Back
Vinesh – Appellant
Versus
Raji Radhakrishnan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Devan Ramachandran, J.
As we begin, we notice that this Original Petition describes the respondent to be “Deaf and Dumb”. We find it necessary and requisite to impress that the afore description is a relic from the medieval era.
2. The Greek Philosopher Aristotle used the phrase to refer to hard-of-hearing people and argued that they were incapable of being taught; of learning; and of reasoned thinking (source:Deaf Heritage, by Jack Gannon, 1980)
3. In later years “dumb” came to mean silent, but remained offensive because it also connotes cognitive disablement - stemming from the illusion that if one cannot use voice, you are probably not smart.
4. The terms afore are ethically and technically inaccurate; and now recognised internationally to be offensive - particularly by the community. The term “Hearing-impaired” is also no longer accepted, though it was earlier preferred, as being politically correct. This was a well meaning term, but now not accepted because ‘impaired’ means hindered or damaged.
5. The most accepted terms now are ‘deaf’ and ‘hard-of-hearing’; and we will use only them in this judgment.
6. Hard - of - hearing communities are diverse, with people identifying
The court mandated that inquiries under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the CPC are essential for hard-of-hearing litigants seeking representation through a Next Friend to ensure their interests are protecte....
Point of law: Imposition of penalty – set aside -Bank has imposed penalty without permitting the petitioner to be defended in accordance with law. It is not a violation of the Bank's rights, it is no....
Legal position is that mental infirmity in the context of Order XXXII Rule 15 of CPC is not mental person able of protecting his interests, is sufficient to unfold the protective umbrella under Order....
Prime concern of court is to find out as to whether a person who is said to be mentally ill could defend himself properly or not.
The court established that an inquiry is mandatory under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC to determine if a party is incapable of protecting their interests due to mental infirmity before appointing a next frien....
The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no evidence of mental infirmity in the plaintiff, thus dismissing the writ petition.
Point of Law : Non compliance of requirement under Order XXXII CPC - Procedural law dealing with requirements to be complied with in institution of a suit by minor or a person of unsound mind, to pro....
(1) Unsound mind – Matters involving persons of unsound mind, the Court must exercise utmost caution and diligence to ensure that the rights of such individuals are protected. Order XXXII, Rule 15 of....
The court must conduct a preliminary inquiry before appointing a guardian for a person of unsound mind, as mandated by Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
