List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has recently disapproved of an order of the Orissa High Court which restricted the bail to a particular time period in the matter of Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha.

Background

• The matter pertains to offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) which was pending in the Court of learned Special Judge cum Additional Sessions Judge, Balliguda.
• The petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Special Judge which was rejected.
• Hence, an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was filed in the Orissa High Court (HC) for grant of bail.
• The HC allowed the interim bail application while stating to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of three months from the date of release and the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court immediately on expiry of the three months period. Violation of any of the terms and conditions shall entail cancellation of interim bail.
• Aggrieved by the time limit for bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

• Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal allowed the appeal and set aside the HC order. The court also ordered that the bail order shall operate till the disposal of the case by the Trial Court.

Section 439 of CrPC

• This provision grants the High Court and Sessions Court special powers to grant bail.
• Bail under this provision can be granted if the accused is in custody.
  • ‘In custody’ not only means when the police arrest a person or present him before the magistrate for remand or other forms of custody, but also when he surrenders before the court and complies with its orders.

Types of Bail under CrPC

• Regular Bail: The court orders the release of a person who is under arrest from Police custody after paying the amount as bail money. An accused can apply for regular bail under Section 437 and 439 of CrPC.
• Interim Bail: This is a direct order by the court to provide temporary and short-term bail to the accused until his regular or anticipatory bail application is pending before the court.
• Anticipatory Bail: A person under apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail to the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 438 of CrPC.

NDPS Act

• The NDPS Act, or Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is a law enacted to combat the illegal trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• It came into force on 14^th November 1985.
• It prescribes penalties for various offences related to narcotics and psychotropic substances, with the aim of preventing their misuse and promoting public health and safety.

Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) -

Section 20 - Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder —

(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,

(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b)

(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

Section 29 - Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy —

(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.

(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which—

(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or

(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that, when time is not fixed for specific performance of a contract, then the limitation period for a specific performance suit will run from the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract to determine the period of limitation in the matter of A. Valliammai V. K.P. Murali.

Background

• The appellant (A. Valliammai) statedly owned 11 acres of land.
• Appellant had entered into an agreement to sell the property in 1988. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received as an advance and the balance consideration was required to be paid within one year.
• The timeline for payment of the balance sale consideration and execution of the sale deed was later extended by 6 months.
• In 1991, a legal notice was issued to the appellant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed within one month. It was agreed that the sale deed will be executed within one year from the date of the agreement.
• A partition suit was pending concerning the suit property and the sale deed was to be executed after disposal of the partition suit, which was later dismissed for default.
• Later in 1991, a suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from dealing with Suit Property till the execution of the sale deed.
• An order of temporary injunction was passed against the appellant by the trial court.
• Now, the present respondent (K.P. Murali) initiated the proceedings in 1995 seeking specific performance in accordance with the contract for the sale of a property upon notice made in the year 1991 regarding injunction.
• The defence was made on several grounds including the bar of limitation for specific performance of contract.
• The Trial Court framed one issue, that is, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of specific performance and directed the performance.
• The above decision of the court was affirmed by the division bench of the Madras High Court.
• The appellant has thereby approached the Apex Court in appeal.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela Trivedi of SC noted that Article 54 of First Division – Suits, of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a 3-year limitation period for the suit of specific performance.
• The court while observing that limitation period to file a suit for specific performance had commenced in 1991 when the suit for injunction was filed and the present suit was filed in 1995 stated that “The appellants must succeed in this appeal since the suit for specific performance is clearly and without doubt barred by limitation” and the decision of the HC was thereby set aside.

Legal Provision

• The limitation period for the Specific Performance of a contract is provided by the Limitation Act, 1963.

