List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) recently affirmed a husband's conviction in a case involving the murder of his wife and acts of domestic cruelty against her.

• The court underscored the pivotal role of the Judicial system in securing justice, particularly in matters concerning violence against women in the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand.

What is the Background of the Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand Case?

• The deceased got married to the appellant (Balvir Singh) in 1997.
• It was alleged that soon after their marriage, the appellant along with his mother began subjecting the deceased to various forms of harassment and relentlessly demanded a dowry.
• Upon harassment she was found dead under suspicious circumstances and had reddish marks around her neck.
• Father of the deceased preferred an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) for registration of First Information Report (FIR) regarding the death of his daughter.
  • Pursuant to the order of JMFC, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• After registration of FIR, the statements of various witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the CrPC.
• The trial court, as well as the High Court, upheld the husband's conviction under Section 302 of IPC and Section 498-A of IPC, and his mother's conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC was also affirmed.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court took note of the cases:
  • Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1975) in which SC has stated “The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct” which means the principle of giving the benefit of reasonable doubt doesn't mean being overly hesitant or indecisive and, in such cases, a practical view of the flow of evidence must be taken into account.
  • Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (1956), the SC emphasized that the term "especially" in Section 106 of IEA underscores facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the accused's knowledge.
  • Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021) SC emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, an accused's inability to offer a reasonable explanation, as mandated by Section 106, could constitute an additional element in the sequence of events.
• The SC, hence, in the present matter allowed the invocation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), thereby shifting the burden to the accused husband to explain the events surrounding his wife's death.
  • The SC emphasized that the courts should adopt a practical perspective while evaluating evidence, the importance of sensitivity in such cases to ensure that justice prevails, and wrongdoers are held accountable was also stressed upon.
  • The SC stated that “Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer a proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.”
• Thereby, after considering all the facts and evidence before it, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Mishra affirmed the conviction of the appellant (husband) under section 302 and 498-A IPC and mother-in-law under section 498-A IPC respectively.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Burden of Proof in Criminal Law:
  • In criminal cases, the burden of proof in the majority of cases rests on the prosecution.
  • This means that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the alleged crime.
  • The defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution must present sufficient evidence and arguments to convince the judge or jury of the defendant's guilt.
  • If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the defendant is entitled to benefit of doubt and is generally acquitted.
  • It's important to note that the burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher than the burden of proof in civil cases, where a preponderance of the probability is often the standard.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
  • Once the FIR is registered investigation starts, Section 161 of CrPC empowers police to examine witnesses during the course of investigation.
  • Section 161 - Examination of witnesses by police —

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Provided that statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means:

Provided further that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, 3 [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• • Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
  • This provision places the burden of proof on the person who has exclusive or special knowledge about a particular fact. If there are facts that only a particular person is aware of, it is that person's responsibility to prove those facts. Failure to do so may have implications for their case.
    • Example - If A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
  • The provision does not relieve the prosecution from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters.
    • Instead, it deals with situations where certain facts are primarily known to a particular individual, and in such cases, the law places the responsibility of proving those facts on that individual

Source: Times of India

Why in News?

A Family Court of Mumbai observed that pre-nuptial agreements can be referred to understand the intent of parties while entering into the agreement.

What is the Background of the Case?

• The petitioner husband prayed before the court to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty by wife whom he met on a matrimonial website.
• The husband presented a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in the form of a pre-nuptial agreement which reflected that both parties agreed to separate on mutual grounds in case of any problem.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The court granted the divorce to the couple by observing that “the agreement shows that the parties agreed to enter into partnership, and it was not related till last breath”.

What is a Pre-Nuptial Agreement?

