List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul, held that the allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.

What was the Background of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul Case?

• The respondent herein was serving as the Local Head of Office of the Service Selection Board in the State of Assam.
• In the very same office, a lady employee was serving as the Field Assistant who filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent.
• The first complaint was filed on 30^th August 2011 which was initially submitted to the Inspector General (IG) and subsequently forwarded to several authorities, including the Chairperson of the National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi.
• On the 18^th September 2012, the complainant submitted a second complaint containing additional allegations against the respondent through fax.
• Two initial inquiries, a fact-finding inquiry and a Frontier Complaints Committee inquiry, failed to substantiate the allegations.
• Thereafter the Central Complaints Committee undertook the inquiry.
• The Central Complaints Committee found the respondent guilty of sexual harassment.
• For the purpose of canceling the Central Complaints Committee's inquiry, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
• As the disciplinary proceedings were still pending, CAT refrained from expressing opinions regarding the Central Complaints Committee’s Inquiry.
• Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court.
• The High Court (HC) stated that the jurisdiction of the Central Complaints Committee was limited to the first complaint filed by the complainant, and it should not have considered the allegations made in the second complaint.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• The judgment of the HC was set aside by the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.
• The Court underlined the importance of not being swayed by insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities when reviewing such cases. It stressed that allegations of this nature should be considered within the broader context of the entire case. The Court also cautioned against showing undue sympathy or leniency towards the individual accused of misconduct.
• The Court also highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the HC in such matters. It stated that the HC should not function as an appellate authority or replace its own findings with those of the disciplinary authority.
• The Court further opined that in case of a mere violation of a procedural rule, no prejudice could be claimed to have been caused to the respondent even if it was assumed that he was not asked to plead guilty to the second complaint. The SC held that the HC had overlooked the principles established by the Court and had unreasonably set aside the disciplinary authority's punishment order.

What is Sexual Harassment?

• Sexual harassment is a pervasive and deeply rooted issue that has plagued the societies worldwide.
• Sexual harassment is in grave violation of the fundamental rights of a woman. It means any unwanted conduct of sexual nature
• In India, it has been a matter of serious concern, and the development of laws to combat sexual harassment is a testament to the nation's commitment towards addressing this problem.
• Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It states that -

(1) A man committing any of the following acts-

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favors;

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually colored remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

• The turning point against the growing social menace of sexual harassment of women at workplace could be traced back to the pathbreaking decision of the SC in the case of Vishaka and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
  • In this case, the SC recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman's fundamental right to equality and dignity.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka recognized the inherent value of dying declaration and held that examination of a person who recorded dying declaration is essential.

What was the Background of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka Case?

• On 6^th August 1997, the deceased, namely Byregowda and his brothers had gone to the fields to work when, allegedly, all the accused armed with weapons such as clubs, iron rods and choppers came and threatened them.
• The Trial court acquitted all 29 accused persons.
• In the appeal, the High Court of Karnataka found a clear-cut case against 6 accused persons and convicted them under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years while upholding the acquittal of the rest.
• Against the judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol recognized the inherent value of a dying declaration but found several glaring issues that cast doubt on the reliability of the declaration used as evidence in this particular case. It also states that the examination of a person who recorded dying declaration is essential.
• The Court further held that the dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is rendered nugatory as the person who took down such declaration was not examined, nor did the police officer endorse the said document with details of who took down the declaration.

What is Dying Declaration?

• About:
  • Section 32 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of dying declaration.
  • This section relates to statements, written or verbal of relevant fact made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found.
  • Dying Declaration is based on the principle of “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
  • For a statement to be termed a dying declaration and thereby be admissible under Section 32 of IEA, the circumstances discussed or disclosed must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence.
  • This section is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death.
• Related Case Laws:
  • Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the SC held that the test of proximity cannot be rigidly applied across all cases. It was of the view that a broader interpretation of Section 32 of IEA is designed to account for the diverse nature and character of Indian society, aiming to prevent injustice.
  • Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992), the SC observed that it has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination.
  • Amol Singh v. State of M.P (2008), the SC held that it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) held that when incriminating items are found in locations accessible to the general public, they should not be the sole basis for establishing the guilt of the accused in the case of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka.

What is the Background of the Manjunath v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The deceased, namely Byregowda and his brothers had gone to the fields to work.
  • Allegedly, the accused armed with weapons such as clubs, iron rods and choppers came and threatened them.
• The brothers managed to escape but while the deceased was attempting to do so, he was grievously assaulted by the accused by means of an iron rod and chopper.
• Immediate medical treatment was administered to the deceased and the police were immediately informed consequent to which a First Information Report (FIR) was recorded.
• After due investigation, the challan was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions and charges were framed under Section 120B, 143, 447, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The accused denied allegations against them and claimed trial.
• The Trial Court concluded that the interconnected circumstances were insufficient to definitively and convincingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
  • On the point of recovery of weapons, the Court observed that although the weapons had been recovered at the instance of accused persons, a doubt is created on the veracity of the seizure on the ground that the clubs were recovered from a place of common access and from places where others also resided.
• The State, aggrieved by the acquittals, appealed to the Karnataka High Court (HC).
• The HC overturned the acquittal awarded by the trial court and reversed it by sentencing appellants for offences under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol while hearing an appeal relied on following case:
  • In the Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) case, the SC guided that for application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) following must be ensured:
    • The discovery of a fact must be in consequence of information from a person accused of an offense.
    • The discovery of such a fact must be deposed.
    • The accused must be in police custody at the time of receiving the information.
    • It was further observed by the court that only "so much of the information" as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible under Section 27 of IEA.
• The Court in the present case observed, “We, further cannot lose sight of the fact that sticks, whether bamboo or otherwise, are commonplace objects in village life, and therefore, such objects, being hardly out of the ordinary, and that too discovered in places of public access, cannot be used to place the gauntlet of guilt on the accused persons.” and acquitted the accused.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Section 27 of the IEA:
  • Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
  • It states that when something is discovered as a consequence of information given by an accused person, then any fact discovered as a result of this information is considered relevant in court.
  • This section essentially allows for the admissibility of facts or objects that have been found through the disclosure or information provided by the accused during an investigation or trial.
  • The SC earlier in the case of Rajesh v State of MP (2023) has stated that for application of Section 27 IEA, two essential conditions must be met:
    • The individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and
    • They must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made.