List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan held that a person summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot seek discharge under Section 227 of CrPC.

• Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another.

What was the Background of Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. And Another Case?

• A complaint was filed against the accused under Section 319 of CrPC.
• The counsel for applicant filed an application for the discharge of accused under Section 227 of CrPC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The Allahabad HC held that “Accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC are entitled to invoke the remedy under the law against an illegal and improper exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC but that cannot have the effect of the order being undone by seeking a discharge under Section 227 CrPC”.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in the Case?

Section 227 of CrPC:

• Purpose
  • Section 227 aims to provide a legal provision for the discharge of the accused if the court is satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
• Judicial Discretion
  • The section vests the court with judicial discretion to consider whether there exists adequate evidence against the accused to warrant a trial.
• Scope of Consideration
  • The court shall consider the entire record of the case and may also examine the documents submitted with the chargesheet, if any.
• Evaluation of Evidence
  • The court must evaluate the material placed before it, including the statements of witnesses and any other relevant evidence, to ascertain if a prima facie case exists against the accused.
• Absence of Sufficient Grounds
  • If the court finds that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, it shall discharge the accused.
• Standard of Proof
  • The court's determination at this stage is based on a prima facie assessment of the evidence rather than establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard during trial.
• Protective Measure
  • The provision serves as a protective measure against frivolous or baseless prosecutions, preventing unnecessary harassment of the accused.
• Right to Fair Trial
  • Discharge under this section does not preclude the possibility of subsequent re-investigation or re-initiation of proceedings if new evidence emerges warranting a trial.

Section 319 of CrPC:

• Objective
  • To empower the court to include additional accused during the course of the trial if it appears to the court that such persons should be tried along with the original accused.
• Discretion of the Court
  • The court may, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, proceed against any person who is not an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which he or she could be tried together with the accused.
• Conditions for Action
  • The court's decision to proceed against additional persons must be based on evidence emerging during the trial or inquiry which suggests their involvement in the offense.
• Procedure
  • The court has the power to add any person as an accused, even if the original charge was of a different offense, as long as the evidence supports the new charge.
• Consolidation of Trials
  • Once additional accused are included, the court may consolidate the trial for all accused persons for the sake of expediency and justice.
• Purpose
  • The purpose of Section 319 is to ensure that justice is served comprehensively by bringing all the guilty parties to trial in one proceeding.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors., has held once a party has filed the written statement, it forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act).

What was the Background of Ranjana Bhasin v. Surender Singh Sethi & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the respondent initiated a civil suit against the appellant in April 2022 before the Commercial Court.
• A summon for the suit was issued to the Appellant in May 2022 but was refused by the Appellant, leading to deemed service.
• The Appellant filed a memo of appearance before the Commercial Court in June 2022, but the Court closed the window for Petitioner to file written submissions, proceeding ex-parte against her.
• Before the Commercial Court, the Appellant filed an application under Section 8(1) of the A & C Act, praying that the parties be referred to arbitration.
• The Commercial Court dismissed the application.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the A& C Act once it has filed the written statement in a civil suit.
• The Court held that if a party neglects to submit an application under Section 8 of the A & C Act, within the timeframe allotted for filing the initial statement addressing the substance of the dispute, which typically includes a written statement in the context of a lawsuit, that party would relinquish its entitlement to apply under Section 8 the said Act.
• It was further held that the Court found no deficiency in the decision of the Commercial Court in rejecting the Appellant's application.

What is Section 8 of the A & C Act?

About the Act:

• This Act improved the previous laws regarding arbitration in India, namely the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Arbitration Act, 1937, and the Foreign Awards Act, 1961.
• This act also derives authority from the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law on international commercial arbitration and the UNCITRAL rules on conciliation.
• It unites and manages the laws associated with domestic arbitration, international business arbitration, and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
• It also defines the law related to conciliation.
• It controls domestic arbitration in India and was amended in 2015, 2019 and 2021.

Section 8 of the Act:

• This Act deals with the power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement. It states that -

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

Provided that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or certified copy is retained by the other party to that agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such application along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and a petition praying the Court to call upon the other party to produce the original arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy before that Court.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued, and an arbitral award made.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ & ABC v. Union of India has held that reproductive health is a facet of personal liberty under the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of XYZ & ABC v. Union of India Case?

• In this case, the petitioners are husband and wife who got married on 29th April 2013.
• The Petitioners contended that they could not achieve parenthood due to serious medical issues suffered by the wife. Between the period of 2011 to 2023, the wife underwent surgeries.
• The Petitioners intended to take recourse to the procedure of surrogacy under the provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and under the Rules framed thereunder.
• The Central Government amended Clause 1(d) of Form 2 under Rule 7 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022 which prohibit donor gametes.
• The petitioners contend that prescribing of such condition in the Rules is illegal in as much as such condition would be violative of and/or in-congruent to the provisions of the Surrogacy Act.
• Aggrieved by this, a petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwala observed that we are of the clear opinion that if the protection as prayed for is not granted to the Petitioners it would certainly prejudice their legal rights to achieve parenthood through surrogacy.
• It was further stated that reproductive health is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of COI.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Article 21 of the COI

About:

• This Article states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.
• 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.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty

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.

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

• This Act came into force on 25th January 2021.
• Under this Act, a woman who is a widow or a divorcee between the age of 35 to 45 years or a couple, defined as a legally married woman and man, can avail of surrogacy if they have a medical condition necessitating this option.
• It also bans commercial surrogacy, which is punishable with a jail term of 10 years and a fine of up to Rs 10 lakhs.
• The law allows only altruistic surrogacy where no money exchanges hands and where a surrogate mother is genetically related to those seeking a child.

Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022

• This provides for the form and manner for registration and fee for a surrogacy clinic and the requirement, and qualification for persons employed, at a registered surrogacy clinic.