List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Indrakunwar v. The State of Chhattisgarh has observed that though there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Indrakunwar v. The State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• The appellant had relations with a co-villager, namely, Baiga Gond, as a result of which she conceived a child.
• She, upon giving birth, allegedly killed this child and threw the corpse into a small pond.
• Thereafter she was charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant.
• Thereafter, the High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the judgement of the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• While allowing the appeal, the SC acquitted the appellant of all the charges.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol in the context of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) observed that though there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy.
• The Court held that in a statement under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning.
• The Court also noted that the essence of a woman’s fundamental right to equality and privacy, regarding private matters of bodily and psychological integrity is the ability to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive choices.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 313 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the power to examine the accused. It states that-
  • (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
  • (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary.
  • (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case.
  • Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
  • (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
  • (3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
  • (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
• The object of this Section is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused as this process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict.
• The process enshrined in this Section is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice.
• In the case of Samsul Haque v. The State of Assam (2019), the SC considered the rights of the accused enshrined under Section 313 of CrPC and stated that the implicative material is to be put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself.

Right to Privacy

• Right to Privacy is regarded as one of the most crucial human rights in the contemporary day.
• Right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
  • Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual.
• In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the SC held that Privacy constitutes the foundation of all liberty because it is in privacy that the individual can decide how liberty is best exercised.
  • Privacy protects the individual from the searching glare of publicity in matters that are personal to his or her life. The privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the limitation period for initiating a specific performance suit, in accordance with Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, is 3 years.

• This period begins either from the date when performance was originally set to take place or if no specific date was decided for performance, it commences when the plaintiff becomes aware that the performance has been declined in the matter of Sabbir (Dead) Through LRS v. Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRS.

What is the Background of the Sabbir (Dead) Through LRS v. Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRS. Case?

• An Agreement to Sell (ATS) was executed in favour of the respondents by the appellants on 31^st July 1975.
• ATS mentioned that appellants had to apply for permission to sell the property within eight days.
  • Upon permission being received, the same was to be intimated to the respondents.
• The Sale Deed was to be executed within 15 days from receipt of such intimation by the respondents.
• The appellants did not apply for any permission to sell, which led to the respondents filing the suit in 1981 for specific performance of the ATS.
• The suit was decreed by judgment dated 8^th March 1982.
• An appeal was filed by appellants which was allowed by the First Appellate Court judgment dated 09^th May 1984.
• Respondents thereafter filed a Second Appeal which was allowed by the High Court (HC) on 2^nd April 2010.
• The appellants then filed the case in the SC, which further remanded the matter to the HC.
• Upon remand, the HC granted approval for the Second Appeal through its decision in 2018, overturning the conclusions reached by the First Appellate Court.
• Hence, the present appeal lies in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that failing to fulfill the obligation of submitting an application within 8 days or failing to notify the permission being granted would result in certain consequences. In both scenarios, the respondents were entitled to seek redress in court.
• The SC further stated that “In this background, the respondents cannot take the plea that they would be entitled to indefinitely wait till the appellants informed them about the permission. As soon as the first eight days expired, the respondents had to show due diligence by being vigilant and conscious of their rights and were required to act promptly.”
• Court further opined that a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant Clauses clearly indicated that the onus was on the appellants to apply within 8 days for permission from the ninth (9^th) day onwards, the onus would shift on the respondents, if within 8 days the appellants had not even applied for permission.

What is the Difference between an Agreement to Sell and Sale?

• Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 defines it as

Section 4 - Sale and agreement to sell —

• • (1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part-owner and another.
  • (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
  • (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell.
  • (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.

What is the Specific Performance of a Contract?

• Specific Performance is an equitable remedy that obliges one party to carry out, to the greatest extent possible, the obligations stipulated in the contract.
  • It is typically used in cases where monetary damages are not considered an adequate remedy for the aggrieved party.
• Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for the contracts that can be specifically performed.
  • Section 10 - Specific performance in respect of contracts —The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16.
  • Section 11 - Cases in which specific performance of contracts connected with trusts enforceable -
    • (2) A contract made by a trustee in excess of his powers or in breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.
  • Section 14 - Contracts not specifically enforceable — The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely —
    • (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with the provisions of section 20;
    • (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise;
    • (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and
    • (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.
  • Section 16 - Personal bars to relief — Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—
    • (a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20; or
    • (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
    • (c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
    • Explanation — For the purposes of clause (c),— (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff 4 [must prove] performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction