List of Current Affairs

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul has observed that the police have no authority to search or seize the alleged illegal product in contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940, the power to seize would lie with the Inspector appointed under the act.

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave this judgment in the case of Gaurav Chawla v. State of U.T. Chandigarh.

What is the Background of Gaurav Chawla v. State of U.T. Chandigarh?

• The petitioner was booked under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for allegedly offering to sell Remdesivir injections at a price exceeding the regulated rate, without being in possession of any requisite licence.
• The police seized alleged injections and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner, a director of the company who started to manufacture the injections, along with the other co-accused.
• The court observed that any search and seizure not conducted in accordance with law, as seen in the instant case, would hold no weight during trial for convicting the accused based on such evidence.
• Therefore, owing to the defective recovery process, there would arise no possibility of imposition of penalty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
• It further considered the question of whether the police possessed the power to seize the injections and conduct an investigation with respect to offences under Chapter IV of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
• The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 being a special enactment supersedes the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Essential Commodities Act, thereby precluding the police from taking refuge under the CrPC or Essential Commodities Act to usurp the authority of a Drugs Inspector.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• It is abundantly clear that the police had no power to conduct investigation qua offences under Section 27 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940 and even the FIR could not have been registered under the said provisions.

What is Drugs and Cosmetics Act,1940?

• The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is an act of the Parliament of India which regulates the import, manufacture and distribution of drugs in India.
• The primary objective of the act is to ensure that the drugs and cosmetics sold in India are safe, effective and conform to state quality standards.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Section 22 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
  • Section 22 deals with ‘Power of Inspector', which says that the power to conduct any search and seizure is vested solely with the Drug Inspector.
• Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
  • Section 27: Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.
  • Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes -

(a) any drug deemed to be adulterated under Section 17A or spurious under Section [17B and which] when used by any person for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or disorder is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) solely on account of such drug being adulterated or spurious or not of standard quality, as the case may be, shall be [punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees or three times value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]:

Provided that the fine imposed on and released from, the person convicted under this clause shall be paid, by way of compensation, to the person who had used the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause:

Provided further that where the use of the adulterated or, spurious drugs referred to in this clause has caused the death of a person who used such drugs, the fine imposed on and realised from, the person convicted under this clause, shall be paid to the relative of the person who had died due to the use of the adulterated or spurious drugs referred to in this clause.

Explanation-For the purposes of the second proviso, the expression ‘relative’ means-

(i) spouse of the deceased person; or

(ii) a minor legitimate son, and unmarried legitimate daughter and a widowed mother; or

(iii) parent of the minor victim; or

(iv) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of eighteen years; or

(v) any person, if wholly or in part, dependent on the earnings of the deceased person at the time of his death-

(a) the parent; or

(b) a minor brother or an unmarried sister; or

(c) a widowed daughter-in-law; or

(d) a widowed sister; or

(e) a minor child of a pre-deceased son; or

(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive; or (g) the paternal grandparent if no parent of the member is alive;]

(b) any drug--

(i) deemed to be adulterated under Section 17A but not being a drug referred to in clause (a), or

(ii) without a valid licence as required under clause (c) of Section 18

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall [not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees];

(c) any drug deemed to be spurious under section 17B, but not being a drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall not be three lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more]:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years but not less than three years and of fine of less than one lakh rupees];

(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years [and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees]:

Provided that the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.]

Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Aswathy Surendran v. Union of India, has held that medical termination of pregnancy can only be sought in cases where the foetus has substantial abnormalities diagnosed by the competent Medical Board.

What was the Background of Aswathy Surendran v. Union of India Case?

