In 1945, the mother executed a registered gift deed in favour of her minor son and daughter. In 1970, she cancelled the deed and executed a will bequeathing the property in favour of her daughter. The son filed a suit for cancellation of the will. The trial court held that the gift deed was invalid. The son was a minor and no one accepted the gift on his behalf. Relying on oral evidence the first appellate court held that there was valid acceptance of the gift. The high court took a contrary view holding that the will governs succession. The Supreme Court held that where the donee is a minor, no express acceptance can be expected. Acceptance can be implied even by mere silence or by conduct of the donee or his/her natural guardian that cannot be construed as disapproval. The gift was duly accepted and irrevocable under section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act (K. Balakrishnan vs K. Kamalam & Ors).
Deciding on a case of dowry death, the Supreme Court, relying on an earlier decision, reiterated that the meaning of the term ‘dowry’ is not confined to the demand ‘at the time of’ or ‘before marriage’. In order to attract section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the term is enlarged and extended even to the period after marriage. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code deals with the death caused to a woman by her husband or his relatives ‘for’ or ‘in connection with any demand for dowry’. In this case, marriage took place six years prior to the occurrence of the incident (Vidhya Devi vs State of Haryana).
A writ petition was moved seeking disclos- ure of information relating to certain safety violations and defects in various nuclear installations and power plants in the country. It was submitted that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes right to information. Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act restricts disclosure of certain information in respect of use and operation of nuclear plants. The Supreme Court held that such disclosure might enable enemies of the nation to estimate and monitor strategic activities. If a reasonable restriction is imposed within the meaning of Article 19(2) in the interest of the state by a reason of valid legislation, the court would normally respect the legislative policy. The validity of Section 18 of the Act and its claim to privilege was upheld (Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India & Ors).
SOLON
