List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V. State of Gujarat has held that, when evidence against all the accused individuals is identical the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven't approached the Court.

Background

• A total of 13 persons were prosecuted over a case of mob violence in the Shah Alam Area, Ahmedabad, Gujarat that took place on 7th November 2003.
• Accused nos. 1 to 6 and 13 were convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment whereas the rest were acquitted by the trial court.
• The present appellant­ (accused) is accused no.6, the conviction was made for the offences punishable under Section 396, 395, 307, 435, 201 read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The maximum sentence imposed was life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 396 read with 149 of IPC.
• Upon appeal to the Gujarat High Court (HC) division bench, the sentence was brought down to 10 years.
• Thereafter in 2016, accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 preferred a Criminal Appeal to the Supreme Court (SC) and consequently the said three accused were acquitted.
  • The acquittal was based upon the decision given in the case of Musa Khan & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1976): A court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end.
• A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the accused no. 2 which was summarily dismissed.
• The present appellant accused no. 6 preferred the present appeal to the SC and Accused No. 3 and 4 did not seek any remedy against the judgement of HC.

Court’s Observations

• The SC observed that accused no. 3 and 4 were similarly placed as accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 in the trial who were initially convicted and later it was set aside by SC.
• Also, accused no. 2 must get the benefit of parity, the Court observed. Accused no. 2 had challenged his conviction before the SC but his SLP was dismissed without recording reasons.
• The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that "When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination".

Legal Provision

Indian Penal Code, 1860

• The charges in the present matter pertained to following provisions:
  • Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender — Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
    • If a capital offence. —shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine;
    • If punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
    • If punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 307 - Attempt to murder—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
  • Attempts by life-convicts —When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
• Section 395 - Punishment for dacoity — Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 396 - Dacoity with murder — If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 435 - Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees.—Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object — If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Key Elements of Section 149

• Unlawful Assembly: To invoke Section 149, there must be an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC.
• Common Object: The common object of the unlawful assembly must be specified.
  • In the State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Ors (2003) case, the SC stated that “the meaning of the word ‘object’ means the purpose and, in order to make it ‘common’, it must be shared by all.
• Liability: Section 149 makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the offence committed by any member of the assembly in pursuit of the common object.
  • In the Rohtas v. State of Haryana (2020) case, the SC held that the offence under this provision creates a vicarious liability by virtue of membership in the unlawful assembly.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has reprimanded the practice of filling several Miscellaneous Civil Applications (MCA) for seeking review of the judgment passed in the Second Appeal in the matter of Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust & Ors. V. Ukaji Ramaji-since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Anr.

Background

• The appellants run a natural therapy center in the name of ‘Vasant Nature Care Hospital’ and ‘Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust’.
• Respondent, Ukaji Ramaji (since deceased, through his legal representatives) was employed as a watchman by the therapy center, he was entrusted to take care of the said hospitals and was allotted a room there.
• The respondent was relieved from his duties on account of indulgence in illegal activities.
• Ukaji preferred a regular Civil Suit against the appellant seeking declaration that the suit premises was of his ownership and a permanent injunction was sought for restraining the appellants from interfering with his possession of the suit premises.
• The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, being aggrieved of the said judgment, Ukaji preferred a Regular Civil Appeal before the Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).
• The appeal was allowed and an irrevocable license over the suit property was granted to him which would be terminable only after giving a month’s notice.
• The appellants now preferred the Second Appeal, before the High Court of Gujarat (HC) which was allowed.
• Ukaji expired while pendency of second appeal and his Legal Representatives (Present Respondent) preferred a SLP in SC.
• The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn after recording that the present respondents (legal heirs of late Ukaji) had the intention to file review application before the HC.
• Three years thereafter Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) - MCA No. 01 of 2016 was filed in the HC for review of Second Appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
• Four other MCA numbered MCA No. 02 of 2016, MCA No. 01 of 2017, MCA No. 01 of 2018, MCA No. 01 of 2019 were filed one after the other and all were dismissed on ground of want of prosecution.
• MCA No. 03 of 2019 was filed in HC for restoration of MCA No. 01 of 2019, which was allowed.
• Hence, the present matter in the SC.

