List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerela High Court

Why in News?

The Kerala High Court has observed that a woman living in live-in relationship can also file domestic violence cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in the matter of Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan.

Background

• An appeal was filed by the man who wanted to transfer a case initiated against him under Section 12 of the DV Act and pending before a Magistrate, to a family court.
• The contention of the man was that since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are civil in nature therefore, there is no bar in transferring the case to the family court.
• High Court noted that if the person against whom the woman files a case is allowed to get it transferred to a family court or civil court, it would be to her detriment.

Court’s Observation

• The Court held that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act cannot be transferred from a Magistrate to a Family Court.
• A division bench comprising of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar held that a female victim of violence of any kind at the hands of a man with whom she was in a domestic relationship can file a case under the DV Act.

Domestic Violence

• Domestic violence includes any form of violence suffered by a person from a biological relative, but it typically relates to violence suffered by a woman by male members of her family or relatives.
• It includes not only physical abuse but emotional, economic, sexual abuse as well.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 43,414 cases of crime against women were registered during 2021, showing an increase of 22.9% over 2020 (35,331 cases), majority of cases (33.0%) were registered under ‘Cruelty by Husband or his Relatives’.
• Prior to 2005 the Indian Law aided females facing Domestic Violence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• To further curb this menace, the DV Act was enacted in 2005 that came into force on 26-10-2006.
• Section 3 of DV Act defines Domestic Violence as under:

Section 3 - Definition of Domestic Violence — For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well- being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, —

(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes—

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;

(iv) “economic abuse” includes—

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan , property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;

(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

Explanation II.— For the purpose of determine whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

Section 12 - Application to Magistrate —

(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Legislative Aspect of Live in Relationships in India

• DV Act, 2005
  • It has been specifically mentioned under Section 2(f) of the act that it not only takes under its purview married couples but also those relationships which are in the nature of marriage giving way to its application to Live-in-Relationships.
  • Section 2 - Definitions (f) Domestic Relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

Source – Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences Sehore V. Union of India & Ors. has observed that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (COI) in absence of any justifiable reason.

Background

• Before the High Court of Delhi, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the COI by Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences challenging an order passed by the Union Government.
• In the order, the Union Government affirmed the order of Medical Assessment & Rating Board of National Medical Commission rejecting the varsity’s request for establishment of a new medical college for the academic year 2023-24 in absence of any application made by it.
• The Court rejected the petition.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, which is mandatory and binding on all, is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in absence of any justifiable reason.
• The Court said that sufficient time was available with the University to complete the process of online submission of application which was admittedly not done.
• The Court also noted that no explanation was offered by the varsity as to why such a recourse was not taken and that instead, the hard copy was submitted which was held to be not acceptable.

Legal Provisions

Article 226 of COI

• Article 226: It is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs.
  • Article 226(1): It states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose.
  • Article 226(2): States that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -
    • Located within its jurisdiction or
    • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arise either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction.
  • Article 226(3): It states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.
  • Article 226(4): Says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
• Article 226 can be issued against any person or authority, including the government.

Difference Between Article 226 & Article 32

• Article 32 empowers the individuals to move to the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated.
• Unlike Article 32, Article 226 is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right.
• Article 32 can be suspended if the during an emergency, however, Article 226 cannot be suspended even during an emergency.
  • Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”.
• Article 226 is wider in its scope than Article 32 because the Supreme court under Article 32 can only issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, whereas the High Court under Article 226 enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.
  • In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India (1984), it was held that Article 226 has a much broader scope than Article 32 as Article 226 can be issued to safeguard legal rights as well.
• In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), it was held that the writ under Article 226 can also be issued for the enforcement of public responsibilities by public authorities.

Writs available under Article 226 of COI

• Writ of Habeas Corpus:
  • It is a Latin phrase which means ‘to have a body or to produce a body’.
  • This is the most often used writ.
  • When a person is wrongfully held by the government, that person, or his family or friends, can file a writ of Habeas Corpus to have that person released.
  • In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980), it was held that a writ petition for habeas corpus can be filed not only for the prisoner’s improper or illegal detention but also for his protection from any sort of ill-treatment or discrimination by the authority responsible for his detention.
• Writ of Mandamus:
  • It is a Latin phrase that translates to ‘we command.’
  • Mandamus is a judicial command issued to all public authorities to perform public duty.
  • It is used to execute public duties by constitutional, statutory, non-statutory, universities, courts, and other bodies.
  • The only requirement for using this writ is that there should be a public duty.
• Writ of Certiorari:
  • It is a Latin phrase that means ‘to be informed.’
  • It is a command or order issued by the Superior Court to the inferior court.
  • It is issued when the inferior courts violate the principles of natural justice. The Superior Court can quash the order given by the inferior court, if it finds any error.
• Writ of Prohibition:
  • It simply means ‘to stop’.
  • This writ is issued against the inferior court (i.e., subordinate courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies) by the Superior Court.

• Writ of Quo warranto:
  • The term Quo warranto means ‘by what authority’.
  • It is issued against a private person by what authority he is holding the office on which he has no right. By this writ, the Court can control the public official appointment, and protect a citizen from being deprived of a public office to which he may be entitled.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal noted that the remission granted by the Government to a life convict cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts.

• The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa.

Background

• The detenu was sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) relating to a murder.
• The conviction and punishment were confirmed by the High Court on appeal and the same has attained finality.
• The detenu escaped from custody twice during his incarceration but was apprehended later.
• It is the case of the State that the detenu enjoyed self-attained freedom for about two years pursuant to the first escape and for about three months pursuant to the second escape.
• It immediately following the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the detenu was also convicted for the offence of kidnapping.
• On 14th August 2022, the Government of Andhra Pradesh remitted his sentence.
  • However, he was not released from jail on the ground that his sentence for the offence of kidnapping should start running from the date of grant of remission in the first case.
• The court dismissed the appeal while stating that the sentence imposed in the second or subsequent conviction shall take effect only after the escaped convict has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which at the time of escape remained unexpired of his former sentence.
  • But insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired.

Court’s Observation

• The Court observed that Section 427 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), does not deal with the case of an escaped convict, but it provides enough room for finding out how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict, should be handled.

Procedure Prescribed Under Section 427, CrPC

• The provision invokes when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life.
  • Such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced.
• The court under this provision has the power to direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.
• Sub-section 2 of this Section states that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.