List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Orissa High Court has held that as per the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) from the Protection Officer is not a pre -requisite to grant relief to an aggrieved woman.

What was the Background of the Case?

• In this case, proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act against the petitioners seeking various reliefs as the victim was physically and mentally harassed by the petitioners in connection with a demand of dowry amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- or an expensive car.
• Thereafter the petitioners filed a petition before the Orissa High Court seeking to quash such proceeding by denying the allegations.
• The counsel for the petitioner contended that the DIR has not been received from the Protection Officer, as required under Section 12(1) of the DV Act.
• Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the petition does not hold any merit.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that DIR from the Protection Officer is not mandatory and hence, not a pre-requisite to grant relief to an aggrieved woman under Section 12(1) of the DV Act.
• The Court further stated that Section 12(1) requires the Magistrate to take into consideration the DIR. However, the DIR is not mandatory for passing orders and shall be taken into consideration only in cases where it has been filed.

What is Section 12 of the DV Act?

About the Act:

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds.
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.
• The preamble of this Act makes it clear that the reach of the Act is that violence, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic, are all to be redressed by the statute.

Section 12 of DV Act:

• This Section deals with the Application to Magistrate. It states that –

(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favor of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Case Law:

• In Ajay Kaul & Ors. V. State of J & K and Ors. (2019), the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that Section 12 of the DV Act per se does not hold that a Magistrate on receipt of complaint is obligated to call for a domestic incident report, before passing any order on an application. So, it is not mandatory for a Magistrate to obtain a domestic incident report before the Magistrate passes any order provided under various sections of the Act.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court held that a bank cannot withhold a passport and Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) card as security for loan repayment.

What was the Background of the Case?

• An OCI card holder citizen of the United Kingdom was held under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by Vijaya Bank which is now Bank of Baroda.
• The Bank stated that on 03^rd October 2018, the petitioner voluntarily committed to closing two housing loan accounts.
• When the petitioner did not fulfill the commitment, the Bank instructed him to surrender passport and OCI card.
• The petitioner contended coercion, asserting the Bank lacks authority over the UK-issued passport, and only the Ministry of External Affairs can act on the OCI card.
• The Bank refuted the claims, citing a paragraph in the undertaking where the petitioner agreed to deposit the passport willingly.

What is the Court’s Observation?

• The Karnataka High Court held that “The action of the Bank in retaining the British passport of the petitioner and the OCI Card is held to be illegal”.

Who are Overseas Citizens of India?

• About:
  • A person having Indian origin, but foreign citizenship is allowed to work and live in India for indefinite period.
  • It is an immigration status provided to foreign citizen of Indian origin.
  • It was made to meet the needs of dual citizenship.
  • The Overseas Citizen of India Scheme came in year 2005 by amending the existing Citizenship Act, 1995.
  • It was launched in 2006 on the occasion Pravasi Bharti Divas.
• Dual Citizenship Aspect:
  • OCI status is not dual citizenship. It is a form of permanent residency that provides certain benefits but does not grant the right to hold an Indian passport.
  • OCIs are encouraged to maintain and renew their passports from their country of residence.
• Eligibility for OCI Card:
  • The applicant must be a citizen of another country having an Indian origin or was citizen of India on or before the commencement of the Constitution; or
  • The applicant must be a citizen of another country, but was eligible for the citizenship of India at the time of the commencement of the constitution; or
  • The applicant must be a citizen of another country and belonging to a territory that became a part of India after the 15^th August 1947; or
  • The person is a child/grandchild/great grandchild of such a citizen; or
  • The person is a minor child, whose parents are both Indian citizens or one parent is a citizen of India and
  • The applicant is a spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or of an OCI cardholder.
• Exceptions
  • A person who is not a citizen of any country is ineligible to become an OCI card holder.
  • Any person will be denied applying for the OCI card if his parents or grandparents are/were citizens of Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Mahuya Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., has held that the right of a person to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI) cannot be deprived merely because he was convicted.

What was the Background of Mahuya Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.?

• In this case, the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court has challenged the decision of the State Sentence Review Board, West Bengal (SSRB) in rejecting the application of the petitioner, the wife of a convict who was handed a life sentence.
• The petitioner’s husband is already in custody for more than two decades.
• The contention of the petitioner was that the SSRB was not properly constituted and that the grounds cited for such rejection by the SSRB are not in consonance with the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court and this Court as well as the other High Courts.
• The High Court directed the respondent authorities to ensure that a properly constituted SSRB reconsiders the petitioner’s request for premature release of her husband.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed that the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the COI to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted.
• It was further held that the life behind bars has already been undergone by the petitioner for a considerable period. There cannot be any double punishment for the petitioner by refusing the petitioner an opportunity to reintegrate in mainstream society even if the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

About:

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance
  • Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Case Laws:

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.