List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A division bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta quashed a complaint of defamation against a newspaper under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Supreme Court quashed the complaint in the case of Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey.

What is the Background of Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey Case?

• The accused (appellant), facing prosecution under Section 500 of IPC lodged by the complainant, filed an instant appeal.
• Allegedly, the appellant, owner of 'Sunday Blast' newspaper, published a defamatory article without verifying facts.
• Despite a complaint dismissed by the Magistrate in 2017, a revision procedure reversed the decision in 2018.
• The appellant's plea to the High Court was dismissed in 2020.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that “As a consequence, all proceedings sought to be taken against the accused appellant in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 500 of the IPC are also quashed”.
• SC based its decision on the ground that the initial dismissal was well-grounded, considering freedom of speech.
• The publication was in good faith, exercising constitutional rights.
• Thus, the lower court's decision remained justified, warranting no further interference.

What is the Concept and Execptions of a Defamation Charge?

• Concept:
  • In the IPC, Sections 499 and 500 deal with defamation. Defamation is the act of making a statement that harms the reputation of an individual or entity.
  • Section 500 of IPC provides punishment for defamation. It states that whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
  • However, there are certain exceptions to defamation under Indian law, outlined in Section 499 of the IPC.
  • These exceptions provide defenses for individuals accused of defamation under certain circumstances.
• Exceptions:
  • Truth:
    • A statement is not considered defamatory if it is true and can be justified with evidence.
    • Truth is a valid defense against defamation charges.
  • Public Good:
    • Statements made in the interest of public good are not considered defamatory.
    • If a statement is made with the intention of public welfare or in the public interest, it may not be deemed defamatory.
  • Opinion:
    • Expressions of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are generally not considered defamatory.
    • However, if an opinion is presented as a statement of fact and causes harm to someone's reputation, it may still be actionable.
  • Fair Comment:
    • Fair comments on matters of public interest are not considered defamatory.
    • This exception allows individuals to express their opinions or criticisms on matters of public concern without facing defamation charges, as long as the comments are fair and made in good faith.
  • Privilege:
    • Statements made under certain privileges recognized by law are exempt from defamation claims.
    • For example, statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, legislative debates, or by government officials in the discharge of their duties may be protected from defamation claims.
• Position of Defamation in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
  • Section 356 of BNS provides the definition and punishment for the offence of defamation.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr., has held that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence.

What is the Background of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) before the Trial Court.
• The Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant.
• The appellant preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar and during pendency thereof, he filed an application under Section 391 of CrPC for taking additional evidence at appellate stage.
• Such application preferred by the appellant was rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed the Criminal Application before the High Court of Gujarat which was also dismissed.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of CrPC should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence being exercised or that the facts giving rise to such prayer came to light at a later stage during pendency of the appeal and that nonrecording of such evidence may lead to failure of justice.

What is Section 391 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 391 of CrPC deals with the appellate court taking further evidence or direct it to be taken whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 432 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It states that -

(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate or, when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.

(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken.

(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.

Case Laws:

• In the case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim (2011), the Supreme Court held power under Section 391 of CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional suitable cases where the court is satisfied that directing additional evidence would serve the interests of justice. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case as to whether such permission should be granted having due regard to the concepts of fair play, justice and the well-being of society.
• In Ram Babu v. State Of Maharashtra (2001), the Supreme Court observed Section 391 of CrPC forms an exception to the general rule that an Appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the Trial Court and the powers being an exception shall always have to be exercised with caution and circumspection so as to meet the ends of justice.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Km. Ankita Devi v. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya, has highlighted the difference between void and voidable marriage and held that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.

What is the Background of Km. Ankita Devi v. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya Case?

• In this case, the appellant (wife) had filed a matrimonial petition before the Family Court under Section 12 of HMA however, vide amendment, Section 12 was replaced with Section 11 of HMA.
• It was contended by the appellant that the marriage was an outcome of fraud and the petition under Section 11 was liable to be allowed.
• Whereas the respondent (husband) contended that the marriage had taken place in a simple ceremony and thereafter the marriage was registered by the appellant.
• The Family Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 11 of HMA.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Donadi Ramesh observed that a void marriage is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place and such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio can be sought under Section 11 HMA on the grounds as provided therein whereas a voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with the HMA.
• The Court further held that grounds under Section 11 of HMA are very different from grounds under Section 12 of HMA and thus, a petition filed under Section 11 of the Act cannot be judged on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 11.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 11 of HMA

About:

• Section 11 of HMA deals with the provision of Void Marriages.
• This section does not define void marriages but gives the grounds on which a marriage can be called void.
• It states that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5.

Grounds:

• Under HMA any marriage is void if it does not fulfill the conditions mentioned under section 5 clause (i), (iv) and (v).
  • Under Clause (i) of Section 5 neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.
  • Under Clause (iv) of Section 5 the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.
  • Under Clause (v) of Section 5 the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.

Effect:

• The parties don’t have the position of husband and wife in a void marriage.
• Children born from a void marriage are legitimate according to Section16 of HMA.

Section 12 of HMA

About:

• Section 12 of HMA envisages provision for voidable marriage as:
  • A voidable marriage is a valid marriage until it is avoided, and it can only be done if one of the parties to the marriage files a petition for the same.
  • However, in case any of the parties do not file a petition for the annulment of the marriage, it will remain valid.

Grounds:

• Clause (ii) of Section 5 of HMA if not complied with, makes a marriage voidable.
  • As per Section 5 - (ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party —

(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind;

(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or

(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity.

• Section12 further mentions following grounds on which marriage can be declare as voidable:
  • If the marriage has not been consummated because of impotency of the respondent.
  • If either of the parties to the marriage is incapable of giving consent or has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity.
  • If the consent of the petitioner or the consent of the guardian of the petitioner has been obtained by force or fraud.
  • If the respondent was pregnant before the marriage by some other person than the petitioner.

Effect:

• The parties have the status of a husband and a wife, and their children are considered to be legitimate by virtue of Section 16 of HMA. All the other rights and obligations of the spouses remain intact.