Court’s Observation

The SC bench comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta while deciding an appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of HC, observed that the HC had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

Legal Provisions

Case Law

• Recently the SC in Ramisetty Venkatanna v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb held that a plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action.
  • Order VII Rule 11
    • Rejection of plaint — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —
    • (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action.
    • (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.
    • (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so.
    • (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
    • (e) where it is not filed in duplicate.
    • (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9.
    • Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
• Also, Order VI Rule 16 grants the courts power to strike out vexatious pleadings:
  • Order VI Rule 16
    • Striking out pleadings —The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading—
    • (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, of
    • (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit, or
    • (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

Source: Indian Express

Why in News?

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud recently announced that now the Supreme Court’s data related to the pendency and disposal of cases will be available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) portal.

Background

• The CJI while addressing an open court announced that the SC Registry’s computer cell along with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has contributed to onboarding the real-time case data of SC on the NJDG portal.
• He addressed that 80,000 cases are pending, 15,000 are not registered yet, so they are not pending yet.
• He added that judges have graphs now related to that data which has now aided in the disposal of 5,000-plus cases in July 2023.
• He addressed 583 cases pending before 3-judge benches, and soon he will set up those benches to dispose of the data.

CJI’s Observation

• While discussing NJDG, 50th CJI opined that, “Onboarding of SC data on NJDG portal under the open data policy is a step on our part to bring transparency and accountability in the judicial domain”.

National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

• Introduction:
  • The NJDG was developed by NIC under the Central Government Ease of Doing Business initiative.
  • It is a part of eCourts Integrated Mission Mode Project which has been under implementation since 2007.
    • Phase I of the project was implemented during 2011-2015.
    • Phase II of the project started in 2015 to computerize District and Subordinate Court’s data. However, data of these courts were updated on NJDG portal on 7^th August 2013.
    • NJDG for High Courts was launched by Shri. K.K. Venugopal on 3^rd July 2020.
    • From 2023, SC data is also available on the portal.
  • Its primary purpose is to monitor the status of pending and resolved cases within SC, HCs and Subordinate Courts.
• Functions:
  • NJDG offers an extensive repository containing orders, judgments, and case particulars from District and Subordinate Courts, HCs and SC.
  • This web portal enables open access to statistics for all visitors.
  • Furthermore, NJDG functions as a decision support system, assisting courts in monitoring case delays based on various attributes, such as year wise, coram wise pending cases and pending cases in each branch of law such as civil, criminal etc.
• Challenges:
  • Inconsistencies in data entry, missing information, and errors can affect the reliability of the platform.
  • India's vast geographical and infrastructural diversity posed challenges in ensuring that all courts, especially those in remote areas, which do not have the necessary infrastructure and connectivity to participate effectively in the NJDG.
  • Ensuring the privacy and security of court records and case details has been an ongoing challenge.

Benefits of NJDG

• Transparency:
  • The NJDG has significantly enhanced transparency and accountability within the system by openly sharing information about the status and disposal of cases nationwide.
• Streamlined Mechanism:
  • Till now, it aided HC judges, District Judges, and the HC Registry in judicial planning, monitoring, and remote administration.
  • Citizens can access case information, judgments, and orders online, reducing the scope for corruption and malpractice.
• Time Effectiveness:
  • The timely data provided by NJDG is proving invaluable to authorities as they shape policies and make decisions related to judicial governance.
  • One of the most notable impacts of the NJDG has been the reduction in the backlog of cases. The digitization of case records and real-time tracking of case progress has significantly accelerated the pace of justice delivery.
• Access to Justice:
  • NJDG has provided access to justice, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged communities.
  • Litigants no longer need to travel long distances or rely on intermediaries to access legal information.
• Reduction of Case Pendency:
  • One of the most notable impacts of the NJDG has been the reduction in the pendency of cases.
  • The digitization of case records and real-time tracking of case progress has significantly accelerated the pace of justice delivery.