• In this case, the petitioners are wife and husband, and they apprehend that the foetus which the first among them is carrying, may be suffering from substantial abnormalities.
• A writ petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioners for the termination of pregnancy.
• They claimed that the foetus had bilateral enlarged echogenic Kidneys for the foetus, with presence of micro cysts in both of them' and it would be born with grave abnormalities.
• The Court thus sought reports from the District Medical Board constituted by the Government Medical College, Ernakulam.
• The report suggested that pregnancy can be continued since there was no lethal foetal anomaly and other health conditions can only be assessed after the birth of the baby.
• The High Court closed the writ petition without any further orders.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that statutorily, under the mandate of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), it is only in cases where the foetus has substantial abnormalities diagnosed by the competent Medical Board, can the termination of pregnancy be sought for.
• The Court further held that indubitably, the opinion of the experts is conclusive that the foetus is doing well, though may be born with a renal abnormality, however, without any definiteness as to the scale which would present, varying from mild to severe. Apodictically, therefore, this is not a case where this Court can accede to the request of the petitioners, particularly when the foetus has attained the gestation of 30 weeks.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

MTP Act, 1971

About:

• The MTP Act came into force on 1^st of April 1972.
• The MTP Act of 1971 and its Rules of 2003 prohibit unmarried women who are between 20 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant to abort with the help of registered medical practitioners.
• This Act was updated more comprehensively in 2020, and the revised law became effective in September 2021 with the following amendments.
  • Increase in the maximum gestational age at which a woman may obtain a medical abortion from 20 weeks under the MTP Act of 1971 to 24 weeks.
  • A single qualified medical professional’s opinion might be used to access the MTP up to 20 weeks into the pregnancy and from 20 weeks up to 24 weeks, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners would be required.
  • After seeking the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks of gestational age under the conditions given below:
    • If the woman is either a survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest;
    • If she is a minor;
    • If there is a change in her marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (due to widowhood or divorce);
    • If she suffers from major physical disabilities or she is mentally ill;
    • Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of fetal malformation incompatible with life or the possibility of a seriously handicapped child being born;
    • If the woman is situated in a humanitarian setting or disaster or stuck in the emergency as declared by the Government.
  • Abortion is performed based on fetal abnormalities in cases where pregnancy has progressed over 24 weeks.
    • A four-member Medical Board, established in each state under the MTP Act, must grant permission for this type of abortion.

Section 3(2)(b) of MTP Act:

• This section states that where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the opinion, formed in good faith, that—

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.

Case Law

In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.

Source – Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Triveni Enterprises Limited v. Income Tax Officer & Anr., has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (IT Act).

What was the Background of Triveni Enterprises Limited v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. Case?

• Before the Delhi High Court, the present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 25^th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act for the Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and further challenging the notices dated 25^th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act.
• The petitioner further challenges the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the IT Act states that the issue of constitutional validity of Section 115BBE cannot be adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority.
• The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the notices issued under section 148 of the IT Act have been issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment years and that too could have been issued after obtaining the sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as has been done in the present cases.
• The High Court dismissed the present writ petitions and pending applications.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna has observed that Statutory Acts and their provisions are not to be declared unconstitutional on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in an unrealistic fashion or in a vacuum or on the ground that there is an apprehension of misuse of Statutory Provision or the possibility of abuse of power.
• It must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the administration and application of a particular law would be done not with an evil eye and an unequal hand.
• The court stated that Section 115BBE of the IT Act cannot be held unconstitutional and the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment or reassessment of tax.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions of IT Act, 1961 Involved?

• This Act came into force on the 1^st April 1962 and provides for levy, administration, collection and recovery of Income Tax.
• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to income tax and super-tax.

Section 148 & 148A of IT Act

• Section 148 of this Act deals with the issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.
• Section 148A of this Act, introduced in the Budget of 2021, has ushered in a significant change in the realm of taxation in India.
  • This section empowers Income Tax officers to initiate reassessment proceedings when they suspect that a taxpayer may have concealed income during any assessment year.
• Section 148A(d) of this Act is limited to the existence or otherwise of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

Section 115BBE of IT Act

• Section 115BBE of this Act deals with the tax on income referred to in section 68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. It states that-

(1) Where the total income of an assessee,—

(a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or

(b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of—

(i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and

(ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i).

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance or set off of any loss shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b)of sub-section (1).