Pension and Art.14, Marital Discord and Children, Abortion After 20 Weeks
I have finished my break and will now resume, my posting on this blog.
(The Supreme Court)
In this judgement the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the interim order of the High Court of Jharkhand. That order was given in a case regarding custody of a child in a marital dispute. The order stated that the child should be sent to Good Shepherd International School and allowed for the parents to visit her during vacation.
The mother, Sheoli Hati, appealed this order, arguing that the child should be placed in her custody.
However the Supreme Court refused to annul the order. It agreed with the order, claiming that if the child was made to live with her parents (or one of them), the marital discord between them would effect her negatively.
Leftism is an ideology that believes that the State should change or end traditions and customs that govern family life if, in its view, they are oppressive.
The traditional viewpoint is that the parents have full custody over their child and that the child can never be separated from his or her parents. It also believes that marital disputes must be resolved by the married couple themselves or other relatives. It does not have any role for the State.
This judgement advocates for the child to be removed from the custody of her parents, and therefore, it supports the left-wing ideology.
Rightism is an ideology that believes that the State should not change or end traditions and customs that govern family life even if, in its view, they are oppressive.
The traditional viewpoint regarding custody of children has already been stated.
The Supreme Court has allowed for the child to be removed from the custody of her parents which is a change in the tradition. Therefore, it can be said that the Supreme Court has gone against the right-wing ideology.
Authoritarianism is an ideology that believes that the State should have complete control over the family lives of the citizens.
This judgement increases the control that the State has over the family life of the citizens, but does not allow for it to completely control it.
Therefore we can say that this judgement slightly supports the authoritarian ideology.
The libertarian ideology believes that the State should have no control over the family lives of the citizens.
This judgement increases the control of the State over the family lives of its citizens.
Therefore it goes completely against the libertarian ideology.
I am a libertarian when it comes to matters of the family. I believe that disputes within a family are best settled within it, including custody and marital disputes.
However I do have exceptions for this rule. In the case of physical and/or mental abuse, I believe the State should intervene to protect the person being abused.
In this case I believe that the child would be exposed to mental distress if she witnessed marital discord between her parents. This distress might have increased to the point of abuse.
Therefore I believe that this was a situation in which the State was obligated to intervene, and therefore support this judgement. I believe that it is a left-wing authoritarian judgement.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(The Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court gave an order to allow for the termination of a pregnancy after 20 weeks. This order goes against Section 3(2)(b) of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 which allows for the termination of pregnancy only up to 20 weeks and only in the event that the child or mother are in fatal danger.
The left supports the pro-choice position in the abortion debate. This is because that life begins at the time the law says it does and they believe abortion is a reproductive right of a woman.
Some of them are against any restrictions and some are in favour of restrictions. In the U.S the left has supported the removal of all restrictions on abortion recently.
This order allows for the termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks of gestation which is against the restriction given by the Act. Therefore we can say that it completely supports the leftist ideology.
The right supports the pro-life position in the abortion debate. This is because they believe that life starts at conception and do not believe that abortion is a reproductive right of a woman.
Some of them are in favour of certain exceptions in which abortion should be allowed. Others are not in favour of any exceptions. In the U.S the right has supported the removal of all exceptions for abortion recently.
This order increases the number of exceptions in which abortion can be allowed. Therefore we can say that it completely goes against the rightist ideology.
The authoritarian ideology does not have a strict position regarding abortion. Some authoritarians are pro-choice, and others are pro-life.
Pro-choice authoritarians believe that the State can abort any child it wants to irrespective of the wishes of the mother. Pro-life authoritarians believe that the State must ban all abortions and punish those who have them.
This order allows for the termination of pregnancy with the consent of the mother. Therefore, it does not support the authoritarian ideology (both pro-choice and pro-life).
The Libertarian ideology does not have a strict position regarding abortion. Some libertarians are pro-choice, and others are pro-life.
Pro-choice libertarians do not believe that a foetus is a person and therefore abortion should be legal that the State should have no role to play in it.
Pro-life libertarians believe that a foetus is a person and therefore abortion is murder and should not be legal and that the State should have a role to play in it, to punish those who have abortions.
This order allows for abortions to be committed. Therefore it supports the pro-choice libertarian position.
I am pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, or when the life of the mother or child is in danger. This order allows for termination due to non-viability outside the womb.
I don’t have an opinion on this judgement. I believe it is a leftist judgement.
ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION BY ITS SECRETARY
THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS
This judgement stated that there can be no discrimination by the State when giving pensions to civil servants. Any such discrimination would be against Article 14 of the Constitution and hence, unconstitutional.
Leftists support equality. They believe that the State should not discriminate amongst its citizens.
This judgement prohibits discrimination. Therefore it is a leftist judgement.
Rightists support traditional hierarchies, not State hierarchies. They believe that the State should discriminate to maintain traditional hierarchies amongst its citizens but not those created by the State.
This judgement prohibits discrimination by the State but is silent on discrimination by non-State actors. Therefore it is a slightly rightist judgement.
Authoritarians support all hierarchies, whether State or non-State.
This judgement is against State hierarchies. Therefore it is not authoritarian.
Libertarians are against State hierarchies, and are silent on non-State hierarchies. They do not believe that the State should protect non-State hierarchies, or remove them.
This judgement is against State hierarchies. Therefore it is slightly libertarian.
I’m a firm believer in equality, especially Article 14, therefore I support this judgement.
I believe that this judgement satisfies the left, right and libertarian ideologies but not the authoritarian one.