List of Current Affairs

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr., has held that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.

What was the Background of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent and another were irregularly creating documents of property in the name of dead person despite knowing the fact that those were fake documents, such as, death certificate, family tree of the original successor of land of the appellant etc. for illegal gain.
• The respondent is working as Village Accountant, Kirigdalu Circle in the district of Hassan, Karnataka State.
• Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the proceedings.
• The High Court quashed the proceedings.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Section 197 CrPC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.
• It was further held that the prior sanction for prosecution as per Section 197 of CrPC is not required to prosecute a public servant for the act of creating fake documents as the alleged acts do not form a part of his official duty.

What is Section 197 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 197 of CrPC deals with the prosecution of Judges and public servants whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 218 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS). It states that—

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—

(a) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government.

(b) In the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted.

(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.

Case Law

• In the case of State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004), the Supreme Court held that the protection given under Section 197 of CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra gave directions to the High Courts to set up the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centre (VWDC).

• The Supreme Court observed this in the case of Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

What was the Background of Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr?

• Miscellaneous Application upon 2018 Judgment:
  • The SC was hearing a Miscellaneous Application to set up court rooms upon the directions issued by the bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, (2018) to set up centre for vulnerable witnesses in every district of the country.
• Detailed Directions in 2022 Judgment:
  • The application also noted the directions given by a division bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant in the case of Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr (2022).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• SC observed its prior precedents and the need of issuance of directions for VWDC.

What are the Directions Given by the Supreme Court for Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centre?

• Extension of Period:
  • Since the work of setting up and monitoring the VWDC is under way, the court extended the term of appointment of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir until 31^st July 2024.
• Completion Deadline:
  • The court directed all the HCs to take necessary steps for setting up VWDCs in all districts.
  • This exercise shall be completed on or before 30^th April 2024.
• Fresh Status Report:
  • The Chairperson of the Committee may accordingly prepare a fresh updated status report and submit it to this Court by the first week of May 2024 indicating the status of compliance.
• Two High Court’s Yet to Implement:
  • The attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that two High Courts are yet to implement the VWDC guidelines based on the model of 2022 circulated by Justice Gita Mittal.
  • The State of Odisha is yet to implement the guidelines insofar as civil cases are concerned.
  • In terms of the expanded definition of vulnerable witnesses, the State of Tamil Nadu has not taken any action at all. The SC permitted Justice Gita Mittal to draw this fact to the attention of the Registrars General of the High Courts of Odisha and Madras together with the copy of this order so as to ensure that both the High Courts take necessary steps positively on or before 30^th April 2024.

What were the Directions Given by the Supreme Court in 2022 Judgement?

• Expanded Definition of Vulnerable Witnesses:
  • Included age-neutral victims of sexual assault.
  • Encompassed gender-neutral victims under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
  • Covered age and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • Involves witnesses with mental illness, threat perception, speech or hearing impairments, or other disabilities.
• Establishment of Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDC):
  • HCs were directed to adopt and notify a VWDC Scheme within two months from the date of this judgment.
  • The HCs which already have existing VWDC Schemes in place were suggested to consider making suitable modifications in conformity with the guidelines which were indicated in the present order.
  • Creation of in-house permanent VWDC Committee for supervision and periodic assessment.
• Cost Estimation and Funding:
  • HCs were directed to estimate costs for setting up VWDCs within three months.
  • The State Government was directed to expedite funds approval and disbursement within three months.
• All India VWDC Training Programme:
  • Committee chaired by Justice Gita Mittal was directed to implement training programs.
  • High Courts were directed to cooperate, and Committee to engage with National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs).
• Compliance and Monitoring:
  • The Court said that every District Court to have at least one permanent VWDC within four months from the date of this order.
  • Chief Justices of All HCs were asked to take appropriate steps for compliance monitoring.
• Coordination and Support:
  • Ministry of Women and Child Development was directed to designate a nodal officer for coordination.
  • HCs, in consultation with the Committee Chairperson, were directed to enlist experts for proper training.
• Logistical and Financial Support:
  • The SC said that expenses, including honorarium, to be defrayed by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
  • The SC empowered Committee Chairperson to seek further directions if needed.

Source – Madhya Pradesh Court

Why in News?

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that if one of several plaintiffs having independent right to relief and which is severable from the right claimed by the other plaintiffs seeks to abandon the claim in the suit, then the Court can grant such relief in its discretion.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Kapoori Bai & Ors. v. Neelesh & Ors.

What was the Background of Kapoori Bai & Ors. v. Neelesh & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioners and other plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the Suit Property.
• During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no.7 had expired and learned Trial Court allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as a legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff no.7 was already on record.
• Some of the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC, likewise petitioner also moved a similar application before the learned Trial Court seeking permission to withdraw the plaint on the ground of plaintiff no.6 had obtained their signatures without their consent and knowledge
• The learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
• Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been preferred before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed that if one of several plaintiffs having independent right to relief and which is severable from the right claimed by the other plaintiffs seeks to abandon his claim in the suit once and for all without reservation and such abandonment does not affect the right to relief of the co-plaintiffs, his/her consent would not be an essential condition and the learned Court may, in its discretion, can grant the prayer made before it on such terms as it considers just and proper supported with reasons.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC

• Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff. It states that—

(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.

Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC

About:

• Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC deals with the withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim. It states that—

(1) At any time after the institution of a suit, the plaintiff may as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim.

Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court.

(2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of the pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person.

(3) Where the Court is satisfied, —

(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or

(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of suit or part of a claim, it may, on such terms as it thinks fit grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matter of such suit or such part of the claim.

(4) Where the plaintiff—

(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.

(5) Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to authorize the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub-rule (1), or to withdraw, under sub-rule (3), any suit or part of a claim, without the consent of the other plaintiff.

Case Law:

• In Baidyanath Nandi v. Shyama Sundar Nandi (1943), the Calcutta High Court held that when one of several plaintiffs' desires to withdraw from the suit without reserving a liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same matter, the consent of the co-plaintiff is not necessary.