and sought stay of further recovery of pension of the petitioners. The panel, taking into consideration the submissions, made it clear that the state shall not proceed with recovery of such commuted pension of the petitioners and posted the matter for further hearing.

Octogenarian complains of nonpayment of compensation

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court expressed dissatisfaction for not providing compensation to an octogenarian, whose land was acquired for the construction of Komuravelli Mallannasagar reservoir in 2016-19. In an earlier round of litigation, 51 widows approached the court to be treated as ‘separate family’ under Section 3(m) of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (‘R&R’) for availing the compensation benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The state opposed the claim by stating that the government had issued a GO in June 2017 providing more benefits and all the family members of the widow petitioners opted for availing R&R benefits under that government order instead of availing benefits under Section 3(m) of the Act. The court in its earlier order read ‘widows’ under the definition of “separate families” under Section 3(m) of the Act. The court also extended the R&R benefits upon the petitioner widows as they never consented for payment of R&R benefits to be ever given up under the Act. Despite the order, the letter issued by the district collector to the commissioner for sanctioning of compensation to the widow petitioner was not accorded. Upon hearing of the contempt case, the court ordered all the respondents to forthwith comply with the earlier orders and directed for filing of a compliance report on the next date of hearing.