A widow who wanted to enrol in a course was asked to submit her marriage certificate. Her application for registration of her marriage was refused because, according to the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, the husband should apply for it. The Bombay High Court held that while Section 6(1) of the Act requires the husband to apply for registration, Section 6(2) states that if the marriage has not been registered within the specified time then it may be “presented for registration”. Giving a liberal interpretation to Section 6(2), the court ruled that either of the parties can apply for registration. The court held that not only would this interpretation serve the larger interest but it would also ensure the constitutional validity of the Act, which would otherwise have to be struck down on grounds of inequality (Smt. Swati Anil Sakpal vs State of Maharashtra).
A man wrote to the Gujarat State Information Commission, seeking information about a certain group of companies under the Right to Information Act. The group of companies took the commission to court for giving out confidential information without letting them know. The Gujarat High Court held that the public information officer should let a third party know if information is sought about it. Despite the fact that the information had to be given within a specified time, the officer should have spoken to the group of companies, the court held (Reliance Industries Ltd vs Gujarat State Information Commission and others).
In 2003, a provision was inserted in the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, which stated that movies dubbed in Tamil would have to pay a higher rate of tax than those made in Tamil. The authorities said the reason was that such films adversely affected the Tamil film industry. Also, it argued that the provision did not discriminate on the basis of language because films in other languages, whether made in Tamil Nadu or outside, would have to pay the same taxes as Tamil films if they were exhibited in the state. The Madras High Court struck down the concerned provision as it discriminated solely on the basis of language (P. Sankara Narayanan vs State of Tamil Nadu).
SOLON
