List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has recently determined that being acquitted in a related criminal proceeding does not necessarily lead to a favorable outcome in ongoing disciplinary proceedings against an employee in the case of State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga.

What is the Background of the State Bank of India & Ors v. P Zandenga Case?

• The respondent (P. Zadenga) was employed in the State Bank of India as Assistant, Aizwal, Manipur.
• A complaint was lodged by three government retailers with the Aizawl Police Station that their challan deposits with the said Branch had not been entered into the cash receipt scroll.
  • District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl West, also lodged a complaint that a certain retailer had taken the delivery of particular food stuff using a fake challan.
• Pursuant to the above, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent:
  • A Memorandum was issued to him in 1999, wherein it was alleged that he had received Rs.61,908 (in 1996) in respect of which a challan was issued, but the amount was never deposited in the respective account.
  • Two other similar occurrences (in 1995) regarding the amount of Rs.24,640 and Rs.27,412 were also alleged.
  • Three different First Information Report (FIR) stood registered against him under which he was arrested but later released on bail.
  • The delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending against him.
• The High Court (HC) was tasked with answering whether there is a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected to them is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin.
• The Division Bench of the HC held that disciplinary proceedings must be set aside.
• The present appeal was thus filed in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings would not warrant an automatic stay of disciplinary proceedings, especially if they had been initiated after the prescribed in terms of service in this case one-year period.
• It was also highlighted by the SC that an acquittal in criminal proceedings did not automatically result in a corresponding discharge in disciplinary proceedings.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict" are legal concepts that pertain to double jeopardy, an important principle in criminal law.
  • Autrefois Acquit: This is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from being tried again for the same offence after they have been acquitted (found not guilty) of that offence in a previous trial.
  • Autrefois Convict: This doctrine is similar to Autrefois Acquit but applies to a situation where a person has already been convicted of a particular crime. Once a person has been convicted and has served their sentence for a specific offence, they cannot be tried again for that same offense based on the same set of facts.
• The above are enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences - (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
  • Section 300 - Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. —

(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.

(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220.

(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.

(4) A person acquitted convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.

(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.

Disciplinary Proceedings:

• Disciplinary proceedings are a separate legal process that typically occurs within an organizational or institutional context.
• They address alleged misconduct or violations of rules, regulations, or codes of conduct by individuals who are subject to the authority of the organization or institution.
  • For Example - It includes employment-related matters like employee misconduct, student conduct hearings at educational institutions, and professional misconduct cases involving licensed professionals.
• Unlike court cases, disciplinary proceedings do not result in criminal convictions or civil judgments, but they can lead to consequences such as warnings, suspensions, terminations, or academic sanctions.

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed that Saptapadi and other ceremonies are required for a valid marriage under Section 7(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh and 3 Others v. State of UP and Another.

What is the Background of Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another Case?

• The complainant husband filed a complaint stating that he solemnized marriage with the applicant and now she entered into a second marriage without taking divorce from the complainant.
• The applicant said that there was no 'solemnization' of marriage and ceremony of 'Saptapadi' as per Section 7(2) of HMA.
• And contended that without proper solemnization of marriage, the marriage is incomplete hence, charges of bigamy cannot be imposed upon the applicant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Allahabad HC observed that where marriage is disputed, it is not enough to find that marriage took place leaving it to be presumed that rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage were performed.
  • In absence of cogent evidence in this regard, it is difficult to hold that the ' Saptapadi ceremony' of the marriage as contended by the complainant was performed so as to constitute a valid marriage between the parties concerned.

What is Section 7 (2) of HMA?

• Legal Framework:
  • As per Sub-section (1), a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
  • As per Sub-section (2), where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
• Application:
  • The provision acknowledges the dynamic nature of Hindu customs and traditions.
  • The recognition of customary rites and ceremonies allows for flexibility, acknowledging the diverse practices that exist within the Hindu community.
• Nature:
  • Section 7 of HMA is mandatory in nature, performance of ceremonies is not discretionary to parties.

• State Amendment:

• • Section 7A was added to the existing provision adding certain traditional ceremonies of the State of Madras those are:
    • by each party to the marriage declaring in any language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or, as the case may be, her husband; or
    • by each party to the marriage garlanding the other or putting a ring upon any finger of the other; or
    • by the tying of the thali.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta observed that customary divorce can be granted by a civil court under the power conferred by Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar.

What is the Background of Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar Case?

• The appellant wife and respondent husband solemnized the marriage in 2011.
• The respondent claims that a “Customary Divorce Deed” was executed between the parties in 2014 which is duly signed by them, parents of the appellant, father of the respondent, and the members of the Gram Panchayat.
• The respondent, thereafter, entered into a second marriage in 2018.
• The appellant then filed a complaint against the respondent under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was opposed by the respondent through an application on the basis of divorce deed.
• The Judicial Magistrate turned down the said application and further granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the appellant.
• The High Court then held in favor of husband by turning down the order of judicial magistrate.
• Hence, wife filed an appeal before the SC questioning the validity of customary divorce deed.
• The SC partly allowed the appeal and remitted the case to HC by stating that the validity of customary deed shall be investigated by the competent authority.
• The court also restored the maintenance order given by the judicial magistrate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• SC observed that the issue whether the parties are governed by the custom under which a divorce can be obtained without recourse to divorce under HMA, is essentially a question of fact which is required to be specifically pleaded and proved by way of cogent evidence.
  • Such a question can ordinarily be adjudicated only by a civil court.
• The court also said that customary divorce deed is obligated to establish that such custom is allowed by a practice that has been uniformly observed for a long time and such custom is not unreasonable or opposed to public policy and thus the validity of such customary divorce is duly protected by the exception carved out in Section 29(2) of HMA.

What is Section 29(2) of HMA?

• Legal Framework:
  • Section 29 (2) of HMA states that, nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act.

• Application:

• • It is the requirement for the marriage to be solemnized in accordance with the rituals and ceremonies recognized by the customs and traditions of the parties involved.
  • This emphasizes the significance of adherence to religious practices and cultural norms in the solemnization of Hindu marriages.
  • It underscores the importance of upholding the cultural diversity within the Hindu community and recognizing the validity of marriages conducted in different ways.

What are Related Landmark Cases?

• Yamanaji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala, (2002):
  • The SC held that, such a custom being an exception to the general law of divorce ought to have been specially pleaded and established by the party propounding such custom if not proved, will be a practice opposed to public policy.
• Subramani v. M. Chandralekha, (2005):
  • In this case also the SC observed that it is well established by a long chain of authorities that prevalence of customary divorce in the community to which parties belong, contrary to general law of divorce must be specifically pleaded and established by the person propounding such custom.
• Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil v. Sandeep Ananda Patil, (2020):
  • The SC held that divorce through customary deed can be granted but it depends upon facts of the case.