List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench comprising of Justice A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh dismissed the plea of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji challenging his custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of V. Senthil Balaji v. The State Represented by Deputy Director and Ors.

Background

• A case was registered in 2021 against the appellant and others.
• Finding that the appellant was not extending adequate cooperation, the Authority invoked Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by way of an arrest in June 2023.
• The respondents filed an application before the learned Principal Sessions Judge seeking judicial custody for 15 days.
  • An order of remand was passed sending him to judicial custody till 28.06.2023.
• The appellant thereafter filed an appeal arising out of a special leave petition contending that:
  • There is no power vested under the PMLA, 2002 to seek custody in favour of an authorized officer.
  • Such an authorized officer is not a police officer and therefore, Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), with particular reference to a remand in his favour, is not available.
  • Custody under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 can only be in favour of a police officer and not any other agency.

Court’s Observations

The court gave the below mentioned observations in this matter:

• The words “such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit” under Section 167 CrPC would reiterate the extent of discretion available to him.
  • It is for the Magistrate concerned to decide the question of custody, either be it judicial or to an investigating agency or to any other entity in a given case.

Facets of Section 167 CrPC

• The term ‘custody’ refers to keeping someone in protective surveillance.
• Custody in the form of judicial custody and police custody is covered under Section 167 which is enshrined under Chapter XII of the CrPC.
• Section 167 of CrPC covers:
  • Procedure when the investigation is not completed within twenty-four hours
  • Powers of the magistrate
  • Limitations on the powers of magistrate
• The provision encircles a timeline for both police custody and judicial custody.
• Section 167 is invoked when the accused has not been presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of his detention, and his fundamental right as provided by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 is violated.
• The Magistrate of second class is not empowered by the High Court to pass an order for the detention of the accused in the custody of the police.

Police Custody

• Police custody refers to custody of a suspect with the police in a lock-up at the police station, to detain the suspect.
• When police take a suspect into physical custody, he has to be presented before the magistrate within 24 hours of that arrest.
• The magistrate may allow the police custody under this section for not more than fifteen days.
  • If the magistrate has no jurisdiction for the trial of the case and considers that further detention is irrelevant, he may order the trial of the accused to be forwarded to a magistrate of higher rank who is authorized to hold the trial of the case under this section.

Judicial Custody

Under, Section 167(2)(a) CrPC, the magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding:

• Ninety days, if the accused is charged with a punishable offence that is death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term that is not less than ten years.
• Sixty days, if the investigation is related to any other offence.
  • After the completion of the time period of 60 days or 90 days, the accused shall be released on bail if he is able to furnish sureties. This period is calculated from the day he was detained and not from the date of arrest.

Landmark Cases

• Gian Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1981):
  • Mere interrogation by Police, during judicial custody by permission of the Magistrate, cannot change the nature of custody.
• Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992):
  • It was held that the Magistrate under Section 167(2) can authorize the detention of the accused in such custody as he thinks fit but it should not exceed fifteen days in the whole.
  • Therefore, the custody initially should not exceed fifteen days in the whole whether police custody or judicial custody.
• Kosanapu Ramreddy v. State of A.P. and others (1994):
  • The Supreme Court held that accused in judicial custody, if circumstances justify, can be remanded to police custody or vice versa within time limit (15 days) as prescribed in Section 167(2) CrPC.
• Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency (2021):
  • The Supreme Court widened the scope of the provision by including ‘house arrest’ and ‘transit remand’.
  • The court stated that house arrest can be ordered by the lower courts in appropriate cases instead of judicial or police custody.

Source – The Indian Express

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Delhi, has held that the object of the Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is to deter dowry deaths of women by husband or kin, and the provision should not be used as a device against relatives “without reason”.

Background

• The petitioner had filed two petitions before the Delhi HC against the orders which framed charges against the man and his family under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC, after his wife filed a complaint against him and his family.
• The High Court quashed the charges framed against the family of the petitioner and did not interfere with the charges framed against the petitioner (husband).

Court’s Observations

• A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, that in order to make out a case under Section 498A IPC the “conduct of the accused has to be such that he or she willfully drives a woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury, (be it mental or physical). In the alternative, there has to be harassment to the woman with an intent to coerce her to meet unlawful demands, thereby committing cruelty”.
• The Court further added that the allegations so raised are vague, unspecific and bald, lacking any particular details, including but not limited to date, place or time. It appears that the complainant has merely roped in the family of the husband.

