Respected Kavita Srivastava ma’am
I, Prasun Tiwari, am the student of 1 st year, 3rd trimester in National Law Institute University,
Bhopal [M.P.] is keen do internship in People’s Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL),Jaipur
under your guidance from 1 st of May 2017 to 27th of May 2017. I think and feel that interning
at PUCL will catapult my skills. I have studied tort law, law of contract,1881 and sale of
goods act,1933 I have previously interned at Dhar district court where I observed civil and
criminal proceedings and procedure to file case. I studied protection of women from
domestic violence act, 2005. I am sure that I will be able to contribute immensely towards
your practice. I am attaching my CV for your kind perusal and will be grateful if I am given
an opportunity to intern at your firm. Please kindly approve my application for internship and
give me opportunity to contribute towards PUCL working or Please let me know if you
require anything else as a part of the internship application. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Thank you!
Yours sincerely,
Writing Sample
For
ABC V. The State (NCT of Delhi)
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 28367 of 2011]
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 2569
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vikramajit Sen and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.X
The Appellant after her marriage gave birth to a child and raised him without
any assistance from the father of that child. The Appellant wanted to make her
child her nominee in all her properties (savings, insurance policies, etc.). She
applied for his birth certificate but informed that she must declare the name of
his father also. She filed an application under section 7 of Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 for declaring her the sole guardian of her son. She also published a
notice in a daily newspaper1. The guardian court directed her to disclose the
name of the father of the child, but she refused to do so and then the court
dismissed her guardianship application.
On appeal, the High Court confirmed that no case can be decided in the
absence of another party which is necessary i.e. child’s father. The Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and held that mother is best suited for guardianship of
child. In this situation where father did not show any concern for his child,
giving him legal recognition is pointlessness as the father did not indicate any
interest in his child. As per Section 7 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the
interest of the minor is the only relevant factor for appointing of a guardian,
and the rights of the mother and father are subservient thereto. In this
1
Vir Arjun, Delhi Edition
scenario, the interest of the child would be best served by immediately
appointing the Appellant as the guardian. The rights of mother must be given
due consideration and her fundamental right would be violated if she is forced
to disclose the name of the father of her child. The Supreme Court had
recognized that the right of father over his child may be taken away if there is
lack of involvement in the child’s life. The court did not get any reason to
prioritize his rights. Appellant has already issued notice to the public in general
by way of a publication in a National Daily and has submitted an affidavit
stating that her guardianship rights may be revoked, altered or amended if at
any point the father of the child objects to them, the rights, nay duty of the
father have been more than adequately protected.
It is important as it reiterates that the welfare of the child takes priority above
all else, including the rights of the parents. In the instant case we do not find
any indication that the welfare of the child would be undermined if the Appellant
is not compelled to disclose the identity of the father, or that Court notice is
mandatory in the child's interest. On the contrary, we find that this may well
protect the child from social stigma and needless controversy 2
In the instant case section 113 of the act would not be directly applicable. This
section is applicable where the guardianship is claimed by third party.In the act
‘parent’ is nowhere defined, the Court interprets it. In the Instant case
illegitimate children whose sole caregiver is one of his/her parents, to
principally mean that parent alone. the domicile of origin of an illegitimate child
is in the country in which at the time of his birth his mother is domiciled. This
indicates that priority, preference and pre-eminence is given to the mother over
the father of the concerned child.4
There is a law in United Kingdom which is relevant is this case, parental custody
of a child born of unwed parents is with the mother in all cases, and additionally
with the father provided he has acquired responsibility in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. To acquire responsibility, he would have to register as the
child's father, execute a parental responsibility agreement with the mother or
obtain a Court order giving him parental responsibility over the child 5.
The Appellant succeeded in her guardianship petition and it may be recalled
that it is no longer necessary to mention the name of father for seeking
admission in school as well as for obtaining a passport for a minor child. It may
still remain necessary to issue a Birth certificate. Accordingly, we direct that if a
single parent/unwed mother apply for the issuance of a Birth Certificate for a
child born from her womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to
furnish an affidavit to this effect, and must thereupon issue the Birth Certificate,
unless there is a Court direction to the contrary. The Guardian Court is directed
to recall the dismissal order passed by it and thereafter consider the Appellant's
2
Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 1986 AIR 272, 1985 SCC Supl. 701
3
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
4
Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
5
Section 2(2) of the Children Act 1989
application for guardianship expeditiously without requiring notice to be given
to the putative father of the child.
