List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Prathap, has held that a person convicted under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) cannot avail the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

What was the Background of State of Karnataka v. Prathap Case?

• The prosecution case is that when the victim girl was returning to her home, the accused caught hold of her on the way, kissed her and attempted to commit rape on her.
• She escaped from the clasp of the accused and returned to her home.
• Thereafter, the victim informed her parents, and a report was given to the police who held an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused.
• The accused was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)and Section 8 of POCSO.
• The Trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences, finding material contradictions in the evidence.
• Thereafter, an appeal has been filed before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the judgment of the Trial Court.
• The High Court held that the accused is liable to be punished and prescribed a minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment in addition to fine.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Vijaykumar A Patil observed that POCSO is a special enactment. This enactment is subsequent to the coming into force of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
  • In the case on hand the accused is liable to be punished according to section 8 of POCSO which prescribes a minimum sentence of 3 years imprisonment in addition to fine.
  • Therefore, the minimum punishment has to be imposed and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 do not have application.
• It was further held that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 cannot be applied whenever an accused is convicted under the provisions of the POCSO.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 354A of IPC

• Section 354A of IPC defines and penalizes sexual harassment whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 75 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
  • This Section was introduced by way of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, with an object to protect dignity of individuals.
• This Section states that-

(1) A man committing any of the following acts—

(i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) A demand or request for sexual favors; or

(iii) Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) Making sexually colored remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

• (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Section 8 of POCSO

• Section 8 of this Act deals with the punishment for sexual assault.
• It states that whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

• An Act to provide for the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition and for matters connected therewith.
• The main aim of this Act is to give an opportunity to offenders to reform themselves rather than turning into hardened criminals.
• This Act provides for the release of offenders on probation or after due admonition.
• The Act permits the release of criminals on probation for good behavior if the alleged crime that they have committed is not punished by life imprisonment or death penalty.
• The Act allows for the release of first-time offenders upon proper admonition for those convicted under Sections 379, 380, 381, 404, and 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as well as those who are subject to a 2-year sentence or a fine or both.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Souvik Bhattacharya v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office heard the appeal against the decision of High Court which dismissed the appeal of appellant who voluntarily surrendered.

What was the Background of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs. Case?

• The Special Court, in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA) issued summons to the appellant (accused No.10) without having previously summoned him, after taking cognizance of the offences via an order dated 7^th December 2022.
• The appellant voluntarily surrendered and sought bail, which was denied by the Special Court on 22^nd January 2023.
• The appellant appealed this decision to the HC, but the appeal was dismissed on 18^th October 2023.
  • Displeased with the outcome, the appellant appealed to the SC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The court held that in absence of any order summoning the appellant, the appellant could not have been taken into custody, even if the cognizance of the offence was taken against him. The SC allowed the appeal.

What is Legal Provision Involved in the Case?

• About:
  • When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the HC or Court of Session, he may be released on bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
  • Section 437 of the CrPC pertains to the authority vested in the trial court and the Magistrate to decide whether to grant bail or not to individuals accused of, or suspected of committing, non-bailable offences when they are brought by the police or surrender or appear voluntarily.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rupashree H. R. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., has held that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Rupashree H. R. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.?

• In this case, a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against the resolution passed by the Mysore Bar Association (Respondent) on 16^th March 2019, which resolved that no member of the Association would file a vakalatnama on behalf of the present petitioner.
• This matter has been pending since 2019 and despite repeated notice the respondent has not put in appearance.
• Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the resolution.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the right to defend oneself is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the COI and further right to appear for a client is also a Fundamental Right being a part of carrying on one’s profession as a lawyer.

What are Fundamental Rights?

About:

• The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the COI from Articles 12 to 35.
• Part III of the Constitution is described as the Magna Carta of India.
  • Magna Carta, the Charter of Rights issued by King John of England in 1215 was the first written document relating to the Fundamental Rights of citizens.
• These rights have derived inspiration from the US Constitution (i.e., Bill of Rights).
• These rights are called fundamental as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land.
• These rights are guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens of India without any discrimination.
• Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the right to property was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44^th Amendment Act, 1978. It has been made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the COI. So, at present, there are only six Fundamental Rights which are as follows:
  • Right to equality (Articles 14–18)
  • Right to freedom (Articles 19–22)
  • Right against exploitation (Articles 23–24)
  • Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25–28)
  • Cultural and educational rights (Articles 29–30)
  • Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32)

Features of Fundamental Rights:

• Some of them are available only to the citizens while others are available to all persons whether citizens, foreigners or legal persons like corporations or companies.
• They are not absolute but qualified. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on them.
• All of them are available against the arbitrary action of the State. However, some of them are also available against the action of private individuals.
• They are justiciable; allowing persons to move the Courts for their enforcement, if and when they are violated.
• They are defended and guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
• They can be suspended during the operation of a National Emergency except for the rights guaranteed by Articles 20 and 21.

Case Law:

• In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights can be amended by the Parliament, however, such amendment should not contravene the basic structure of the Constitution.