List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has stated that any confession made by a person, before his arrest and prior to him being accused of any offence would be directly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and there is no possibility of applying the exception under Section 27 in the case Rajesh v. State of MP.

What is the Background of Rajesh v. State of MP Case?

• A 15-year-old boy was killed brutally in July, 2013.
  • A Neighbour (Om Prakash), along with his brother (Raja Yadav), and his son (Rajesh @ Rakesh Yadav), stood trial in Sessions Case for Ajit Pal’s murder and connected offences.
• Additional Sessions Judge convicted all three of them on different counts:
  • Om Prakash Yadav was held guilty under Section 364A read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment along with default imprisonment of two months, if he failed to pay a fine of ₹2,000.
• The other two accused were held guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 201 IPC.
  • They were sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 364A and to two months default imprisonment each, if they individually failed to pay the fine amounts of ₹1,000/- and ₹1,000/- respectively.
  • Also, for Section 201 they were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of ₹500/- coupled with one month’s default imprisonment.
• An appeal was made to the High Court (HC) and the sentences were confirmed.
• Assailing the HC’s verdict, the three convicts approached the SC by way of appeal.
  • The SC inspected the circumstances during the recording of Rajesh Yadav's (appellant) confession and noted that the police had recorded his statement without formally arresting him.
  • Therefore, the appellant cannot be legally categorized as "charged with a crime" at that point in time.
  • The discovery of the deceased's body was made based on this confession admissible under Section 27 of IEA.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC remarked that for a confession to be considered admissible under Section 27 of IEA, it must satisfy two key requirements:
  • The person making the confession must be accused of any offence.
  • The confession must be made while the accused are in the custody of the police.
• Following landmark cases were referred by the SC:
  • Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (1947): Privy Council had emphasized that the crucial conditions to invoke Section 27 of IEA are being "accused of any offense" and being in "police custody".
  • State of Karnataka v. David Rozario (2002): The SC reinforced that information admissible under Section 27 of IEA becomes inadmissible if it does not come from a person in the 'custody of a police officer' or comes from a person 'not in the custody of a police officer.'
  • Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh (2019): SC highlighted that an involuntary confessional statement of the accused is not admissible under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
  • Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002): SC held that information, which would otherwise be admissible, becomes inadmissible under Section 26 of the IEA as it did not come from a person in the ‘custody of a police officer’ or rather, came from a person not in the ‘custody of a police officer”.
    • It was further noted that this doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search was made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.
• The SC therefore applied these principles and conclude that “the purported discovery of the dead body, the murder weapon, and the other material objects, even if it was at the behest of Rajesh Yadav, cannot be proved against him, as he was not ‘accused of any offence’ and was not in ‘police custody’ at the point of time he allegedly.
  • Needless to state, this lapse on the part of the police is fatal to the prosecution’s case, as it essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the appellants, purportedly under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”

What are the Legal Provisions of IEA Involved?

Confession made to Police Officer

• Word Confession is nowhere defined under the IEA, but Sir James Stephen has stated it as “An admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime”.
• Section 25 mentions that “No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
• Section 26 further mentions that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
• Section 27 provides exception to the abovementioned Sections:
  • Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
  • Requirements for application of Section 27:
    • The fact must have been discovered as a consequence of information received from the accused.
    • The person giving the information must be the accused in the case.
    • He must be in custody of a police officer.
    • Only that portion can be proved which distinctly relates to the relevant fact and is discovered subsequently.
    • The fact discovered must be related to the crime committed.
• Once a recovery of the "weapon or object" has been made based on the "information" related to the "fact discovered", under Section 27, only the portion of the information that specifically pertains to the "fact discovered" is admissible in court.
  • Any confession by the accused regarding their prior use of the "weapon or object" during the commission of the offence is not admissible, unless their mere possession or concealment of the "weapon or object" itself constitutes a separate offense.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Vikram D. Chauhan observed that it is well within the power of the court to segregate, sever, and set aside part of the award and uphold the remaining part.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited (HSCL) v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).

What is the Background of HSCL v. NOIDA?

