List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol, in the case of New India Assurance Co Ltd v. M/S Mudit Roadways, observed that an insurance company’s obligation to the insured is of much greater importance.

What is the Background of New India Assurance Co Ltd v. M/S Mudit Roadways?

• A fire broke out on 14^th March 2018, at a warehouse covered by an insurance policy with the claimant having paid Rs. 44,02,562/- for coverage against fire and safeguarding custom bonded goods.
  • The forensic investigation report determined that a short-circuit was not the cause; rather, sparks from rooftop welding work may have triggered the fire.
• On 03^rd October 2018, the insured raised a claim for a sum of Rs. 6,57,55,155/. The Insurance Company rejected the claim on 15^th July 2019, citing reasons such as the insured premises were not affected by the fire and the alleged negligence in roof construction, which increased the risk and voided the insurance coverage.
• The respondent filed a consumer complaint. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled in favor of the claimant and held that the insurance policy covered the complainant's warehouse and that the roofing work did not significantly increase the risk.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The precise cause of a fire, whether attributed to a short circuit or any alternative factor, remains immaterial, provided the claimant is not the instigator of the fire.

What is Fire Insurance?

• Fire insurance is a type of property insurance that covers losses caused by an accidental fire.
  • Though most policies include some fire protection, business owners may want to purchase additional coverage to protect them from possible events where they may lose their property to a fire.
• The cost of replacing, repairing, or reconstructing property above the property insurance policy limit can be covered by an additional fire insurance policy.
  • However, most fire insurance policies include general exclusions, such as war and war-like situations, pollution or contamination, willful or intentional damage, and so on.
• Under Section 2(6A) Insurance Act, 1938, the fire insurance business is defined as “Fire insurance business means the business of effecting, otherwise than independently to some other class of business, contracts of insurance against loss by or incidental to fire or other occurrence customarily included among the risks insured against in fire insurance policies”

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Company (2020):
  • The insurance company cannot escape its liability if there is nothing to prove that the fire was caused by the insured itself, irrespective of what the cause of fire was.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr., has held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.

What was the Background of Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr.?

• The petitioner was granted a mining lease for 10 years commencing from 15^th July 2016 and ending on 14^th July 2026 for the purpose of mining and crushing stone.
• On 17^th July 2023, the petitioner received a notice on his e-mail id where the allegation was that illegal mining had been done by him outside the area for which the mining lease was granted.
• Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition.
  • Subsequently, the petitioner was blacklisted for 2 years, and its lease cancelled.
• The counsel for the petitioner stated that his side was not heard and there was non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
  • Allowing the petition, the Allahabad HC directed that the petitioner be allowed to function on his land with immediate effect.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench consisting of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Shekhar B. Saraf, observed that, it may seem to a few that the observance of the principles of natural justice is a cumbersome process, but we do find that in a civilized society, the rule of law has to be there and the principles of natural justice should compulsorily be followed.
• The Court further held that violation of principles of natural justice was sufficient cause to set aside the order of cancellation of lease and blacklisting.

What are the Principles of Natural Justice?

About:

• Natural Justice is a common law concept which emphasise on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice.
• It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.

Rules of Natural Justice:

• Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases.
• Audi Alteram Partem – It means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.

Case Laws:

• In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the parties.
• In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every decision-making functions.
• In the Union of India v. W.N Chadha (1992), the Supreme Court observed that since the purpose of the Principles of Natural Justice is to ensure justice and prevent and prevent miscarriage of justice, these rules do not extend to those areas where their application may lead to injustice.

Source – Madras High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri held that in every democratic society, holding peaceful and orderly demonstrations through protests are the privileges so ensured to the citizens.

• The Madras High Court gave this observation in the case of J Jayaraj and Others v. The Chief Educational Officer.

What is the Background of J Jayaraj and Others v. The Chief Educational Officer Case?

• The petitioners are Secondary Grade Teachers working in various Panchayat Primary Union and Middle Schools in various Unions of Karur District.
  • All of them are members of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation.
• There were issues with the preparation of the seniority list and seniority panel by the side of respondents which led to the agitation of petitioners.
• Since there was no response for the representation made by the Teachers Federation, the District Teacher's Federation decided to undergo “Waiting Agitation” in front of the District Educational Office.
• A group of teachers were suspended and then visited with charge memos for protesting peacefully as against the arbitrary exercise of administrative powers by the respondents.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madras HC observed that “To be more specific, Article 19(1)(b) confers right to the petitioners to assemble and protest peacefully without arms and such a right is the significant feature of a democratic country likewise ours.
• Court further said that constraining the space for legitimate dissent arbitrarily by suspending the petitioners and issuing them with charge memos under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, scuttling down the democratic value system guaranteed by our Constitution has to be undermined with iron hands.
  • The right to protest is an inherent part of speech and an inherent facet of the right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.

What is the Right to Peaceful Protest?

• History:
  • The right to peaceful protest in India has deep historical roots, dating back to the country's struggle for independence.
  • The nonviolent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi played an important role in shaping India's destiny, proving the efficacy of peaceful protest in achieving transformative change.
  • The legacy of the freedom movement laid the groundwork for recognizing the right to peaceful assembly and expression in the independent Indian state.
• About:
  • The right to peaceful protest is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, but the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to assemble peacefully, are enshrined in the Constitution and are often considered as encompassing the right to peaceful protest.
• Constitutional Provisions:
  • These rights are provided under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, respectively.
    • Article 19(1)(a): "All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression."
    • Article 19(1)(b): "All citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms."
  • It is also a part of Article 21 of the Constitution as Supreme Court affirmed in the case of Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2020).
• Reasonable Restrictions: While these rights are fundamental, they are not absolute. The government can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of public on specified grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution as mentioned below:
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India,
  • Security of the State,
  • Friendly relations with foreign States,
  • Public order,
  • Decency or morality
  • Contempt of court,
  • Defamation
  • Incitement to an offence.
• Recent Protests:
  • Recently various movements, such as the anti-corruption protests led by Anna Hazare led to enactment of Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013.
  • The recent farmers' protests in 2020 have demonstrated the power of collective action in influencing government policies and decisions of scrapping three farms bill in 2021.