List of Current Affairs

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum’s (WLF) 101 women lawyers practicing in Delhi and Gurgaon submitted a letter petition to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud to seek intervention of the Supreme Court (SC) in the recent instances of hate speeches in various places across Haryana including Nuh.

Background

• WLF contended in its letter that the State should be given instructions to curb incidents of Hate Speech because videos containing hate speech have appeared on social media.
• It was further stated that circulated videos that relate to harming, threatening to harm a community/ place of worship or urge economic boycott of any community should be tracked and banned.
• The letter plea highlighted how the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of demolitions carried out by State authorities pursuant to the Nuh violence and this approach of the court has gone a long way in building confidence of citizens in the rule of law.
• The letter petition relied upon following pronouncements:
  • In the case of Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India and Others (2018), SC had held that it is the responsibility of governments to curb mob vigilantism and mob violence through stringent measures.
  • Also, in Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023), SC observed that there has to be harmony between the communities and that the calls to boycotting the Muslim community after the recent communal violence at Nuh was “unacceptable”.
• It was urged by WLF that the following directions be issued to the State government:
  • To promote an environment of dignity and liberty for citizens of all religions in the State of Haryana and fraternity between communities by announcing programmes that highlight inclusion and awards for acts of communal harmony;
  • To take steps in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to prevent incidents of hate speech;
  • To track and ban videos that threaten harm to any community/ places of worship or urge economic boycott of any community;
  • To take immediate action against persons found responsible for committing acts of hate speech.

Hate Speech

• According to the United Nations (UN) “hate speech” in common parlance refers to offensive discourse targeting a group, or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.
• According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there has been a huge increase in cases registered to promote hate speech as there were only 323 cases registered in 2014, which has jumped to 1,804 cases in 2020.
• Hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, Sections 295A, 153A, 505 etc. of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with speech or words that could create mischief or cause imputations to national integration.
• The Bill named Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 which is recently proposed in the Parliament will deal with Hate Speech under Section 297 which will replace Section 295A of IPC if assented to.
  • Section 297 - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs - Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Case Laws

The SC has time and again emphasized on the importance of freedom of speech and has given verdicts on the matter of online speech, few of which are discussed below:

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
  • The court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), which had criminalized online speech, stating that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Sukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019):
  • The court held that hate speech on social media platforms is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression provided under the Constitution of India (COI), 1950.

Constitutional Provision Related to Hate Speech

Article 19(1)(a) of the COI deals with Freedom of speech and expression along with the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed under Article 19(2).

Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19 (2) - Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Hate Speech Under Indian Penal Code, 1860

IPC incorporates provisions of Hate Speech majorly under Sections 153A, 295A, 505, etc. some of them are mentioned below:

• Section 153 A - Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. —

(1) Whoever—

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or

(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 505 - Statements Conducing to Public Mischief —

(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report-

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. —

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—

Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.

Source – Madras High Court 

Why in News?  

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of Kajendran v. Superintendent of Police and others has held that when a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual relationship, the registered medical practitioner may not insist on disclosure of the name of the minor for preparing a report under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012 (POCSO). 

Background   

• The aforesaid matter was given to the Juvenile Justice Board by the Madras High Court.  
• Thereafter, a bench comprising Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the POCSO and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 on the judicial side as the issues raised during the course of hearing of this matter needed to be taken forward in order to ensure that best practices are put in place for all the stakeholders.  

Court’s Observations 

• The Court observed that where a minor approaches a registered medical practitioner for medical termination of pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual activity, it is not necessary to insist for the disclosure of the name of the minor in the report that is normally given under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. 
• This procedure has to be followed, since there are instances where a minor and their guardian may not be interested in proceeding further with the case and entangle themselves in a legal process. In such instances, such termination of pregnancy can be made without the disclosure of the name of the minor.  
• The Court added that these observations could be taken into consideration while preparing the SOP with respect to the medical tests of victim girls. 

Legal Provisions  

POCSO Act, 2012 

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development. 
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.  
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.  
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents. 
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO amendment bill, 2019.  
• Section 4 of this Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault.  
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years. 
• Section 19 of this Act contains provisions relating to ‘Reporting of Offences’. It states that -  

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), any person (including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to-- 

(a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or 

(b) the local police. 

(2) Every report given under sub-section (1) shall be-- 

(a) ascribed an entry number and recorded in writing; 

(b) be read over to the informant; 

(c) shall be entered in a book to be kept by the Police Unit. 

(3) Where the report under sub-section (1) is given by a child, the same shall be recorded under subsection (2) in a simple language so that the child understands contents being recorded. 

(4) In case contents are being recorded in the language not understood by the child a translator or an interpreter shall be provided to the child if he fails to understand the same. 

(5) Where the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police is satisfied that the child against whom an offence has been committed is in need of care and protection, then, it shall, after recording the reasons in writing, make immediate arrangement to give him such care and protection.  

(6) The Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police shall, without unnecessary delay but within a period of twenty-four hours, report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee and the Special Court. 

(7) No person shall incur any liability, whether civil or criminal, for giving the information in good faith for the purpose of sub-section (1). 

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 

• This Act came into force on January 15, 2016.  
• It repealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 
• This Act seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children as ratified by India on December 11, 1992.  
• It specifies 58+ procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law. 
• It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc.  
• The Act further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years 
• According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021, crimes against children which are mentioned in the chapter “Other Offences Against Children” of the JJ Act, 2015 and that allows imprisonment between three and seven years will be deemed “non-cognizable”. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the court can record the presence of a party who has led a substantial portion of evidence and failed to appear.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of Y. P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.

Background

• A suit for recovery of money and interest was filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Board against Miraj Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and its five directors.
• The defendant's counsel withdrew his name from the case and had also not cross-examined the witnesses.
• Subsequently, the Trial Court directed the suit to proceed under Order XVII Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the defendants and decreed the suit ex-parte with costs.
• The defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree.
  • Trial Court allowed the application and restored the suit.
• The plaintiffs then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court (HC), where HC invoked explanation under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC and held ex-parte decree to be valid.
• The appellants aggrieved from the order of High Court, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

• The Court observed Trial Court ought to have issued notice to the defendants to engage another counsel, which it did not do and proceeded ex-parte.
• The Apex Court further stated that where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear the court has liberty to proceed as if such party was present.

Ex-Parte Decree

• Order IX of CPC deals with the appearance and non-appearance of the party.
  • Ex-parte decree against defendant is passed under Order IX Rule 6 of CPC.
• If any party does not appear on the date prescribed by the court, the court will issue summons and notices to appear.
• In the case of proceedings of a civil suit, if a plaintiff was present and the defendant was not present, and the summons was duly issued, then the court could proceed against the defendant and pass an ex-parte decree.

If Parties Fail to Appear on Day Fixed

• The procedure if parties fail to appear on the day fixed is mentioned under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC.
• It mentions the situation where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear.
• The Court in such situation may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit.
  • One of the modes under Order IX Rule 6 is passing an ex-parte decree.
• The explanation under Order XVII Rule 2 states that the court has discretion to proceed against the party whose evidence or substantial portion of evidence has already been recorded.

Remedy for Defendant Against Ex-Parte Decree

• Any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he can opt the remedy of filing application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting it aside.
• Defendant may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside.
• The court shall make an order of setting aside that decree if it is satisfied on the following grounds:
  • If the defendant satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served.
  • He was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for a hearing.