• HSCL, (appellant) a government undertaking entered into an agreement with NOIDA (respondent) for the construction of two flyovers with clover leaves and allied work at Rs. 106.10 crores.
• A report from IIT Delhi found that the cost of a project was made to seem higher by about Rs. 60 crores, the organization in charge of the project, HSCL, was told to stop all the work.
• After talking back and forth many times, HSCL decided not to ask for compensation for the money they lost and the increased costs while the work was stopped.
  • However, after the completion of the work, HSCL changed their stance and demanded compensation for both the time when the work was stopped and the time before and after they started working again.
  • They made a Supplementary MoU where HSCL agreed to forego its claim towards damages and price escalation during the period contract remained suspended.
  • HSCL went for arbitration where the arbitrator held in the favor of HSCL.
• NOIDA went to commercial court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). They said the damages that HSCL claimed for the project being paused for 928 days should not be considered.
• The validity of Supplementary MoU was upheld. The plea of coercion, duress, undue influence and unequal bargaining power by HSCL was rejected.
  • The appellant then contended in the present appeal that questions related to coercion and duress were beyond the power of the commercial court under Section 34 of A&C Act.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• While allowing the application of doctrine of severability on arbitral award the court stated the following restrictions:
  • While exercising the power, the court cannot modify the conclusive findings of arbitral tribunal and,
  • The remaining part is capable of surviving on its own.
• The court further stated that, “it is now well- settled that if an award deals with and decides several claims separately and distinctly, even if the court finds that the award in regard to some items is bad, the court will segregate the award on items which did not suffer from any infirmity and uphold the award to that extent”.

What is the Doctrine of Severability?

• This doctrine, often referred to as the "separability" doctrine, provides a mechanism for courts to determine whether a particular provision of a law or constitution can be severed from the rest of the document without rendering the entire document unconstitutional or void.
• The Doctrine of Severability embodies the idea that an invalid or unconstitutional provision should not taint an otherwise valid law or constitution, thus serving as a safeguard against judicial overreach and ensuring that the legal system continues to function effectively.
• It is derived from Article 13 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

What are the Landmark Cases of Doctrine of Severability?

• Marbury v. Madison (1803):
  • While not directly related to severability, Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which is the foundation for courts' authority to determine the constitutionality of laws.
  • This case laid the groundwork for future decisions on severability.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
  • The Supreme Court held Section 14 of the Prevention Detention Act, 1950 void while stating that the whole statute cannot be struck down.
• R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957):
  • In this case, the SC held that if a part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional, that part can be separated or severed from the rest of the statute, provided that the remaining portion can still stand on its own and function independently.
  • This principle allows the court to strike down only the offending or unconstitutional provisions of a law while keeping the valid portions intact, rather than declaring the entire law invalid.

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud allowed the virtual hearing of arguments of a deaf advocate through sign language and permitted the translation of court hearings in sign language.

• The Supreme Court was hearing the matter of Javed Abidi Foundation v. Union of India.

What is the Background of Javed Abidi Foundation v. Union of India?

• The petition was filed by the Javed Abidi Foundation seeking directions to take into consideration the rights of students with disabilities.
  • The petitioners were seeking equal rights of students with disabilities during online classes.
• Recently, the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) asked permission from the court to allow a deaf advocate Sarah Sunny to argue in virtual court on this matter.
  • Indian Sign Language (ISL), interpreter was appointed to aid the deaf advocate.
• The court asked the Central Government to update the court on its step upon the issue where Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said that Central Government shall file final status report to dispose of the case.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The case is pending since 2021, however, court observed in one of the hearing dates that “The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD) creates an obligation on the part of the State to take positive measures to ensure that in reality, the persons with disabilities get enabled to exercise their rights.”

What is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD)?

• Introduction:
  • The RPwD Act is a legislation enacted by the Government of India to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.
  • It replaced the earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which India ratified in 2007.
• Scope:
  • The Act expanded the definition of disabilities to include not only physical disabilities but also intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental illnesses, and multiple disabilities.
  • It prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities and promotes the principle of equal opportunity and full participation in society.
  • The Act enshrines the principle of equality by prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability.
  • It extends this principle to various aspects of life, including education, employment, and access to public services.
• Reservation of Seats for PwDs:
  • It reserves certain seats in the local government bodies (Panchayats and Municipalities) for persons with disabilities.
    • e.g. - Chhattisgarh made the presence of PwDs mandatory in all panchayats across the state by amending the State Panchayati Raj Act, 1993.
• National and State Commissions:
  • The Act establishes national and state-level commissions for persons with disabilities to monitor the implementation of the Act and address grievances.
• Penalties:
  • It prescribes penalties for offences committed against persons with disabilities, including physical and sexual abuse.
  • The punishment under Section 92 of the act for offences of atrocities is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine.

What is Another Major Step taken by the SC for PwDs?

• In 2022, the SC enlisted to audit the position of accessibility of PwDs to SC website.
• CJI constituted a committee that is ‘Supreme Court Committee on Accessibility’ to audit the physical and functional access to the website and make it user friendly for disabled.
  • The committee, headed by Justice S Ravindra Bhat, is directed to prepare a questionnaire of what issues disabled people face while assessing the website.