List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that the absence of allegations of annoyance and alleged stated words to be obscene words cannot attract the charge under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court was hearing the matter of Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What is the Background of Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• Two complainants submitted a joint application in writing before the Police alleging that they were the Newspaper Journalists, and on the information received, they were gone to cover the matter in Bihta village, Madhya Pradesh where the accused abused them in response to instigation by one other person.
• The complainants alleged that the accused also threatened to damage their camera and were attempting to manhandle them.
• The complainants lodged a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 294 and 506 of the IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
• The accused filed the present petition before the HC to quash the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC are neither made out from the contents of complaint submitted in writing on the basis of which FIR was registered almost after one month nor from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

What is Section 294 of IPC?

• Introduction:
  • Section 294 of IPC deals with obscenity and its various manifestations in society which seeks to strike a balance between individual freedom of expression and maintaining public decency and morality.
• Key Provision:
  • Section 294 of IPC: Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—
    • does any obscene act in any public place, or
    • sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
• Elements of the Provision:
  • Obscene Acts:
    • The section covers any obscene act performed in a public place.
    • The term "obscene" is not precisely defined in the IPC, but it generally refers to any act that is sexually explicit or offensive, going against the prevailing standards of decency.
  • Obscene Songs, Ballads, or Words:
    • This aspect extends the coverage of the law to verbal forms of obscenity.
  • To the Annoyance of Others:
    • The acts or expressions should be done in a manner that causes annoyance to others.
    • This requirement is essential to ensure that the law does not infringe on individual freedom of expression more than necessary.

What are the Major Cases Related to Section 294 of IPC?

• Ranjit Udaram Kharote v. State of Maharashtra (1964):
  • This case established that the test for obscenity under Section 294 should be based on contemporary community standards.
  • It also emphasized that artistic, scientific, or literary merit could be considered as a valid defence against charges of obscenity.
• Om Prakash v. State of M.P (1989):
  • The Madhya Pradesh HC held that mere platitudinous utterances signifying the enraged state of person’s mind would not be sufficient to attract Section 294 of IPC.
• N.S. Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha (2022):
  • The Supreme Court held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC but there must be further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar stated that High Courts, while exercising their jurisdiction of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) should ordinarily frame substantial questions at the stage of admission.

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

• The respondent (Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, defendant in the original suit) agreed to sell the property i.e., subject matter of dispute.
• The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, accorded necessary permissions for transfer for such sale.
• Various attempts were made for the execution subject to the above permission and the plaintiff issued notices to that effect, which were served on the respondents requiring them to be present at the office of the authority concerned on a given date.
• Notices, however, remained not complied with as the defendants allegedly tried to evade coming to the office of the authority for such purpose.
• Hence suit was filed which went through following stages:
  • The Trial Court framed certain issues and directed the plaintiff to deposit ₹ 6 lakh with the Court within 15 days and upon such deposit, the defendant was to necessarily execute the sale deed to be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
  • First Appellate Court in addition to the questions framed by the Trial Court, framed two additional issues - whether the suit is within limitation and whether the impugned judgement required interference?
    • The court found the suit within limitation and the findings of the trial court were not disturbed.
• In second appeal, High Court (HC) framed substantial questions and held that the concurrent findings of the trial courts were based on “complete misapplication of law” and “erroneous consideration” hence the concurrent judgements rendered by both the Courts below were set aside and appeal was dismissed.
• Thereafter, the present appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC expressed its disapproval towards the handling of the appeal by the HC, noting that it was done hastily and without affording the parties a sufficient opportunity for a hearing and stated “The haste with which the Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated. The governing statute lays considerable emphasis on hearing the parties on all questions and the same is reflected in various pronouncements of this Court. The approach adopted by a Court in disposing of such appeals must abide by the same.”
• The SC cited several judgments on this matter, described as follows:
  • Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001): A 3 judge Bench of SC, mentioned what constitutes a substantial question of law:­
    • A question not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent.
    • Any material bearing on the decision of case.
    • A new point raised for the first time before the HC is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter.
  • Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007): Division Bench of SC has held that the HC’s jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 CPC is only in a case where substantial questions of law are involved.
  • In two cases namely Umerkhan v. Bimillabi (2011) and Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt Ltd. & Ors. (2011), SC held that non­-formulation of substantial question(s) of law renders proceedings “patently illegal”.
• SC opined that in the case at hand, the HC in Second Appeal has overturned concurrent findings of facts without pointing out the exceptional circumstance or the perversity in the findings of the courts below, accordingly the judgment of the HC passed in second appeal was set aside and remanded the matter to the HC for fresh consideration.

