List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala Court

Why in News?

Additional Sub Judge-I, Thrissur, Rajeevan Vachal has observed and granted Rs. 10 Lakhs compensation to a renowned psychologist, against whom certain defamatory statements had been made.

• The Kerala Court gave this judgment in the case of Prasad M.K. @ Prasad Amore v. Sherin V. George.

What is the Background of the Prasad M.K. @ Prasad Amore v. Sherin V. George Case?

• The plaintiff works as a licensed Rehabilitation Psychologist and the defendant, who works in the field of psychology alleged that the plaintiff was a fraud and fake psychologist, and his qualifying certificates were also fake, and published a Facebook post regarding that.
• The plaintiff claimed that due to the publication of the afore defamatory statements, his reputation amongst the public was lowered, and affected his financial condition and claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs, with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum besides Rs.1,000/­ being the cost of the demand notice.
• The Court ascertained that there was no material before it to refuse the amount claimed by the plaintiff and granted Rs. 10 Lakhs compensation with interest @ 6% per annum.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The Kerala Court rightly concludes that the plaintiff is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­(Rupees Ten lakh only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the plaint from the defendant and held that the plaintiff would also be entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendant.

What is ‘Defamation’?

• Meaning:
  • Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false.
  • A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property, he is liable under the law; similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law.
• Essentials:
  • The Statement must be Defamatory:
    • The statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.
    • The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right-thinking members of society are likely to take it.
    • Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike.
  • The Statement must refer to the Plaintiff:
    • In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff.
    • If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.
  • The Statement must be Published:
    • Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie.
    • However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant is likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.
  • Forms of Defamation:
    • Slander- It is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form. For example- Defaming a person by way of words or gestures.
    • Libel- It is the representation made in some permanent form.
• Defamation in Civil Wrong:
  • It is defined as "any intentional false statement either spoken or written, that harms a person's reputation; decrease the respect, regard or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person".
• Defamation in Criminal Law:
  • Section 499 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC): "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person".
  • Section 500 of IPC: It lays forth the consequences for anyone who engages in defamatory behaviour. ‘Punishment for defamation’, it says. ‘Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both’.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., has directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to prepare a scheme with suggestions for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

What was the Background of Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Case?

• The MV Act has been amended by the Central Legislation and Rules have also been framed.
• Thereafter due to non-implementation of the amended provision, directions have been issued vide order dated 15^th December 2022, in this case.
• When the matter came up for hearing, the Court took suggestions from Amicus Curiae and issued directions for preparation of a scheme under the aegis of NALSA.
• The matter is listed for further hearing on 5^th January 2024.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan directed NALSA to prepare a scheme with suggestions for implementation of the amended MV Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
• The Court had subsequently directed all States and Union Territories to file compliance reports regarding the same and had criticized the states for their lethargic attitude.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
  • Replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this Act came into force on 1^st July 1989.
  • The Act provides in detail the legislative provisions regarding licensing of drivers/conductors, registration of motor vehicles, control of motor vehicles through permits, special provisions relating to state transport undertakings, traffic regulation, insurance, liability, offences and penalties, etc.
• Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019
  • This Act came into effect on 1^st September 2019.
  • This Act defines golden hour as the time period of up to one hour following a traumatic injury, during which the likelihood of preventing death through prompt medical care is the highest.
  • This Act increases the minimum compensation for hit and run cases as follows:
    • In case of death, from Rs 25,000 to two lakh rupees.
    • In case of grievous injury, from Rs 12,500 to Rs 50,000.
  • It requires the Central government to constitute a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, to provide compulsory insurance cover to all road users in India.
  • It allows the Central government to order a recall of motor vehicles if a defect in the vehicle may cause damage to the environment, or the driver, or other road users.
  • It provides for a National Road Safety Board, to be created by the central government through a notification.
• This Act defines aggregators as digital intermediaries or market places which can be used by passengers to connect with a driver for transportation purposes (taxi services). These aggregators will be issued licenses by state
• It increases penalties for several offences under the Act. For example, the maximum penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs has been increased from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000.
• Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2022:
  • These Rules have come into force on 1^st April 2022.
  • The new Rules are based on the Scheme framed by the Delhi High Court in judgment dated 8^th January 2021 titled Rajesh Tyagi vs. Jaibir Singh.
  • The aforesaid Rules lay down a new procedure for expeditious investigation and adjudication of the Motor Accident Claims.
  • These Rules mandate the timeline for investigation and adjudication of all Motor Accidents Claims within a period of six months to one year.
  • They have revolutionized the motor accidents compensation jurisprudence as the claimants shall get the compensation within one year to the accident.

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Smt. Ashwani Sharad Pendese & Anr. v. Registrar of Hindu Marriage & Anr. has stated that the denial of registration of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) merely on the ground that one or both of them are foreign nationals is not justified.

What was the Background of Smt. Ashwani Sharad Pendese & Anr. v. Registrar of Hindu Marriage & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the petitioners (husband and wife) are claiming themselves a Hindu married couple and wife is a resident of India, while husband is a resident of Belgium.
• They have performed the marriage as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 18^th January 2010.
• The Registrar has refused to register their marriage by observing that their marriage cannot be registered because the husband is a Foreign National and he is not a resident of India.
• Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan for directing the Registrar of Marriage to register their marriage and issue a marriage certificate to them.
• While allowing the plea, the High Court directed the marriage registrar to issue the couple a marriage certificate.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that denial of registration of a marriage on the ground that one or both of them are foreign nationals is not justified.
• The Court further held that the respondents cannot refuse to register the marriage of the petitioners only because the husband is a foreigner and is not a citizen of India. If the petitioners submit valid proof about their marriage, in terms of the provisions contained under HMA, the respondents are supposed to register their marriage with immediate effect without any further delay.
• It was further states that Section 8 of HMA deals with the process of Registration of Hindu Marriages. But it has nowhere mentioned that a foreign national Hindu cannot get his marriage registered in India, if he/she has solemnized marriage, as per the requirement of HMA.
• The Court also directed the officials of the State and respondents to take steps for editing the requirement on the e-portal under the HMA to ensure that the requirement of the parties being citizens of India is not insisted upon, if the parties concerned submit a valid proof of their marriage strictly in accordance with law.

What is Section 8 of HMA?

About:

• This section deals with registration of Hindu marriages. It states that —

(1) For the purpose of facilitating the proof of Hindu marriages, the State Government may make rules providing that the parties to any such marriage may have the particulars relating to their marriage entered in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in a Hindu Marriage Register kept for the purpose.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, provide that the entering of the particulars referred to in sub-section (1) shall be compulsory in the State or in any part thereof, whether in all cases or in such cases as may be specified, and where any such direction has been issued, any person contravening any rule made in this behalf shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees.

(3) All rules made under this section shall be laid before the State Legislature, as soon as may be, after they are made.

(4) The Hindu Marriage Register shall at all reasonable times be open for inspection and shall be admissible as evidence of the statements therein contained and certified extracts therefrom shall, on application, be given by the Registrar on payment to him of the prescribed fee.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way be affected by the omission to make the entry.

Case Law:

• In the case of Bhumika Mohan Jaisinghani & Anr. V. Registrar of Marriage & Ors. (2019), one spouse was citizen of Canada and other another spouse was a resident of Britain. Both of them online applied for registration of their marriage but the software did not accept their application because they were not citizen of India. The Delhi High Court not only directed the Registrar of Marriages to register the marriage of the two foreigners (not citizens of India) but also directed the authorities for taking necessary steps for modification of the software, which was being used for registration of marriages and issuance of certificates.