List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has held in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation that the Delhi liquor policy scam and the denial of bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister being detained or held in jail prior to being officially declared guilty of an offense should not be considered a form of punishment in the absence of a trial.

What is the Background of the Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation Case?

• CBI has filed two chargesheets wherein the appellant (Manish Sisodia) is named and is facing trial for the offences under:
  • Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POC Act).
  • Sections 120B, 201 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC).
• Also, the Directorate of Enforcement (DOE) has filed a criminal complaint against the appellant for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act).
• Manish Sisodia has been in custody since 26th February 2023.
• In the present case, appellant seeks bail in the prosecutions arising from the above-mentioned provisions.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti observed that Rule of law means that laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State. The rule also mandates objective and fair treatment to all.
• The Court propounded that following principles must be kept in mind for the grant of bail:
  • Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial.
  • If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious.
  • While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc.
  • The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
  • When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.
• The Apex Court further observed If the trial is not concluded in a speedy manner as assured by the prosecution, Sisodia will be entitled to apply for bail again in 3 months.

What is the Rule of Law?

• The concept of the rule of law as evolved by A.V.Dicey is a fundamental principle that supports the country's legal and political system.
• It refers to a system where the law is supreme and applies equally to all individuals and institutions, regardless of their status, wealth, or power.
• The rule of law in India can be broken down into several key components:
  • Equality before the Law: In India, the rule of law ensures that every person, irrespective of their background, is subject to the same legal rules and protections. This principle ensures that justice is impartial.
  • Due Process: The rule of law requires that legal procedures must be fair, just, and transparent. It guarantees the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This helps protect individual rights and liberties.
  • Legal Certainty: Laws must be clear and predictable. Citizens and institutions should be able to understand and anticipate the legal consequences of their actions. This prevents arbitrary and capricious application of the law.
  • Access to Justice: The rule of law requires that all individuals have access to the legal system to seek redress for grievances and protection of their rights. This includes the availability of legal aid for those who cannot afford legal representation.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., held that a second petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.

What was the Background of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Case?

• A complaint was filed by the Joint Director, State Urban Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rampur, alleging irregularities in the construction of toilets under the Integrated Low-Cost Sanitation Scheme and embezzlement of public funds by the persons involved.
• The petitioner being the Project Director/Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, at the relevant time, was also implicated.
• The petitioner filed his first petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the Allahabad High Court.
• The Allahabad HC disposed of the application and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order.
• Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under Section 482 of CrPC praying for quashing of the charge sheet and the cognizance order which was later dismissed by the HC.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC and the Court refused to interfere with the HC order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that even though there is no absolute bar on a second petition under Section 482 of CrPC, such a petition would not be maintainable when the grounds for relief were available to the party at the first instance itself.
• The Court further observed that though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 CrPC would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance.

What is Section 482 of CrPC?

• About:
  • This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
  • This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.
• Purpose:
  • Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.
  • It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:
    • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
    • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
    • to secure the ends of justice.
• Case Laws:
  • In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981), the SC held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  • In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.(2007), the SC held that when the first petition under Section 482 CrPC was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the HC would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC on being petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted.
  • In Vinod Kumar, IAS. v. Union of India and Ors. (2021), the SC observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) includes the right to exercise personal choices and so no one can interfere in the lives of consenting adults who have chosen to marry.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of MD Nemat Ali & Another v. The State and Ors.

What was the Background of MD Nemat Ali & Another v. The State and Ors. Case?

• The present petition is filed before the Supreme Court (SC) under Article 226 of the COI read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide protection to the petitioners against life and liberty threats given by respondent nos. 4 and 5.
• The petitioners are major and got married to each other on 06th October 2023 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies.
• The Nikahnama was duly registered by a Qazi in accordance with Muslim law.
• The petitioner submitted that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were threatening the petitioner and his family members of dire consequences as the marriage was solemnized against the wishes of respondent nos .4 and 5
• Allowing the plea, the SC ordered that the couple shall be free to call or get in touch with either the SHO or the Beat Constable of the concerned police station.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that Article 21 of COI gives protection of life and personal liberty to all persons whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matters relating to marriage.
• The Court observed that the right to marry is an incident of human liberty. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is not only underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but is also an integral facet of Article 21 of the COI.
• The Court further observed that when the parties herein are two consenting adults who have chosen to willingly agree to join hands by way of marriage, there can hardly be any be any impediment on the way, be it from the parents/ relatives or the Society at large or the State. There is nothing left for anybody to interfere in the lives of parties herein.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

• About:
  • Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
    • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
  • This article is characterised as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
  • Justice Bhagwati in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), said that Article 21 embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.
  • This right is available to both citizens and non-citizens.
• Right to Marry a Person of One’s Choice:
  • The SC has highlighted the right of every individual to marry a person of his or her choice in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018). In this case the following observations were made:
    • The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the COI.
    • The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable.
    • Intrinsic to the liberty which the COI guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness.
    • The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere.
    • Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.