List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Litty Thomas v. State of Kerala, has held that before the Judge proceeds to frame the charge under the provisions of Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he has to form an opinion, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.

What was the Background of Litty Thomas v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the charges framed against him.
• The grievance pointed out by the petitioner is that though the trial court heard the petitioner under Section 227 of CrPC, charge was framed without forming an opinion as to the ground for presuming that he has committed the offences alleged, or a finding to the effect that no sufficient grounds were there for a discharge.
• The High Court held that the charge framed by the trial court has to be quashed, and the learned trial Judge is directed to hear the prosecution and the petitioner once again under Section 227 of CrPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sophy Thomas observed that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he shall frame the charge against the accused. So, it is imperative under Section 228 of CrPC that before the Judge proceeds to frame the charge, he has to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.
• On analyzing Sections 227 and 228 of CrPC, the Court stated that the judge has to consider records, documents submitted and hear the submissions of the prosecution and accused before discharging or framing charges against the accused.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 227 of CrPC

About:

• Section 227 of CrPC deals with the discharge of the accused in sessions cases.
• It states that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
• This section was enacted for the purpose of saving the accused from unnecessary harassment.

Case Law:

• In the State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy (1977), the Supreme Court held that the object of the provisions which require the Session Judge to record its reasons while entertaining discharge petition under section 227 of CrPC is to enable the superior court to examine illegality of the impugned order. In that case the trial court did not assign any reason in the impugned order while refusing to discharge the accused as such it suffers from serious infirmity.

Section 228 of CrPC

• Section 228 of CrPC deals with framing of charges in cases of trial before Sessions Court. It states that

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—

(a) Is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report.

(b) Is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justice Krishna Rao was hearing an appeal against order in an Arbitration Petition.

• The Calcutta High Court gave this judgment in the case of Suresh Dhanuka v. Shahnaz Husain.

What is the Background of Suresh Dhanuka v. Shahnaz Husain Case?

• Before the learned Arbitrator, the claimant contended that Respondent No.2, by order dated 11^th June 2004, sought Lead Antimony Alloy Wire of specific dimensions and composition.
• The petitioner duly supplied 141207 kgs of wire in August and September 2004, accompanied by pre-inspection reports and billing.
• Despite this, Respondent No.2 failed to pay and cited issues with the wire's suitability, causing operational interruptions.
• After reminders and exchanges, Respondent No.2 rejected the entire consignment, demanding its return.
• The petitioner contested, asserting adherence to specifications.
• Arbitration ensued, leading to an Award on 12^th May 2006.
• The Arbitrator granted Rs.2,48,289/- for materials used by Respondent No.2 but denied the remaining Rs.16,78,599/-, citing the petitioner's retrieval of rejected material per supply terms.
• Respondent No.2, in its defense, highlighted the tender specifics and alleged absence of requisite test certificates.
• The Arbitrator considered both sides' arguments and awarded Rs.2,78,083.68/-, resolving the dispute between the parties.
• The petitioner/appellant filed an Arbitration Original Petition in 2006, which was dismissed.
• They appealed to set aside the order given in the petition of 2006.
  • The appellant argued the lower court and arbitrator did not consider their claims properly.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Calcutta High Court noted the limited scope of interfering with arbitration awards, emphasizing errors apparent on the record or perversity as grounds for interference.
  • It mentioned “The scope of interfering with the arbitration award is very limited until and unless there is error apparent on the face of the record and there is perversity in the award”.

What is Judicial Intervention under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?

• About:
  • One of the key features of the Act is the limited scope for judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings.
  • Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), specifically deals with the extent of judicial intervention in matters governed by the Act.
• Section 5: Extent of Judicial Intervention:
  • Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.
• Purpose:
  • This section essentially establishes that judicial intervention in arbitration matters should be limited, and courts should refrain from interfering with arbitral proceedings unless explicitly provided for in the Act itself.
  • The Act aims to promote arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution by minimizing judicial interference and facilitating a more expeditious resolution process.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Connected Matters., has held the proposed Fact Check Unit under the 2023 amendment to the Information & Technology Rules 2021 directly infringed fundamental rights provided under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) due to the differential treatment between online and print content.

What was the Background of Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Connected Matters. Case?

• In this case, a complaint has been filed against the Central Government’s 2023 amendment to a particular Rule 3(1)(b)(v) under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Through the amendment, the Central Government has appointed itself as the sole arbiter of what is or what is not fake, false or misleading.
• As per the Petitioners, such an amendment of the Proposed Fact Check Unit is violative of constitutional freedoms specifically, those guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the COI.
• So, a petition has been filed before the High Court of Bombay which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Patel observed that any particular information does not become fake, false or misleading only because it is digital. Examples can be endlessly multiplied.
• It was also held that social media has become the primary news medium for the last half-decade or so. There is some material to show a precipitous decline in hard-copy newspaper readership in India. That in turn means a stagnation or decline in advertising revenue. Social media is thus the primary driver for news dissemination.
• It was further stated that the impugned Rule targets social media content even for news outlets that have a print media (and about which nothing is or can be proposed). There is, thus, a direct infringement of Article 9(1)(g). The impugned Rule pushes out of the news cycle the digital version of any reportage with which the Central Government disagrees.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

• On 25^th February 2021, the Union of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Amendments to the Rule 3:
  • Rule 3 is the contentious rule. Parts of it were amended in 2022 and then again in 2023. There is no challenge to the 2022 amendment.
  • The grounds in subclause 1 of rule 3 have been rationalized by removing the words ‘defamatory’ and ‘libellous’.
  • Whether any content is defamatory or libellous will be determined through judicial review.
  • Some of the content categories in subclause 1 of rule 3 (rule 3(1)(b)) have been rephrased to deal particularly with misinformation, and content that could incite violence between different religious/caste groups.

Article 19(1)(g) of the COI

• Article 19 (1) (g) of COI provides the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to Art.19 (6) which enumerates the nature of restriction that can be imposed by the state upon the above right of the citizens.