In this edition of the Court judgements review, we look at the Supreme Court’s judgement on the applicability of insurance policy, Delhi High Court’s judgements on the Right to Reproductive choices, and coercion of victims to reveal passwords of digital devices, Calcutta High Court’s decision on balancing the right to privacy of biological parent and right of an adopted child, and Guwahati High Court’s judgement on promotion of employees. Supreme Court: Insurance policy becomes effective from the date of issuance and not the date of proposal or date of issuance of receipt. The Supreme Court, in Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. vs. Jaya Wadhwani, held that the date of issuance of an insurance policy is the date from which it is effective, and not the date of the policy or the premium deposit date. The division bench of the apex court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing two appeals regarding the date of commencement of the insurance policy. In the present case, the earlier judicial forums such as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and the National Commission, held that the date of issuance of the initial deposit receipt of premium is the date of commencement of the Policy. The appeal is against these judgements. The facts of the case are as follows. The life assured submitted the proposal form on 26 September 2012. The policy was issued and commenced on 28 September 2012, with the next premium due on 28 September 2013. The grace period is 30 days under Clause 1(iv) of the terms and conditions. Since the subsequent premium was not paid, the policy lapsed. The assured reinstated the lapsed policy by paying the overdue premium on 25 February 2014. However, on 03 June 2014, the life assured committed suicide. This was well within the 12 months after the reinstatement of the policy, which is the requirement as per the insurance policy. In the earlier judicial forums, only the date of the issue of policy was considered. The date of reinstatement was not considered, which is a wrongful reading of the clauses. In another appeal case tagged with this, the policy form was submitted on 14 July 2012, while the policy was issued on 16July 2012. The next instalment was on 16July 2013. However, the petitioner committed suicide on 15 July 2013, the last day of the 12-month duration gap. In this case, though the cheque was submitted on 14July 2012, the policy was issued on 16July 2012 post cheque clearance. The apex court relied on its earlier judgement in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another vs. Dharam Vir Anand, whereby it was held that in construing a particular clause of the contract, it is only reasonable to construe that the word and the terms used therein must be given effect to. A similar observation was made again in Life Insurance Corporation. of India vs. Mani Ram, whereby it was held that even if the policy had a clause regarding the backdating, the date of policy issuance would still be a relevant date. Accordingly, the earlier orders are set aside, and the insurance claims of the respondents are rejected. Delhi HC: The right to reproductive choice also includes the right not to procreate- it is ultimately the prerogative of the women to evaluate and decide on the course of action, if any material circumstances change. The Delhi High Court, in R vs. The Union of India held that reproductive autonomy is closely linked with bodily autonomy, and the decision to have or not have pregnancy is the prerogative of the woman, if there is any change in the material circumstances of women. The single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing a petition for a direction to the Respondents to permit medical termination of the ongoing pregnancy of the Petitioner under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner got married on 26 February 2023 and unfortunately, her husband died on 19 October 2023. During an ultrasound on 31 October 2023, it was determined that she was 20 weeks pregnant. Subsequently, in December 2023, she sought medical termination of the pregnancy, but due to her gestation being beyond 24 weeks, she was denied. Upon approaching the apex court, it constituted a medical board to assess whether the petitioner could undergo termination of pregnancy. The board declined termination citing Clause 3B(c) of the MTP Rules, allowing termination only up to 24 weeks, while the foetus was reportedly at 29 weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted that she was suffering from trauma, for which the court recommended psychiatric evaluation was done by AIIMS.