What are the Legal Provisions of CPC Involved?

Appeal

• The expression appeal as it is, is not defined under the Code. It though can be described as Judicial Examination of the decision by a Higher Court of the decision of a Lower Court.
• Basic Elements of Appeal:
  • A verdict
  • A person aggrieved
  • A reviewing body ready and willing to take such appeal.
• The right to appeal is not an inherent right and the appeal only lies where the statute provides for the same.
• An appeal is a continuation of a suit and a decree passed by the appellate court would be construed to be a decree passed by the court of first instance.
• Section 96 of the code provides for the situation where appeals may or may not lie from original decree as:
  • An appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
  • An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.
  • No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties.
  • No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees.
• The provisions for second appeal is provided under Section 100 as:
  • Section 100 - Second appeal —
  • (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
  • (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.
  • (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
  • (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
  • (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.
• Section 102 provides that no second appeal lies, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.

Source: Indian Express

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court has sent summons to a digital platform known as 'People of Indian (POI)' in response to a copyright infringement lawsuit initiated by 'Humans of Bombay (HOB)'. POI shares narratives about common individuals in a manner closely resembling that of HOB.

• The Delhi High Court gave the observations in the matter of Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

What is the Background of Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. v. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case?

• The HOB filed a suit before Delhi HC to direct POI to take down the work of HOB which is either used directly or indirectly.
• HOB contented that POI has not only copied its storytelling style but also imitated the images shared and used by it.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Pratibha Singh of Delhi HC listed the case observing that the case involves ‘copyright infringement’ and some images shared by POI were identical to images shared by HOB.

What is Copyright Infringement under Copyright Act, 1957?

• About the Act:
  • The Copyright Act, 1957 governs copyright protection in India.
  • The act grants various exclusive rights to copyright holders, including the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and adapt their creative works.
  • It aims to protect the intellectual property rights of creators and encourages the development and dissemination of creative works while balancing the interests of copyright holders and the public.
• Infringement:
  • Copyright infringement under this act refers to the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner.
  • Copyright owners have the exclusive right to reproduce the work, communicate it to the public, and adapt it. Any unauthorized exercise of these rights can be considered infringement.

When can a ‘Substantial Imitation’ be Considered as a Copyright Infringement?

• The term "substantial imitation" implies that the copying is not just minimal or accidental.
• Substantial imitation can be considered copyright infringement because it involves copying or reproducing a substantial or significant portion of a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner.
• When someone else copies a substantial part of a copyrighted work without authorization, they are essentially using the creative expression of the original author without permission, which violates the author's exclusive rights.
• Copyright owners have the right to enforce their copyrights by taking legal action against those who engage in substantial imitation or other forms of infringement.
  • Remedies for copyright infringement can include damages, injunctive relief (preventing further infringement), and the recovery of content.

What is ‘Passing off’?

• Passing off is a legal concept primarily related to trademark law, not copyright law.
• It involves the unauthorized use of a trademark or a trade name in a way that misleads consumers into believing that the goods or services offered by one party are those of another party.
• To establish a passing off claim, the following elements typically need to be proven:
  • The plaintiff has goodwill or reputation associated with their goods or services.
  • The defendant has engaged in some form of misrepresentation (intentional or unintentional) that creates confusion among consumers.
  • The misrepresentation has caused or is likely to cause damage to the plaintiff's goodwill or reputation.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadilla Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) observed that, “While dealing with cases relating to passing off, one of the important tests which has to be applied in each case is whether the misrepresentation made by the defendant is of such a nature as is likely to cause an ordinary consumer to confuse one product for another due to similarity of marks and other surrounding factors. What is likely to cause confusion would vary from case to case”.
  • The court also mentioned ‘passing off’ as an action of deceit by stating that “Passing off is said to be a species of unfair trade competition or of actionable unfair trading by which one person, through deception, attempts to obtain an economic benefit of the reputation which other has established for himself in a particular trade or business”.