List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Justice P Dhanabal observed that a magistrate cannot examine the truthfulness of a witness during the procedure under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• Madras High Court gave this observation in the case of Ilampiraiyan v. Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others.

What is the Background of Ilampiraiyan v. Mr Pethi @ Thirumalai Raja and others Case?

• The petitioner challenged the order of the Rajapalayam Judicial Magistrate who dismissed his private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.
• The petitioner was abused by police officers and was illegally kept into the police custody.
• He filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate who adjudged that there were contradictions in the statement of witness.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court stated that “At the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate cannot peruse the veracity of the witnesses and the duty of the Magistrate is whether any prima facie material is available to constitute the offence or not”.
• Hence, the court set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate.

What is Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 200 of the CrPC outlines the procedure for a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence.
  • The section begins with the requirement that any person who desires the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence must present a written complaint or information.
  • This complaint should be made to a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter.
  • The marginal note of Section 200 of the CrPC is “Examination of complainant”.
• Legal Framework:
  • Under this section, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present.
  • And the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing.
  • And it shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.
• Proviso of Section 200 of the CrPC:
  • When the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
    • if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
    • if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192 of CrPC.
  • Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.
• Purpose:
  • This provision underscores the importance of the complainant's role in criminal proceedings.
  • The examination of the complainant is not a mere formality but serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a prima facie case proceeding with the trial.

What was the Landmark Judgment Involved in this Case?

• Mukesh Jain S/o Prem Chand v. Balachander (2005):
  • The Madras HC held that the complainant has to be read along with the sworn statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the CrPC and they should not be read disjunctively, since they supplement and complement each other.

Source: Gauhati HIgh Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court (HC) has ruled that there is no provision for an intra-court writ appeal to challenge an order or judgment issued by a Single Judge Bench while exercising criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the matter of Shri Deba Prasad Dutta v. The State of Assam and Anr.

What is the Background of the Shri Deba Prasad Dutta v. The State of Assam and Anr. Case?

• A First Information report (FIR) was filed against the appellant under Sections 431 and 294 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
• A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the HC to quash the FIR and the charges framed against him by the Trial Court.
  • The said writ petition was dismissed by a single judge bench of the HC.
• Hence, this intra-Court writ appeal arises from an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court.
  • The HC rules do not explicitly address the permissibility of an intra-court appeal against an order in a criminal case issued by a Single Judge under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
• The appellant relied upon following cases while preferring the appeal:
  • State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal (2008): The issue in this case pertained to the validity of a Letters Patent Appeal submitted to the Division Bench challenging a decision made by the Single Judge during the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In this case, the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition that had been filed against the Labor Court's award.
  • Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors (2003): The matter in this case revolved around the question, whether it was appropriate to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution challenging an interim injunction order issued pursuant to Order 39 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
  • Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2008): In this case, the SC held that the availability of alternative remedy of filing revision under Section 397 of CPC could not be a ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). It was also stated by the court that even where revision application is barred, remedy under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kardak Ete found that these judgments did not pertain to the specific issue of the maintainability of an intra-court writ appeal in criminal matters.
• The HC held that we firmly believe that there is no provision for an intra-court writ appeal against an order or judgment made by the learned Single Bench when it exercises its jurisdiction in criminal writ cases under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
  • It was also held that, given the absence of explicit guidance on this matter in the Gauhati High Court Rules, it is essential to promptly rectify this discrepancy by amending the rules to explicitly state that no intra-court appeal is permissible against an order or judgment issued by the learned Single Bench in the context of criminal writ jurisdiction.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Intra Court Appeal

• If an appeal has to be filed in the High Court against the order of a single judge, it is known as an intra-court appeal.
• The limitation period to file such an appeal is 30 days.

Constitution of India, 1950

• Article 226 mentions about the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts as:
  • Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs —

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—

(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) Giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.

• Case Laws:
  • Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1970): SC, in this case, held that if a writ petition involves an erroneous factual matrix and HC deems it inappropriate for resolution through a petition seeking a high prerogative writ under Article 226, it retains the authority to decline addressing such matters.
  • Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): In this case, the role of Article 226 in securing justice and enforcing fundamental rights was reiterated and the importance of awarding compensation in cases of custodial deaths was emphasized upon.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed the inquiry report of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an exception under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hence, cannot be disclosed.

• Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission & Ors.

What is the Background of Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission & Ors Case?

• CBI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against a former officer of Indian Audit & Accounts Service after investigating some illegal conducts in National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL).
• The CBI contended that the petitioner has shown favors towards NSEL
• The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act seeking information related to enquiry reports, action taken reports and several other reports of investigation done by CBI.
• Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) dismissed his application stating that such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
• And the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected his appeal on the dismissal of order of CPIO.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Delhi HC stated that “Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act specifically exempts such information which will impede the process of investigation revealing a copy of the entire report of the CBI”.
  • Further, if such information falls into the hands of other offenders, it will certainly impede an ongoing investigation process.
• Hence, the court dismissed the plea.

What is Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act?

• About:
  • Section 8 of the RTI Act enumerates various grounds on which a public authority can refuse to disclose information.
  • Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act recognizes the balance between the right to information and the need to protect certain information to ensure the effective functioning of law enforcement agencies.
• Objective:
  • Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act acknowledges that there are instances where the disclosure of certain information could hamper ongoing investigations or jeopardize the identification and prosecution of offenders.
  • It recognizes that there are situations where revealing information prematurely could aid individuals under investigation, allowing them to evade or tamper with evidence.
• Legal Framework:
  • Under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, there is no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
• Duty of Public Authority:
  • In cases where a public authority denies access to information under this provision, they are required to provide a clear and specific justification for their decision.
  • The denial should be based on a reasonable assessment of the potential harm that could arise from the disclosure of the information in question.

What are the Landmark Cases under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act?

• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (2008):
  • The Delhi HC held that “Section 8, being a restriction on a fundamental right to information, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself”.
• B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court (2011):
  • The Delhi HC gave the following observations:
    • The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.
    • A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act.
    • The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act.
• Union of India v. Manjit Singh Bali (2018):
  • The Delhi HC held that “In order to deny information under Clause (h) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, it must be established that the information sought is one which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offenders”.
• Amit Kumar Shrivastava v. CIC, New Delhi (2021):
  • The Delhi HC held that “Cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question”.