• About:
  • Traditionally associated with Western cultures, pre-nuptial agreements are contracts entered into by a couple before marriage, outlining the distribution of assets and liabilities in the event of divorce or separation.
• Components:
  • This may include prior agreement related to distribution of properties, financial assets, and other valuable possessions after divorce or separation.
  • The agreement can also outline the terms and conditions for alimony or maintenance payments, specifying the amount and duration of financial support that one party may be entitled to in the event of a marital breakdown.
  • The pre-nuptial agreements can address issues related to child custody and support.
  • Pre-nuptial agreements can include clauses specifying the method of dispute resolution in case the terms of the agreement are contested.
    • This may involve mediation, arbitration, or other agreed-upon mechanisms.
• Global Position:
  • The pre-nuptial agreements are valid in countries like US, Netherlands and Belgium.
• Position in India:
  • India does not have a specific legislation governing pre-nuptial agreements. However, they are recognized under the broader view of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
  • Thus, pre-nuptial agreements, being essentially contracts, cannot be considered illegal. However, their enforceability is still not enshrined in any legislation.
  • Under Section 40 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which applies on Christians states that the High Court and District Court, after its decree for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage has been confirmed, may inquire into the existence of ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlements made on the parties whose marriage is the subject of the decree.
• Reason:
  • The pre-nuptial agreements are not legalised in India because in India, where marriages are often seen as sacred and enduring, the idea of planning for its potential dissolution can be questioned by the societal norms.
  • Families may perceive pre-nuptial agreements as undermining the sanctity of marriage, emphasizing financial considerations over emotional commitment.
  • They are usually considered as contrary to public policy hence contradict Section 23 of the ICA which states that, “A consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies, injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy”.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar made the wife the guardian of her husband who is in permanently vegetative state by applying the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of Pooja Sharma v. State of UP And 2 Others.

What is the Background of Pooja Sharma v. State of UP And 2 Others Case?

• The petitioner wife pleaded before the Allahabad HC to appoint her as the guardian of her husband who is in permanent vegetative state.
• She contended that by this she would be able to dispose of the property of her husband to meet the ends of their livelihood.
• The petitioner contended that in India there is no legislation, which provides for appointment of Guardian for a person in comatose state, like it has procedure of appointment of ‘Guardian for minors’ and persons with other disabilities like mental retardation, etc.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Allahabad HC observed that “If the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is in a vegetative state, then surely ‘Parens Patriae’ jurisdiction can be exercised”.

What is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae?

• About:
  • The Doctrine of Parens Patriae, means "parent of the nation," is a legal principle that grants the state the inherent power and authority to act as the guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves.
  • In India, this doctrine reflects the nation's commitment to protect the welfare and interests of its citizens.
• History:
  • The roots of the Doctrine of Parens Patriae can be traced back to English common law.
  • Historically, the King acted as the ultimate guardian of his subjects, especially in cases involving individuals who were unable to represent their own interests.

What are the Major Areas of Law on Which Doctrine of Parens Patriae is Applicable in India?

• Juvenile Justice:
  • Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, state's commits to act as the guardian for juvenile offenders.
  • It focusses on rehabilitation and the best interests of the juvenile, aligning with the principles of Parens Patriae.
• Consumer Protection:
  • In consumer protection cases, the state often exercises its Parens Patriae powers to safeguard the interests of consumers.
  • The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowers the state to intervene in matters where consumers are exploited, and it provides mechanisms for compensation and redressal.
• Environmental Issues:
  • The state acts as the guardian of the environment, intervening in cases where activities pose a threat to ecological balance and public health.
• Persons with Disabilities:
  • The state applies this doctrine to make decisions on behalf of people who are incapable of making their own decisions due to certain disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
• Victims of Mental Health:
  • The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, incorporates the principles of Parens Patriae in the context of mental health.
  • The state is empowered to protect and promote the rights of persons with mental illness, ensuring their access to treatment and care.

What are Landmark Cases Referred in this Case?

• E. (Mrs.) v. Eve (1986):
  • Supreme Court of Canada observed that the doctrine must at all times be exercised with great caution, a caution that must increase with the seriousness of the matter.
    • This is particularly so in cases where a court might be tempted to act because failure to act would risk imposing an obviously heavy burden on another person.
• Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K. M. & Ors (2018):
  • The SC in this case observed that the doctrine can be applied on following situations.
    • Where a person is mentally ill and is produced before the court in a writ of habeas corpus, the court may invoke the aforesaid doctrine.
    • On certain other occasions, when a girl who is not a major has eloped with a person and she is produced at the behest of habeas corpus filed by her parents and she expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women where her interest can be best taken care of till she becomes a major.
• Uma Mittal v. Union of India (2018):
  • The Allahabad HC, by applying this doctrine, made the wife the guardian of her husband.