List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Minati Bhadra & Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors., have held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.

What was the Background of Minati Bhadra & Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition stating that his mother (Chhabi Rani Bhadra was the original owner of the suit property.
• She died intestate and was survived by her husband and son who thus acquired the property by inheritance.
• The husband remarried and had two more children and passed away leaving behind surviving defendants as his legal heir.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partition.
• The plaintiff challenged the judgement of learned Trial Court before the Learned First Appellate Court who reversed the judgement of learned Trial Court and held that plaintiff has right interest and possession over the suit property and is entitled to decree for partition in respect of his share.
• Aggrieved thereby the defendants preferred the appeal before the Calcutta High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury held that when documentary evidence is available, the oral testimony of a witness would not be able to rebut its probative value.
• The Court noted that there was a discrepancy between oral testimony and documentary evidence in this case, in relation to Section 35 and Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
• The Court further held that the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidentiary value which unerringly indicates the relationship between father and son. Therefore, the court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgement impugned.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 35, IEA

• This section deals with the relevancy of entry in public record made in the performance of duty.
• It states that an entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record or an electronic record, is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
• The Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand (2008), held that in order to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely:
  • Entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record.
  • It must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
  • It must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law.

Section 50, IEA

• This section deals with opinion on relationships, when relevant.
• It states that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.
• Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The essential requirements of this section are-
  • There must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another.
  • In such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such a relationship is a relevant fact.
  • But the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of a relationship.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra, has held that annoying acts wouldn't constitute an offence under the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra Case?

• In this case, the respondent alleged that the applicant had followed her a couple of times and abused her.
• On the date of incident, while she was going to market, the applicant, who was following her on bicycle, pushed her.
• She got annoyed, however, she proceeded further.
• The applicant followed her and, therefore, she beat him.
• This evidence was found to be sufficient by both the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Sessions Court to convict the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.
• Thereafter, a revision application was filed before the Bombay High Court.
• Allowing the revision application, the High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Anil L. Pansare observed that the said act cannot be said to be capable to shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The act may be annoying but definitely would not shock the sense of decency of a woman.
• The Court further said that nonetheless keeping in mind this conduct of the applicant, the ultimate act which he has done will have to be considered, which act is pushing/shoving her while riding bicycle and this would not constitute an offence under the provisions of Section 354 of IPC.

What is Section 354 of IPC?

About:

• This section deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
• It states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Essential Elements:

• The Supreme Court in the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2004) has described the essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the IPC:
  • The person assaulted must be a woman.
  • The accused must have used criminal force on her.
  • Such an act must have been done with the intention to outrage her modesty.

Source: Calcutta High Court (SA 60 of 2021)

Why in News?

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury of Calcutta High Court gave observation regarding states' responsibility to protect the right to property under Article 300-A in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Achinta Roy.

What is the Background of the State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Achinta Roy Case?

• As per plaintiffs, they were the owners of their mother’s land in the Land Records.
• Suddenly in 1987, the state mentioned itself as the owner of the suit property during.
• The District Judge held in favor of plaintiffs against which the state filed an appeal before HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Calcutta HC held that, during the ongoing legal proceedings before the lower court, the defendant State unlawfully expelled the plaintiffs from the property in question, an action deemed entirely illegal.
• The court said that the State is obligated to safeguard citizens and uphold their property rights, recognized as constitutional rights.
• Consequently, the State is now responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the wrongful dispossession of the property from 1^st May 2000, until the rightful possession is reinstated.

What is Right to Property under Constitution of India?

• Initial Position of Right to Property:
  • The Right to Property was initially recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India.
  • These provisions guaranteed citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and prohibited the deprivation of property without the authority of law.
• 1^st Amendment (1951):
  • Recognizing the need for agrarian reforms and addressing social inequalities, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, paving the way for the government to impose restrictions on the right to property in the interest of the general public.
• 44^th Amendment (1978):
  • The most significant change came with the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which altered the constitutional landscape by abolishing the fundamental right to property altogether.
  • Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were omitted with effect from 20^th June 1979.
  • The 44^th Amendment Act inserted a new provision, Article 300-A, which acknowledged the right to property as a legal right rather than a fundamental right.
• Current Status:
  • As of the present constitutional framework, the Right to Property is primarily governed by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
  • Article 300-A states that no person shall be deprived of his or her property save by authority of law.
  • Unlike the earlier provisions, the current stance emphasizes that the right to property is not absolute and can be regulated by law.

What the Landmark Cases Related to Right to Property?

• A K Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
  • This case, heard by the Madras HC, was one of the early instances where the court grappled with the conflict between the right to property and the state's power to regulate it.
  • The court upheld the constitutionality of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which authorized the state to take possession of any property for public order.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
  • This case is often referred to as the "basic structure doctrine" case.
  • While not directly related to the right to property, it is crucial in understanding the constitutional context.
  • The Supreme Court, in a historic decision, held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
  • This case indirectly influenced the subsequent amendment that transformed the right to property into a legal right.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which gave Parliament unbridled power to amend the Constitution.
  • The court, while upholding the amendment abolishing the fundamental right to property, emphasized that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right.
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujrat (1995):
  • SC held that the Right to Property is not a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution.