List of Current Affairs

Source: Patiala House Courts

Why in News?

Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur has remanded the four accused of Parliament Security Breach to seven days police custody.

What is the Background of the Case?

• In a major security breach on the anniversary of 2001 Parliament terror attack, two persons jumped into the chamber of Lok Sabha from the public gallery when the ‘Zero Hour’ was in session.
• The two were seen holding canisters which released yellow gas. They were also shouting slogans. However, they were overpowered by some of the Member of Parliaments (MPs).
• First Information Report (FIR) under various offences of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been registered in the matter.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The Patiala House Courts has observed that police custody was required in order to unearth the conspiracy to commit the ‘planned attack on the parliament’ and their association with other countries and other terrorist organization also has to be seen.
• However, the court granted police remand for seven days and said that the same can be extended.

What is ‘Police Custody’?

• Meaning:
  • When a person is arrested by police for charges of committing a heinous crime or on suspicion, he is detained in police custody. The rule to produce a person before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest is given under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
  • According to this section, when the accused is produced before the magistrate and he believes that there is a need for further investigation or interrogation, he can order the person to police custody for the next 15 days which can be extended to 30 days in certain cases depending on nature, gravity, and circumstances of each case.
  • The magistrate has been given the power under Section 167 to remand a person in police custody.
  • He can also order to change the custody from police custody to judicial custody. In such a situation, the time period of police custody is deducted from the total time period of judicial custody.
• Case Laws:
  • State v. Dharampal (1982):
    • The Delhi High Court held that a person must be sent to police custody within 15 days from the date he is produced before the magistrate under Section 167 of CrPC but if the accused is in judicial custody, he can be sent to prison either in 15 days or even after that.
  • Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2009):
    • The Supreme Court held that an accused cannot be taken into police custody if he has been granted bail unless his bail is cancelled.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held non-maintainability of a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the case where an application submitted under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree was dismissed.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum.

What is the Background of Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society v. Ameena Begum Case?

• The appellant approached V-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell.
• An ex-parte decree was passed by the Civil Court in his favor.
• Hence, the respondents filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay of 5767 days in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree.
• Application of respondents seeking condonation of delay was dismissed and the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree also stood dismissed by the Civil Court.
• Consequently, one of the respondents approached the Telangana High Court for Civil Revision of order of dismissal of ex-parte decree. And HC set aside the decision of the lower court.
• Hence, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of HC before SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC allowed the appeal stating that “We set aside the impugned order on the ground that the said order was passed in a Civil Revision Petition which was not at all maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC”.
• However, the court further said that liberty is reserved to the respondent to file an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC, if so advised, on or before 31^st December 2023.
• The court said in this regard that when there is an express provision available under the CPC for appeal, by-passing the same, a Revision Petition cannot be filed.

What were the Remedies Against Ex-Parte Decree Highlighted by the Court in this Case?

The SC said that as against the ex-parte decree, a defendant has three remedies available to him.

• First, is by way of filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking for setting aside ex-parte decree;
• The second, is by way of filing an appeal against the ex-parte decree under Section 96(2) of the CPC;
• The third is by way of review before the same court against the ex-parte decree.

What is Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

• Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:
  • Section 115 of CPC grants revisional jurisdiction to HCs.
  • It allows the HC to scrutinize and correct orders passed by subordinate courts.
• Grounds for Revision:
  • Under Section 115 of CPC of the HC may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such HC and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:
    • to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
    • to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
    • to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
  • The HC may make such an order in the case as it thinks fit.
• Limited Scope of Revision:
  • The revisional power is not an appellate power; it is corrective in nature.
  • HCs cannot reevaluate the evidence or interfere with mere points of law.
• Erroneous Exercise of Jurisdiction:
  • Revision can be sought when a court exercises jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
  • It provides a remedy against miscarriage of justice resulting from the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
• Judicial Discretion:
  • The power conferred by Section 115 is discretionary.
  • The HC may decline to interfere if the lower court's order is not vitiated by jurisdictional errors.
• Orders Subject to Revision:
  • Revision can be sought against orders, decrees, or judgments of subordinate courts.
  • It covers a wide range of judicial determinations that affect the rights of the parties involved.
• Not Stay of Suit:
  • A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the HC.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar has observed that under the Muslim Law, a mother is entitled to custody (hizanat) of a male child until he completes the age of 7 years.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this judgment in the case of Takbeer Khan (Minor) Thru. His Mother Rehana v. State of UP Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others.

What is the Background of Takbeer Khan (Minor) Thru. His Mother Rehana v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And 3 Others Case?

• In the Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner asserted that respondent No. 4, her husband, subjected her to physical abuse under the influence of alcohol. So, she returned to her parental home with her son (born in 2020) in the year 2021.
• The petitioner-deponent contended that despite temporarily resuming cohabitation with her husband at her matrimonial home, his behaviour did not change and subsequently, a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,2012 was filed against the husband, leading to his charge-sheeting and approximately a year of incarceration.
• It was her further case that upon his release on bail, he purportedly engaged in an extramarital affair, which was objected to by her. The husband allegedly coerced her to vacate the matrimonial residence, while retaining custody of the detenue, Takbeer Khan, against the deponent's will.
• Consequently, this petition was filed to seek judicial intervention for the custody of Takbeer Khan/detenue.
• The writ of habeas corpus was issued directing the opposite party No. 4 to hand over the custody of the detenue to the deponent of the petition namely, Rehana forthwith.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The fact remains that the deponent is the mother of the detenue, aged about 3 years and 7 months, and ordinarily the custody of the minor who is just 3 years and 7 months of age vests with the mother.
• The custody of the detenue was liable to be given to the deponent-Rehana.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu (2008):
  • The Supreme Court noted that the character of the proposed guardian is required to be considered to determine the suitability of the spouse to have custody of the minor child.

What is the Concept of ‘Custody’ under Muslim Law?

• Who is a Minor?
  • According to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, someone domiciled in the Republic of India who is below the age of eighteen years, is a minor.
  • A minor is assumed to have no capacity to protect his or her own interests. Law thus requires that some adult person must safeguard the minor’s person or property and do everything on his or her behalf because such a minor is legally incompetent.

What is Guardianship?

• • Under Muslim law, it is called ‘Hizanat’.
  • The guardianship of a child means that overall oversight of the child throughout its minority.
  • Father or his executor or in his absence, the paternal grandfather, being the natural guardian, is in charge of the minor’s person.
  • On the opposite hand, ‘custody of the child’ simply means a physical possession (custody) of the child upon a certain age.
  • Although the mother is not the natural guardian of the child under Muslim law, she has a right to the custody of the child, until the child attains a specific age. But the father or the paternal grandfather encompasses control over the minor throughout the complete interval of the minority.