List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

A bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar noted that the High Court shall frame directions adhering to guidelines given in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).

• These guidelines are to be followed by the sessions courts and all other criminal courts dealing with various offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years.
• The court has emphasized upon the value of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail.
• The court made the observation while hearing the matter of Md Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Background

• The appellant in this case alleges that the respondent-wife was not happy, and her father used to interfere and pressurize him and his family.
• This led to complaints lodged against the wife’s family for threatening the appellant’s family.
• Later, an FIR was registered against the appellant and his brother and others, complaining of commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Apprehending the arrest, the appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail in Sessions Court and later, in High Court.
• All this while, the appellant cooperated with the investigation, after this the charge sheet was filed before the Session Judge.
  • Both Sessions Court and High Court heard the matter.
• When the matter came before the Apex Court the appellant contended that the distinction between the existence of the power (to arrest) and the justification of exercising it must always be kept in mind.

Court’s Observation

• The court observed that routine arrest must be stopped in cases where alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of up to seven years in jail.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

• It is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court acknowledged the abuse of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The court noted that this provision is misused as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.
• It is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court gave directions to police officers regarding arrest according to Section 41, 41A and other essentials of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The court said that these directions shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.
• The court while pronouncing the judgement endeavored to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically.
• The Judgment was later reiterated in several cases including Satendra Kumar Antil v. Centra Bureau of Investigation (2022).

Guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Judgment

The following guidelines were laid down by the court:

1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;
2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
3. The police officer- shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
4. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the 10 Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
8. Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court refused to direct the Centre to impose a total prohibition on slaughter of cows and its progeny as competent legislature has to be approached for any steps in this regard.

Background

• The court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) praying for a direction to the Centre for a total prohibition on the slaughter of cow and its progeny which includes old-useless bulls, bullocks and old buffaloes and male counterpart, without any further delay.
• The Court noted that there is already a ban in respect of cow slaughter in the National Capital pursuant to a law enacted by the City Government.
• It was further remarked by the court that for other states, the petitioner was free to take appropriate steps considering a Supreme Court decision, which held that legislature cannot be compelled to come out with a particular legislation.
  • The Supreme Court observed that only a competent legislature can decide such questions arising in relation to prohibition of slaughter of cow and its progeny, and the Supreme Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot compel the legislature to promulgate a particular legislation.
  • The Top Court ultimately left it to the appellants in the case to approach the legislature.
  • The Supreme Court further stated, “There is already an Act in force in the State of Delhi as discussed above which provides for a ban on slaughter of cattle, and in respect of other states the Petitioner shall certainly be free to take appropriate steps in light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.

Court’s Observations

In light of the Apex Court’s order, the Delhi High Court said that the petitioner cannot press for the reliefs sought in this petition.

Cow Slaughter

• Cattle slaughter has also been opposed by various Indian religions because of the ethical principle of Ahimsa (non-violence) and the belief in the unity of all life forms.
• The Constitution of India under Part IV - Directive Principles of State Policy provides that the state shall endeavor to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines, take steps to improve breeds and prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle.
• In pursuance of the principle enshrined in DPSP, around 20 states have passed laws restricting the slaughter of cattle (cows, bulls, and bullocks) and buffaloes to various degrees.
  • Some of the States where Cow Slaughter is totally banned are as follows:
  • Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh imposed a complete ban on cow slaughter.

Cases Laws on validity of Banning Cow Slaughter

Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1959) - The Supreme Court held that:

• A total ban on the slaughter of cattle is valid and in consonance with the directive principles laid down under Article 48.
• A total ban on she-buffaloes and breeding bull or working bullocks as long as they are capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid.

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) -

• The petition in this case was filed challenging the amendments in Section 5 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act,1954 which was also applicable to the state of Gujrat.
• The Apex Court in this landmark judgement upheld the constitutional validity of anti-cow slaughter laws enacted by various State Governments in India.

Constitutional Law Aspect

Article 48 - Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry —

• The State shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 51-A - Fundamental duties - It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

• (g) To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.

Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994

• The purpose of the Act is to provide for the preservation of animals suitable for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes.
• The Act extends to the whole of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• Section 4 - Prohibition on slaughter of Agricultural Cattle - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being force or in any usage or custom to the contrary, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter any agricultural cattle.

Why in News?

The Ministry of Minority Affairs is delving into instruments to expedite cases of dispute on Waqf properties.

• In order to assess the functioning of the Waqf boards and the Waqf Act, 1995, the Ministry even held a meeting with Waqf Board CEOs from 20 States.

Background

• There are more than 58,000 complaints related to disputes on properties declared as Waqf properties, with 18,426 such cases with Waqf tribunals.
• There are 165 cases related to Waqf disputes before the Supreme Court and High Courts across the country.
• There is no provision for ‘persons affected by identification of a property as Waqf’ in the existing system.
• Once a property is declared as Waqf’s, it can only be contested in a tribunal, but the tribunals have no power to grant stay and there is no timeline for disposal of such cases by the tribunals.
• The Ministry is specifically looking at the following two contentious issues:
• The issue of ‘Waqf by User’, in which a plot of land or building, or a portion of it, when used for religious purposes, can be declared Waqf by User, even if the asset is not granted as a Waqf property by the owner.
• Waqf created for Waqifs’ family or children and is used as an instrument of succession.

Legal Provisions

Waqf

• The law of waqf is the most important branch of Mohammedan Law for it is interwoven with the entire religious, social, and economic life of Muslims.
• The word waqf means ‘detention’.
• The Waqf Act, 1954 defines Waqf as, “Waqf means the permanent dedication by a person professing the Islam, of any movable or immovable property for any purpose recognized by Muslim Law as religious, pious, or charitable.”

Essential conditions for a Valid Waqf:

• Permanent dedication: The dedication of waqf property must be permanent. The motive behind Waqf is always religious.
• Competency: A Muslim making a waqf must be of:
  • Sound mind
  • A major
• Right to make waqf: A person having the capacity, but no right cannot constitute a valid waqf. The subject matter of waqf should be owned by wakif at the time when waqf is made.

Creation of Waqf

• Muslim law does not prescribe any specific way of creating a Waqf.
• If the essential elements as described above are fulfilled, a Waqf is created.
• Though it can be said that a Waqf is usually created in the following ways –
  • By an act of a living person
  • By will
• By Usage

Waqf Act, 1995

• The Waqf Act, 1995 was enacted and implemented on November 22, 1995.
• This Act established the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board.
• In 2013, this Act was further amended to give unlimited powers to Waqf Boards to snatch anyone's property, which even could not be challenged in any court of law.
• This Act describes the power and restrictions of a Waqf Tribunal that acts in lieu of a civil court under its jurisdiction.