Legal Provisions

Section 498A, IPC

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.
• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Section 406, IPC

• Section 406 IPC states the punishment for committing criminal breach of trust.
• The section states that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• The offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of IPC.
  • This section states that, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, of another or have some kind of authority over the property of another, and if that person dishonestly misappropriates or converts the property for his own use, the person is said to commit the offence of criminal breach of trust.
• Criminal breach of trust is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Section 34, IPC

• Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Under the ambit of this section, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held responsible by virtue of his or her participation in the criminal act.
• The following are the major ingredients of this section:
  • A criminal act must be done by several persons.
  • There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
  • Participation of all the persons is necessary in the commission of the common intention.
• In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993), it was held that it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence as well.

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

On 7^th August 2023, Rajya Sabha passed Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023.

• The law repeals the ordinance on Capital Service Control, overrides the Supreme Court's (SC) decision in favour of the Elected State Government and provides the Lieutenant Governor (LG) additional authority over Delhi's administration.

Background

• The 2015 Notification added Entry 41 to the list of exceptions under Article 239 AA(3(a)) and granted the LG of Delhi the authority to deal in matters connected with services, public order, police and land in which he can consult the Chief Minister.
  • The notification that the Government of NCT of Delhi cannot make laws for Entry 41 - "Services" as it is outside the purview of the legislative assembly of NCT of Delhi was upheld by The High Court of Delhi in 2016.
• Thereafter SC’s constitution bench decided in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023) that NCT of Delhi has legislative and executive power over administrative services in the National Capital, excluding matters relating to public order, police and land and the LG shall be bound by the decision of Delhi Government in such matters.
  • The Central Government henceforth promulgated The Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance overruling the Apex Court’s verdict.
• The Delhi Government had approached the SC challenging the Ordinance, who referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for adjudication in July 2023.
  • While the matter was still pending with the Constitution Bench, the bill was tabled in Lok Sabha and approved on 3rd August 2023 and even though opposition collectively called the bill "unconstitutional", it was passed in the Rajya Sabha.
• Regarding the ordinance making powers, the SC has earlier held in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) that the power to promulgate ordinances was conferred on the President to prevent a state of constitutional vacuum when “unforeseen events may arise which need legislative redressal.”

Government of Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2023

• Establishment of NCCSA: The Bill seeks to establish a permanent authority named "National Capital Civil Service Authority" to take decisions with respect to the postings and control of civil servants.
  • NNCSA will consist of the Chief Minister of Delhi (as its head), the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (both from the Government of NCT of Delhi).
  • NCCSA will make recommendations to the LG regarding transfers and postings of all Group 'A' officers serving in the affairs of the Government of NCT of Delhi barring officers handling matters related to public order, land and police.
• Final Authority to LG: In case of any difference of opinion, LG's decision will prevail.
  • Modification of Section 45D of the Ordinance gives power to the Centre regarding the appointments to statutory commissions and tribunals in Delhi.
    • Section 45D suggests that any authority, board, commission or any statutory body, or any office bearer or member thereof, constituted or appointed by or under any law for the time being in force, in and for the NCT of Delhi, shall be constituted, appointed or nominated by the President.
• In relation to bodies created under Parliament Law: Members shall be constituted or appointed or nominated by the President.
  • The Legislation passed by the Parliament allows department secretaries to take matters to LG, Chief Minister and Chief Secretary without consulting the concerned minister.
• In relation to bodies created under the Delhi Assembly Laws: NCCSA shall recommend a panel of suitable persons for constitution or appointment or nomination by the LG, in accordance with the provisions of section 45H.

Legal Provisions

Ordinance Making Power of the President

• Article 123 of the Indian Constitution grants the President of India law making powers.
• Conditions:
  • The President can only promulgate at a time except when both Houses of Parliament are in session.
  • The President is of the opinion that there are circumstances that require him to take immediate action.
  • While passing an ordinance, the President should be satisfied; that such circumstances exist which require immediate action on part of the President.
• After the ordinance has been passed it is required to be approved by the parliament within six weeks of reassembling.
  • The same will cease to operate if disapproved by either house of parliament.
• In case of Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985) the SC held that the Satisfaction of the President cannot be called in question in the Court of law and is out of judicial review.
  • Whereas in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) (which reflected upon the issue of ordinance making power of the governor), the SC opined that when ordinances are frequently issued and re-issued, it violates the spirit of the Constitution and result in an ‘ordinance raj’ and called this practice a constitutional fraud.