• Specific Performance of a Contract: It is an equitable relief provided under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The provision as amended by the 2018 amendment to the act is as follows:
• Section 10 - Specific performance in respect of contracts: The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16.
• Section 11 - Cases in which specific performance of contracts connected with trusts enforceable: (2) A contract made by a trustee in excess of his powers or in breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.
• Section 14 - Contracts not specifically enforceable: The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:—
  • (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20;
  • (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise;
  • (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and
  • (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.
• Section 16 - Personal bars to relief: Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—
  • (a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20; or
  • (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
  • (c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
  • Explanation - For the purposes of clause (c)-
  • (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
  • (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra observed that the police disclosure does not result in media trial so as to allow pre-determination of the guilt of the accused.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra.

Background

• The SC was considering the question of the mannerism which police must opt when conducting media briefing of a particular case during the pendency of trial one part of the case related to encounters has already been adjudged in 2014.
• CJI D Y Chandrachud gave prominence to the question after determining the surge of electronic media reporting.
• An amicus curie was appointed by the court, who circulated a questionnaire to all States and Union Territories, receiving responses from some of them.
• He said that “We cannot restrain the media from reporting. But the sources can be restrained. Because the source is the state”.
• SC agreed with the need of framing guidelines or manual by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in respect of media reporting of a crime and granted a 3 three months' time to MHA for preparing a comprehensive manual.
  • SC further stated that the recommendations of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will also be considered.

Court’s Observation

The SC while dealing with lack of application of its previous verdicts on medial trials gave following observations:

• Media reportage which implicates an accused is unfair. Biased reporting also gives rise to public suspicion that the person has committed an offence.
  • The media reports can also violate the privacy under Article 21 of victims.
• The guidelines by the Union were prepared almost a decade ago on 1st April 2010. Since then, with the upsurge of reporting of crime not only in print media but also electronic media, it has become important for there to be a balance.

Media Trial

• Media Trial refers to the media reporting which touches or surrounds around the guilt or innocence of a person, during pendency of trial or after the final verdict.
• Media trials in India have emerged as a powerful force that can both serve the cause of justice and undermine it.
• Media Trial lacks any stable constitutional identity however it can be interpreted from Article 19 which guards the freedom of speech of expression of Media.
• After the penetration of Artificial Intelligence and advanced tools, it becomes quite arduous for a viewer to differentiate between fact and fiction.
• The surge in paid news and fake news is demeaning the veracity of Media which is considered as a fourth pillar of democracy along with Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
• In the web of paid news, fake news along with the fancier and dominating reporting, it is very convenient for media houses, channels, social media pages, etc., to shape a case as per their advantages irrespective of the final verdict.

Landmark Cases

• Siddhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi (2010):
  • One of the earliest and most well-known instances of a media trial in India was the Jessica Lal murder case.
  • The accused, Manu Sharma, was a high-profile individual, and the murder occurred in a prominent Delhi nightclub.
  • The media's relentless coverage of the case, combined with public outrage, played a pivotal role in bringing the accused to justice.
  • However, it also raised concerns about the fairness of the trial, as the media's scrutiny put immense pressure on the judiciary and witnesses.
  • Ultimately, Manu Sharma was convicted in year 2010 by the verdict of SC, however, his pre-mature release from jail got approval in 2020.
• Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar v. State of UP & Anr. (2017):
  • The Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj double murder case, also known as the Noida double murder case, garnered nationwide attention.
  • Media outlets extensively covered the case, and their reporting sometimes bordered on sensationalism.
  • The accused, Aarushi's parents, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar, were acquitted after a lengthy trial.
  • The media trial led to a conviction in the court of public opinion, which was starkly different from the actual judicial outcome.
  • This case demonstrated the pitfalls of trial by media and its potential to influence public perception and opinion.
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Shashi Tharoor (2021):
  • The mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar, the wife of senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, generated considerable media interest.
  • The media's scrutiny in this case led to concerns about witness tampering and the potential impact on the fairness of the investigation.
  • The Court discharged the accused in 2021, however, Delhi Police approached the Delhi High Court challenging the decision in 2022.
• Rhea Chakraborty v. The State of Bihar (2020):
  • The death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput was widely covered by the media.
  • The relentless coverage by media houses painted the accused as the primary suspect of murder, often without concrete evidence.