There may be illegitimate parents but no illegitimate children: Karnataka High Court urges parliament to bring law on legitimacy of children

In a landmark Judgement, the Karnataka High Court has held while there may be illegitimate parents, there cannot be illegitimate children and law should, therefore, recognize the latter and confer them equal protection and rights [K Santhosha vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited]. .The judgement passed by Justices BV Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeevkumar emphasized the need for the parliament to bring about uniformity in law with regard to legitimacy of children. ."We add that no child is born in this world without a father and a mother. A child has no role to play in his/her birth. Hence, law should recognise the fact that there may be illegitimate parents, but no illegitimate children. Therefore, it is for the Parliament to bring about uniformity in law vis-à-vis legitimacy of children. Thus, it is for the Parliament to determine in what way protection could be extended to children born outside a valid marriage," the Court ruled. .The High Court, therefore, quashed a circular issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) on September 23, 2011, which had directed that the second wife or her children will not be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds if the marriage has taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage..The judgment was rendered on an plea moved by a son seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was a lineman with Bangalore Electric Supply Company (BESCOM)..The father had died in harness on June 10, 2014. During the subsistence of his first marriage, he had married a second time out of which the petitioner was born.On the death of his father, the petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate basis under the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Regulations, 1997.The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was the son of the second wife of the deceased employee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the 2011 circular. This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court. However, the same came to rejected by a single-judge. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a review petition, which also met with the same fate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner moved an appeal plea before the Division Bench. .The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the single-judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition as well as review petition.Further, it was submitted that though it is true that he is the son of second wife of his father, the same cannot be a ground to reject the application made by the appellant for appointment on compassionate basis.Refuting these submissions, the government counsel supported the single-judge's order and submitted that Regulation 2(1)(b) of the 2011 circular categorically defines ‘family’ in relation to a deceased employee to mean only his or her legally wedded spouse and their sons whether married or unmarried and unmarried daughters who were jointly living with him.Therefore, the son (petitioner) who is not born out of a valid marital relationship, is not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Regulations. .The Division Bench, after a careful consideration of the rival contentions, noted that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is a piece of legislation bringing about uniformity in the law relating to marriages. In fact, it is an example of legislation which is driven towards Uniform Civil Code as envisaged under Article 44 of the Constitution of India, said the Court. ."No doubt, validity of a marriage is dependent upon the personal law applicable to the parties but there is also Special Marriage Act, 1954, which is not relatable to any personal law. It is a species of a uniform civil law applicable to marriages of persons irrespective of the religion they may belong to. Even under the said Act, there are the concepts of void and voidable marriages," the Court noted. Hence, the Court said that it is necessary to protect the rights of children born from such void or voidable marriage to seek compassionate appointments de hors the personal law applicable to the parents of such a child.Referring to Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. VR Tripathi, the Court said it is necessary to protect rights of all such children in all religions, vis-a-vis compassionate appointment.."But, for the limited purpose of this case, we find that children born out of void and voidable marriages under other personal laws, where there is no provision for conferment of legitimacy, must also have equal protection of the law by treating them on par with children born out of void and voidable marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, 1954, insofar as the appointment on compassionate basis is concerned as interpreted by us, under the Regulations under consideration and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.R.Tripathi.".With these observations, the Court then directed KTPCL to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment within two months. [Read Judgement]