List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ku. Pooja Chopra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh has held that if a lover commits suicide due to failure in a romantic relationship, his partner cannot per se be held to have abetted the commission of the suicide.

What was the Background of Ku. Pooja Chopra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• On 28^th January 2023, Police received an intimation regarding unnatural death of deceased Abhishek Naredi.
• In the course of inquiry, a suicide note left behind by deceased was seized, in which allegations were made against present applicants.
• As per contents of suicidal note, deceased and applicant were in love for about 5 to 7 years, suddenly applicant broke relation with deceased, refused to marry him, developed love affair with some other boy.
• On the basis of aforesaid suicidal note, Police registered offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against applicants.
• The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to conclusion that prima facie charge under Section 306 of IPC is made put against the applicant.
• Feeling aggrieved by which, the applicants have preferred a criminal revision before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
• The High Court quashed the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Single Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu also observed that if a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner, lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a man of weak or frail mentality, another person cannot be blamed as having abetted his committing suicide.
• It was further held that the deceased had written in suicide letter about the threats given by applicants, but, in the opinion of this Court, nature of threat mentioned in the suicide letter written by deceased are not of such an alarming proportion so as to drive a normal person to contemplate suicide.

What is Section 306 of IPC?

• About:
  • Section 306 of IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide.
  • It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
  • Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.
  • Whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law.
• Case Laws:
  • In the case of Randhir Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. A more active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
  • In the case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution of India, has upheld the repeal of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) and also affirmed the power of the Parliament to carve out a Union Territory from a State.

What was the Background of In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution of India Case?

• Article 370 of the COI incorporated special arrangements for the governance of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The President issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273 during the subsistence of a Proclamation under Article 356(1)(b) of the COI.
• These orders have the effect of applying the entire COI to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370.
• Contemporaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, which bifurcated the State into two Union territories.
• The petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of these actions.
• In July 2023, the Supreme Court listed the matter to a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud.
• The Constitution Bench upheld the Union’s abrogation of Article 370.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Constitution Bench upheld the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019 to the extent it created the Union Territories out of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The Court referred to Article 3(a) of the COI as per which, the Parliament may by law form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State. Thus, the Court held that Parliament has the power to carve out a Union Territory from a State.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Article 370, COI

• Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is a temporary provision which grants special autonomous status to Jammu & Kashmir.
• The provisions under this Article had three main ingredients:
  • India would not make laws in Jammu and Kashmir except for three subjects (defence, external affairs and communications) included in the Instrument of Accession. The Parliament could make laws beyond them only with the concurrence of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.
  • No provisions of COI would be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir except for Article 1 of the COI.
  • The special status of Jammu and Kashmir could not be amended or repealed, unless the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir recommended it.

Article 3, COI

• Article 3 deals with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States. It states that -

Parliament may by law

(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State.

(b) increase the area of any State.

(c) diminish the area of any State.

(d) alter the boundaries of any State.

(e) alter the name of any State.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019

• On 5^th August 2019, Parliament passed the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Bill that led to bifurcation of the erstwhile state (into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh) and the effective abrogation of Article 370 of the COI that gave the region its special status.
• Containing provisions to reconstitute Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, this Act became effective on 31^st October 2019.
• The act consists of 103 clauses, extends 106 central laws to the UTs, repeals 153 state laws, and abolishes the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council.
• The act has also given powers to the Central government to pass a number of executive orders in relation to both the union territories.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justice Manish Mathur has observed that there is no bar on claiming second maternity benefits within two years from the first one.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this judgment in the case of Smt. Sonali Sharma v. State Of UP Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Lko. And Two others.

What is the Background of Smt. Sonali Sharma v. State Of UP Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Lko. And Two others Case?

• Petitioner filed an application for second maternity leave, which was rejected.
• So, petitioner approached to the HC seeking a direction to Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Nideshalaya, Uttar Pradesh to grant maternity leave to the petitioner with full salary.
• The court had read down the provisions regarding the admissibility of leave to a woman for a second pregnancy as the same would be governed by the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and not the Financial Handbook.
• The court held that there is no bar on taking a second maternity leave within 2 years from the grant of first maternity benefit and directed Director, Dibyangjan Sashaktikaran Nideshalaya Lucknow, UP to sanction ‘Maternity Leave’ to the petitioner with effect from 14^th August 2023 till 09^th February 2024 along with all service benefits.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 being a beneficial legislation would have overriding effect over the provisions of Financial Handbook. It was being specifically held that Second Maternity Leave within a period of two years from the grant of First Maternity Leave is admissible.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Anupam Yadav & Ors v. State of UP & Ors. (2022):
  • The Allahabad HC held that ‘once the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 has been adopted by the State of UP as held by this court then the said Act of 1961 would apply with full force irrespective of the provisions contained in the Financial Handbook which is merely an executive instruction and would in any case be subsidiary to the legislation made by the Parliament.
• Satakshi Mishra v. State of UP (2022):
  • The Allahabad HC held that the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 does not contain any such stipulation regarding the time difference between the first and second child for the grant of maternity benefits.

What is the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961?

• About:
  • The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is legislation that benefits the employment of women during the time of their maternity.
  • It ensures the women employee of ‘maternity benefits’, which is getting their salary paid during their absence from work to take care of the newborn child.
  • This applies to any establishment employing more than 10 employees. This act was further amended under the Maternity Amendment Bill, 2017.
  • The act is an important piece of legislation that protects the dignity of motherhood.
  • It also helps ensure that working women are able to provide proper care for their children. In addition to protecting the rights of women, maternity benefits also help women with their finances.
• Eligibility:
  • To be entitled to access the benefits under the act, the employee (women) must be employed with the establishment for a period of 80 odd days in the past twelve months.